Wow, you just called the Red Hot Chili Peppers a crappy rock band. That shows how much you know about music you f**king retard. I can understand if they don't agree with your tastes, but a crappy rock band?!?!?!

1. Drop it on the name calling.
2. I do know quite a bit about music.
3. Yes, I think they're a crappy rock band. They were okay before they started watering down their music and making annoying anthems for rock radio and watered down rock 'ballads'. I don't think Blood Sugar Sex Magik or Californication are good albums and the last one was just awful.

I'm sorry, but I'd take grunge and the rise of alternative metal over hair metal and new wave any day.

What I like about their 80s stuff is actually the punkishness. They were so much more fun back then. I remember being so disappointed when "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" came out.

Jane's Addiction, The Pixies, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Joy Division, The Smiths and Killing Joke got an fair amount of radio play. As did, of course bands, like REM and U2 (yes, believe it or not, they were once really good bands).

And let's face it, most of what was on the radio in the 90s was crap like Color Me Bad and Boyz II Men. The bands you're talking about were mostly relegated to the one rock station in town.

I could see how someone could get tired of that song. But "Jane Says" isn't the end-all be-all of Jane's Addiction any more that "Under the Bridge" is the end-all be-all of the Chili Peppers.

But would you take grunge and the rise of alternative metal over punk, postpunk, hardcore, grindcore, thrash, death metal, industrial, goth and the rise of noise?

True and did Nirvana influence them? No. Just like The Beatles didn't influence Disco. I said, in my opinion Nirvana saved music, and what I meant by that is they gave me something to listen to. Not rid the world of bad music. And man am glad I didn't have to listen to Boyz II Men.

Actually I think one could make an argument that The Beatles were a pretty big influence on the Bee Gees. Similarly, Niravana influenced assorted 90s pop crap like Alanis Morissett.

Well, I'm glad they gave you something good to listen to. They weren't a bad band just, from my perspective at the time, not anything particularly new. There were already plenty of good rock bands around at the time. All that happened when Nirvana became big was that all the jocks in my school stopped listening to hair metal and started listening to grunge. No biggie one way or the other for me. The people who were big musicheads just continued listening to the same stuff we were already listening to.

Heh-heh. That's because, unlike me, you weren't in high school in the early 90s. :)

As far as grindcore, trash, and death metal go, I could do without them, but as has been said, we're talking about popular music here. Plus, the nineties gave us shoegaze, noise pop, math rock, trip-hop, the golden age of rap, post-rock, dark ambient, lots of noise rock, etc.

I'd say that's a stretch.

If i'm comparing music now to what it was like pre Nirvana I don't need to reference the 90s , You said they changed music YOU back it up. Mentioning a few stadium rock bands from the mid 90s proves nothing, If they changed music for the better NOW then please show me where.

I think I mentioned more than a "few stadium rock bands" in the mid 90's. I mentioned as many 90's alternate rock bands as I could think of within a reasonable amount of time. Some of which are still alive and kicking today. There is a lot of rock music today I don't particularly care for, but that doesn't mean it's as bad as the 10 years previous to Nirvana. I'm sorry, I can't stand the majority of 80's mainstream music!! It was a horrible decade for music. That's just my opinion.

As I explained in a previous post without Nirvana, I wouldn't have most of the music I listen to today. That's why I said they saved music IN MY OPINION. Nirvana accomplished a lot more than a lot of bands in modern rock and certainly more than any mainstream 80's band accomplished.