Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thrice
Such as...? How about Nirvanas lack of musical talent? Good enough? Or maybe their image? All I am saying is NIrvanas musical talent or what they brought to the music world is no where near proportional to their fame. There are a few quazillion (exaggeration for the less intelligent) kids that run around and cry about how great Nirvana was but have no knowledge of them whatsoever, just what some clown in a forum online wrote about how they started grunge and were so ahead of their time. When the bands i listed in my prior post are two of the many that are so much more advanced and talented, just dont have the correct image and fame they deserve.
|
How do you define musical talent?... By technical skill or by good songwriting?... If technical skill is the only deciding factor in talent, that would make Slipknot more talented than The Beatles, even then, it dosent make them a better band, and it sure as hell dosent mean they make better music... And thats what its all about, good music, and good music is a subjective thing, theres nothing official or objective about it, and everyone has a different opinion of what makes good music... And the fact of the matter is, people like Nirvana because in their opinions they make good music, not because they are technical gods like Dream Theater.
And dont jump to conclusions, not every Nirvana fan is some immature kid who knows little about music and not everyone here is just some stupid kid who dosent even know the band that well... I own the bands entire discography and i have been a devoted fan for as long as i can remember, i have listened to almost every technical virtuoso band you can think of, and i still prefer Nirvana.