Did Nirvana kill mainstream rock?

[03gills]

Hey all! I haven't been on here for a while so i'd thought i'd post and start a BIG topic. What does everyone think of the Use Your Illusion albums by the Guns N' Roses, it's probaly a minority opinion but i think it's some of the bands finest work, sure, it dosen't ROCK as much as 'appetite' but the songs here make axl's egocentric perfectionism in the studio almost (almost) justified. Unfortunatly these albums were released a week before Nirvana's Nevermind hit, Nirvana made it extremley uncool to like Guns N' Roses and, Well, every other band that wasn't grunge for that matter (a sad day in the music industry), it's not that they were bad, its just, i think we would have been better of with hair metal(that's right) because since these guys split up there haven't been any quality mainstream rock bands to achieve real wordwide success, which boils this down to a shocking(but i think fair) question, Did Nirvana kill mainstream rock?

[Rob The Badger]

No. Nirvana saved mainstream rock. Hair metal was shite and is hardly well respected among musos. I could go on a long tirade about worthwhile bands since Nirvana but you'll never change your mind, so it's no use.

Also, to call the release of Nevermind a sad day in music is simply ludicrous. That album shook everything up. It made it cool to like guitar music again. Surely that's a fantastic day?

[Pudding]

It might have shook everything up but it was and still is a shit album.

Pud :twisted:

[Biter]

I totally agree with Rob the Badger. Nirvana didn't bend over for the record bosses like a lot of others. They started a revolution and gave bored teens another reason to stick one finger up at The Man. I am too young to remember any of their gigs but I have heard the albums and watched the gig footage and...wow. Try and find another band in today's music that compares to them and their success and the respect a hell of a lot of people had for them. When Kurt died, it shook a lot of people up and made them realise that grunge wasn't a passing fad. If anything, it made the genre known to ordinary people, not just the people who were involved with the underground bands. :x
Ok...I'll calm down now. Does anyone agree with me?

[Biter]

Anyway, Bleach was the breakthrough album.

[Pudding]

That's a crap album as well.

Pud :twisted:

[evil nickname]

I'm a bit divided over the "Use Your Illusion" albums. On the one side, their great albums, from a technical point of view. Artistically speaking, I'd say I could say I could do without about half of the songs, and make a very solid single album. I mean, tracks like "Civil War", "November Rain", "Estranged" and "Coma" are fabulous songs, but then there are some really mediocre songs too. If they'd cut about half of it, and release the best of the left-overs on a next album a year down the road, and the "filler" tracks as B-sides, "Use Your Illiusion" could have been perfect.
I have te same feelings with Metallica's Load and ReLoad. If you'd make 1 CD from the best songs on both albums, it would have been a realy good album, instead of these avarage albums they are now.

I liked Nirvana best when they went unplugged. When they didn't have that wall of distorted guitars to hide behind. When, mostly, they didn't play their own songs.

I don't think that Nirvana killed mainstream rock, if by "mainstream rock" you mean bands like Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Live, Kiss, and artists like Bruce Springsteen and, for example, Meat Loaf. They all had (several) hits between the late '80s and '95 (when, about a year after Cobain, grunge died).
There has always been one form of rock that could be considered "mainstream" at any time. Be it heavy metal in the late 60s, glam rock in the 70s, hair metal in the 80s, grunge and punk in the 90s, or nowadays, nu-metal. So in that sense, yes, Nirvana (read: Cobain) killed mainstream rock. Only for it to be re-incarnated as punk-rock.

Something like that, if you happen to catch my drift.

[White of High]

I haven't got opinion abou it but I wanna say I really hate Nirvana...
Kurt Cobain was a depression poet, terrible singer and not so sood guitar player. I really don't understand why people like their music. It's powerless...

[Pudding]

I haven't got opinion abou it but I wanna say I really hate Nirvana...
Kurt Cobain was a depression poet, terrible singer and not so sood guitar player. I really don't understand why people like their music. It's powerless...

Totally agree. It pisses me off when I constantly see Nirvana in the top 10 of some shitty 'best of list' and Meat Loaf struggles with a Top 50 position. It's as if one critic has to agree with another critic otherwise they lose their credibility. NME, Rolling Stone, Q, Melody Maker they're all the bloody same.

