I can understand the text in bold from your post, and I do agree with it. And despite me liking Bush so much, they hardly come close to being really that great. I just happen to enjoy them and regard them as my favorite grunge band. Yes, there are better grunge bands, many of them. But I like Gavin and his voice, songwriting. There is evidence of me expressing how amazing I think Bush is, but that is exaggerated just for the sake of it. I can admit that part of me hoped to discover other members here that appreciate Bush like I do, despite what they stood for. They're a bit of a different band these days.

I can take your smugness, and I figured you didn't mean it in a way that was meant to offend me, and I'm happy to see that you understood that my post about how you were coming off to me wasn't meant to be an attack, it was purely to see what your intentions were, and what I thought they were, happened to be correct. So we're good my friend.

As for me expressing things that are common knowledge. I'll plead the fifth.

Another great quality a member can display on these forums is to take on the know-it-all hierarchy by stating and defending an artist that they genuinely believe to be good. Problem is these forums get too many trolls that do this (there have been many on here) but when a member does it in a legitimate way then it can always lead to some decent discussion.

You make this sound like, I go around with ulterior motives. ;)

I like both, i always liked Bush but i prefer Nirvana over them cause imo they had a better defined sound.

Bush i liked but i never quite figured out what is their signature sound, they could go from a heavy song to a ballad and they do it well but idk i still prefer Nirvana.

Vocal wise Gavin has a more melodic voice but Kurt has a better screaming voice that portrays more angst than Gavin.
To me Gavin wants to sound good while Kurt is just looking for a build up to scream something and i prefer that. i prefer nonsensical screams over refined singing.

Rhythm wise, Nirvana is better.
I prefer them cause they set a darker mood with their songs where as Bush takes a more conventional approach.

i actually do prefer Bush lead guitars cause they sound like Joey's lead guitars but in terms of a more unique music arrangement i prefer Nirvana.

One last thing, Bush is in no way a Nirvana rip off band.. idk why some ppl say that.

Gavin is the better singer, but I understand why many others prefer Kurts vocals, some of it has to do with what you described, some of it doesn't. And this is what this thread was meant to be, just a topic to discuss who people prefer as a singer, not a 'Bush ripped off Nirvana, they suck, die in a fire' type of topic haha. It's all good though.

It's actually easy to call Bush a Nirvana rip off, I could name maybe six or seven songs right now that sound like Nirvana could have written them; Little Things, Everything Zen, Swallowed, The People That We Love (to a point, but not as much as other songs), and that's to name a few. People also thought Bush borrowed or ripped off guitar chords as well...

I always prefered Layne Staley as a vocalist. His voice resonated more feeling and emotion in my opinion.

Just watched Mad Season: Live at the Moore, on TV this afternoon.
Forgot how good Staley sounded on River Of Deceit.

Agreed. Plus the harmonies between him and Cantrell were killer.

But we're not talking about Layne! He's better than Gavin and Kurt, combined. Unfair you two, so unfair lol.

But since we're talking about Alice In Chains...

Thoughts on their new vocalist? I think he's alright. But just alright.

Agreed. Their new music isn't really noteworthy either. I'm a little biased by only really liking Dirt though.

I've never really Iistened to the guy, other than what I've heard on the radio a few times. :)

It would probably take anyone with an apposing opinion of Bush to view the band from my perspective to understand why I defend them so heavily. Most people don't listen to Bush the same way that I do, or hear them the way that I do. That may not make a lot of sense to anyone, however I know what I mean by it.

I gravitate more heavily to bands that don't polish the sound they have too much, I like hearing the imperfections or little knacks that give a band their identity, bands that don't want to have that perfect sound. Contrary to other peoples opinions, Bush did not have an extremely polished sound, not to me. All of their albums, especially their first had in my opinion, a very imperfect sound and it gave the record a very appealing charm, I really dug the sound of the recording.