Forsaken Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 damn, you guys forgot KISS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Utah Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 All I know is, Nirvana shouldn't be ahead of Guns N Roses (original) on any list. I'm not saying Nirvana wasn't good, but no way do they deserve to be ahead of GNR.I think Nirvana had more of cultural impact then GNR ever did.Don't get me wrong, I think GNR where big...........but not Nirvana big.Can you please describe what exactly this "cultural impact" was? And how exactly that would make them bigger than Guns N Roses were?Nirvana pretty much invented the word "Alternative"......good or bad.If you look up Alternative in the dictionary, you'll see Nirvana.Guns didn't have that kind of impact.Can you please describe what exactly this "cultural impact" was? And how exactly that would make them bigger than Guns N Roses were?Cobain made a bunch of 15-year-olds cry when he killed himself. I guess that's what they're trying to pass off as cultural impact these days.No, opening the doors for alternative music and thus influencing a lot of the major rock bands today is what they pass of as a cultural impact these days. Alternative music was already popular or on its way to being. So strike that. They influenced a really shitty period in popular rock, so strike against them for that too. Got anything else?Not it wasn't.Alternative = Feeling sorry for your self music, was not popular until Nirvana.Do you have any f'ing clue what you're talking about?REM (just to name one alternative band) had been around quite some time while being popular before Nirvana. Their very successful album OUT OF TIME came out in March 1991, a full 6 months before Nevermind.Nirvana didn't invent "alternative" or alone popularize it, although they were the one who came along later and got a lot of publicity for it.@Lithium - Having an influence isn't necessarily a good thing because in many peoples' minds Nirvana's popularity ushered in a shitty period in music. Hence it being a negative influence. Either way though, just because a band had an influence doesn't make them "Bigger" than GNR (the thread theme). I mean fuck, The Ramones, were influential but nobody sane would claim they were one of the "biggest" bands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feconroses Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) In no particular order:- Elvis- Beatles- Micheal Jackson- Rolling Stones- Led Zepplin- Pink floyd- Nirvana- Madonna- Guns N Roses- Tupac- Aerosmith- Metallica- Bob Dylan- The Ramones- QueenI think that 99,99% of musicians cant say that they were not influenced by at least one of this acts. Edited May 5, 2009 by feconroses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Utah Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I'm still not seeing the absolute correlation between "influence" and being one of the biggest bands of all time.You need to be careful when saying just because a band "influenced" other bands it's like a measure of success. IMO Nirvana (who copied quite a bit from The Pixies and others) had a so called influence because it's so fucking easy to play their stuff. Any dude with a $75 guitar could play Cobain's riffs. Hence it becoming a widely copied style of music for depressed teens. On the other hand GNR's so called influence on other bands may be less noticeable because it's a lot harder to successfully duplicate or pull off. That's my opinion on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PappyTron Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Nirvana were a very influential band, but to call them one of the biggest of all time is absurd in the extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightningBolt Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Nirvana were a very influential band, but to call them one of the biggest of all time is absurd in the extreme.I agree. Nevermind was very successful, but one very successful album isn't necessarily "biggest band of all time" material. It wasn't as huge as, say, Back In Black or Hotel California or Metallica. Bands like Metallica had huge album after huge album, same with The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Eagles, Led Zeppelin, and Aerosmith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtylenny Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Define biggest?Influence, revenue or...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Utah Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Define biggest?Influence, revenue or...?I'd probably say popularity, commerical and critical success, units sold, concert attendance, merchandise sold,etc,etc.A mixture of those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr. orangestone Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 1. The Beatles2. Elvis3. Michael Jackson4. Led Zeppelin5. The Rolling Stones6. The Doors7. The Eagles8. Bob Dylan9. Jimi Hendrix10. Pink FloydI'm not an Eagles or Dylan fan though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) @Lithium - Having an influence isn't necessarily a good thing because in many peoples' minds Nirvana's popularity ushered in a shitty period in music. Hence it being a negative influence. Either way though, just because a band had an influence doesn't make them "Bigger" than GNR (the thread theme). I mean fuck, The Ramones, were influential but nobody sane would claim they were one of the "biggest" bands.Again: whether it's a good thing or not for you is irrelevant. They still influenced what was/is relevant. And I never said that Nirvana were "bigger", ergo sold more than GN'R, because that would be denying facts.Nirvana were a very influential band, but to call them one of the biggest of all time is absurd in the extreme.This is the correct answer. Edited May 6, 2009 by Lithium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misch Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 You don't have to sell millions of records to be big in terms of 'people will remember this band in 50 years', Look at the Sex Pistols: Just one decent record, but they will still be remembered by people as the band that made punk popular. Same goes for Nirwana...The Backstreet Boys sold 75 million records. How big are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRs00ks Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You don't have to sell millions of records to be big in terms of 'people will remember this band in 50 years', Look at the Sex Pistols: Just one decent record, but they will still be remembered by people as the band that made punk popular. Same goes for Nirwana...The Backstreet Boys sold 75 million records. How big are they?True that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 too much ABBA in this thread, jeesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Satanisk_Slakt Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Why are there too much ABBA? They are one of the bands that has sold the most albums ever.Plus, their pop-music would still sound modern and be populare now, if it was released 30 years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevelle Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Why are there too much ABBA? They are one of the bands that has sold the most albums ever.Plus, their pop-music would still sound modern and be populare now, if it was released 30 years later.No it wouldn't, they didn't use autotune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.