Sorry rant over :evil:

Pud :twisted:

[Biter]

There are some people who like the music influenced by Nirvana. It made the genre of rock more "acceptable" and more people started listening. This is the way I got into it. I started listening to Grunge, then Punk then I found classic rock. From this, I found quality artists like Springsteen and Meatloaf. Yes, i'm only 16 but I know good music. I liked the Nirvana lyrics. Granted, if Cobain had stayed alive, strung out on crack, he would just be a sad, wasted hasbeen. I know the order of this message is terribly random but I have a hangover and don't really care. :drool: :angry:

By the way, The Spaghetti Incedent was a good G'n'R album. Use your illusion 1+2 both seemed rushed to me...

[Rob The Badger]

Powerless!?

Bull. Punk rock is not about power or technical ability, it's about heart, and putting your emoptions on the line. Guns 'n' Roses were pish in comparison. All ~~~~y, noodly guitar solos and no heart. Axl was a crap lyricist as well.

[Lizziebaby]

By the way, The Spaghetti Incedent was a good G'n'R album. Use your illusion 1+2 both seemed rushed to me...

The Spaghetti Incident killed Guns n Roses.

Well, thats what I reckon anyway..

Liz x

[evil nickname]

Bull. Punk rock is not about power or technical ability, it's about heart, and putting your emoptions on the line.

Bull. Punk is all about power. If it weren't, then kindly explain to me why I have never heard of something like a punk-ballad.
And you can't tell me that bad playing (as in low technical ability) will actually yield in any good music. There's only so much sonic abuse a person can take.
And I think that if you don't put heart and emotion into any song, you should be recording it anyway. Music, like all art, is meant to convey emotion. If it isn't there, what's the point?

Guns 'n' Roses were pish in comparison. All [...], noodly guitar solos and no heart. Axl was a crap lyricist as well.

You haven't been listening to enough Guns N' Roses then, I can only assume.
I don't know what you mean by [...], but GNR goes beyond noodly guitar solos and if you tell me that "Appetite For Destruction" and songs like "Estranged" and "Don't Cry" have no heart, I just won't believe you.

And Axl wasn't a lyrical genius, but then again, "Love Me Do" isn't exactly Shakespeare either.

[Rob The Badger]

By power I was referring to grandiose vocal and instrumental orchestration.

There are punk ballads. They're just not overwrought with schmaltz.


As for playing ability, I would cite The Sex Pistols. As for poor vocals, I would cite Dylan. The latter being one of the most highly respected person in 20th century music.

Saying Nirvana has no heart. . .well. That's just beyond belief. There is more heart in the first bar of Come As You Are than 90% of the G'n'R output. 'November Rain' being the example I choose. Overrated, noodly, pish. Too long, nothing much said. Without the video it means zip, because Axl can't covey much well in words, so he relies on overblown production to try and hammer the message home.

As for The Beatles, you're right, Love Me Do isn't exactly Shakespeare. However, in their defence, at the time they wrote that song, things were different. Pop musicians just din't write complex lyrics. It was left to the Folk musicians (Dylan was one).
Also, this is the same band that later went on to write Eleanor Rigby, A Day In The Life, I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields Forever. . .I could go on.
I think we can safely say Lennon and McCartney's earler works are excused by their later acheivements,

But they're not the point here.

You've only to see the Nirvana Unplugged performance to know how worthwhile this band were. If you can't see what all the fuss is about then you're very stuck in your ways. You could probably blame other people too. Neil Young, The Pixies, The Meat Puppets, David Bowie. All of these made Cobain, Cobain.

'Nuff said.

[Pudding]

By power I was referring to grandiose vocal and instrumental orchestration.

And you'd have us believe that this was found in Nirvana? I don't think so :nuts:

Pud :twisted:

[Biter]

Thanks Rob. Someone on my wavelengh at last. Almost everybody slags off Nirvana when most of them havn't taken the time to listen to the music or find out what the band were about. Crap lyrics? I think not. 'Come as you are' was class. 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' (in my opinion) was a pisstake of the way our 'Elders' view teenagers.

Anyway, on the G'n'R subject, The Spaghetti Incedent album was the best of a bad bunch in my opinion. November Rain? I didn't know what that was about till I saw the video. I'ts just another mediocre song from a mediocre band. Even 'In And Out Of Love' by Bon Jovi is better. Axl threw it al away when he started sacking members. I mean, come on! Duff McKagan and Izzy Stradlin didn't know they were out until they saw it on TV. The man is a top class numbnuts. At least Springsteen writes his own stuff and includes the rest of his band.

Anyone else of the same opinion?

[Rob The Badger]

By power I was referring to grandiose vocal and instrumental orchestration.

And you'd have us believe that this was found in Nirvana? I don't think so :nuts:

Pud :twisted:

No, which makes them better than Guns and Roses. Kurt Cobain didn't need all that extra shite to make the songs real.

G'n'R is just all noise and no heart. Really.

[Lizziebaby]

By power I was referring to grandiose vocal and instrumental orchestration.

And you'd have us believe that this was found in Nirvana? I don't think so :nuts:

Pud :twisted:

No, which makes them better than Guns and Roses. Kurt Cobain didn't need all that extra shite to make the songs real.

G'n'R is just all noise and no heart. Really.

What we've got here is failure to
communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men." *

Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they've always done before

Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before

My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars

D'you wear a black armband
When they shot the man
Who said "Peace could last forever"
And in my first memories
They shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
So I never fell for Vietnam
We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom
When it's not in your hands
When everybody's fightin'
For their promised land

And
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war

Look at the shoes your filling
Look at the blood we're spilling
Look at the world we're killing
The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed
And I don't want to hear no more

My hands are tied
For all I've seen has changed my mind
But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of God or human rights
'Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

"WE PRACTICE SELECTIVE ANNIHILATION OF MAYORS AND GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS
FOR EXAMPLE TO CREATE A VACUUM
THEN WE FILL THAT VACUUM
AS POPULAR WAR ADVANCES
PEACE IS CLOSER" **

I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
And I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
I don't need one more war

I don't need one more war
Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway


Forgive me but where are the above lyrics lacking in heart? I'm by no means suggesting that Nirvana were any better or worse than any other band (they were never my cup of tea, but if we all liked the same thing then just imagine how boring the world would be!)

Guns n Roses provided a group of people (like me) something that they could listen to, appreciate, take in and think about through thier music...

I have never tried to disregard any music just because I didn't get it, and I don't intend to start now....and before I'm completely ripped apart I am not suggesting that anyone is trying to do this..I don't have the intelligence to do that sufficiently.

All I'm saying is (in a very round about way) is that throughout the years, the difference of opinion on what makes good and bad music, who is better or worse than anyone else in a particular genre, varies from month to month, year to year, and depends on who you talk to...respect others opinions, because if people are generous enough to share their thoughts, they deserve listening to and exploring.

Liz x

[Rob The Badger]

We're debating, not arguing. At least I hope we are.

As for the lyric you just posted, I think it's a subject that's been covered many a time, and much better.

It does lack heart, because I don't sense any real conviction on the part of Mr. Rose there.

And, I'm not trying to throw it back in your face but, don't you think that the lenght alone destroys any intensity the lyric holds?

[Lizziebaby]

We're debating, not arguing. At least I hope we are.

Never said you were arguing.......(at least I don't think I did..) just putting my personal opinion across

As for the lyric you just posted, I think it's a subject that's been covered many a time, and much better.

Probably...I have never tried to make myself out as some sort of musical buff, I'm clearly not, but I do know what has affected me over the years..

It does lack heart, because I don't sense any real conviction on the part of Mr. Rose there.

I do..

And, I'm not trying to throw it back in your face but, don't you think that the lenght alone destroys any intensity the lyric holds?

Not really no..I have a long concentration span!!!

Luv ya Rob, Liz xxx ps, too tired to work out al this quoting malarkey, so follow me as best you can!!! :D

[Rob The Badger]

Meh. . .this is going to go nowhere. . .

[RSG]

I speak with the party that likes Nirvana music over Guns N Roses music.

Nirvana (Kurt Cobain) was\still is a band, that gave alot of enjoyment! Styles indeed do change over the years, and this particular grunge period (sub-genre) is no exception. I like Kurt's vocals they show effort, and the music that is Nirvana comes out through Kurt's hidden anger depression. But not all his songs are all like that, he's a performer like all, and although he can be a quiet speaker, he still connects with an audience of many. I much prefer In Etro (correctiions??) over Nevermind, but that's just my personal opinion. Another good one is, "live in new york" . He was an everyday person and showed it, the suicide was a shock that we all knew was going to happen but didn't want to believe it. I looked at some facts, and it kind of shows. As for Nirvana the band itself, a big highlight in music, although, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was too popular in my opinion.

As for a quick note on Guns N Roses, I like some of their songs, not a really bad band, but I much prefer Kurt's vocals over his. The music, is hard to make a judgement by, it all reflects on what I like on certain days.

[Pudding]

I speak with the party that likes Nirvana music over Guns N Roses music.

I'm with the Guns N Roses over Nirvana and I'm gonna do a poll.

Pud :twisted:

[AndyK]

If the choice is purely one or the other then GnR win for me, I don't really do grunge that well - unless you count what can be found in the bottom of my fridge, thn again I don't do hair that much these days either - but that's age catching up with me and it'll get you all in the end :D

Nevermind is a pretty good album IMO, but I prefer Appetite or Illusion - even though Slash is a poor imitation of the legend that is Keef Richards :twisted:

[RSG]

sounds good to me, Pudd! how long a fan of GnR?

[evil nickname]

I don't agree with most of what the pro-Nirvana camp are saying over Guns N Roses. Saying that they're "mediocre" and that is "all noise and no heart" I don't get is, in my point of view, ridiculous.

I guess I could say the same as wat was said to me: "If you can't see what all the fuss is about then you're very stuck in your ways."

[RSG]

I just took down an old CD off the shelf. Guns N Roses, the one with November Rain, i sat down to listen to November Rain, and really, GnR is more of a great band and not a "not bad" band. As I said earlier. But my opinion still slides with Nirvana. Is G'n'R really a Hair Metal band?

[Rob The Badger]

Appetite For Destruction is a far better album than Nevermind. Nevermind is not the best Nirvana album (In Utero is) and is way overrated.

There, I said it.

However, that said, Nirvana have produced a very small amount of work. And they really wouldn't have been what they were now if they'd carried on and Kurt hadn't got himself shot.

Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto. It gave guitar music credibility again. That's why I'm in their camp.

[Pudding]

Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto. It gave guitar music credibility again. That's why I'm in their camp.

Yes they did. To the perception that rockstars are now scruffy sods who grunt and are in need of a bloody good wash. Also that anyone who knows 4 chords can strum away like a maniac, mumble some bullshit down a microphone and call it a song. They gave absolutely NO credibility to rock music but the only positive thing they did contribute was that any ~~~~ can make a shit song and still be successful.

Nirvana were shite always have been and always will be. Thank God we won't have anymore albums from them.

Pud :twisted:

[evil nickname]

Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto.

I seem to remember a very succesfull, untitled album with a black cover, by a band that I can't even imagine in tights, with a singer who I haven't heard do a falsetto, that was released in '91. Co-incedentely, the same year Nevermind was released.

Maybe the mainstream thought that, but rock has never been a mainstream thing.

[Rob The Badger]

Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto. It gave guitar music credibility again. That's why I'm in their camp.

Yes they did. To the perception that rockstars are now scruffy sods who grunt and are in need of a bl**dy good wash. Also that anyone who knows 4 chords can strum away like a maniac, mumble some bullshit down a microphone and call it a song. They gave absolutely NO credibility to rock music but the only positive thing they did contribute was that any [...] can make a shit song and still be successful.

Nirvana were shite always have been and always will be. Thank God we won't have anymore albums from them.

Pud :twisted:

That's tripe and you know it.
And I'll tell you why:

The Coral
The Flaming Lips
Pearl Jam
The Smashing Pumpkins
Interpol
The White Stripes

Yadayadyada. . .I could go on.

All these bands are far better than Guns and Roses ever were. Interpol have only made one album!
You see, the idea that rock has to be stupid guitar solos and big stadium rock concerts is gone. It's just not there. Rock music has come back to the poets, where it belongs.

Have you ever even sat down and listened to a Nirvana album? I mean really listened?
To call it four chord strumming and mumbling bullshit shows complete ignorance on your part. To write off a band who've had enough impact on a generation to still be rated today seems like sour grapes to me. No offence intended.

"I'm so happy.
Cause today I found my friends.
They're in my head.
I'm so ugly. But that's ok.
'Cause so are you.
We've broke our mirrors.
Sunday morning. Is everyday for all I care.
And I'm not scared. Light my candles.
In a daze cause I've found god. "

Maybe I'm acting like an uptight muso. Maybe I am, I don't know. But if you can honestly tell me that Nirvana were shit, then so is everything released before or since. Sorry.

Nickname, I was reffering to the likes of Bon Jovi, Twisted Sister, Judas Priest ect. I think you know that.

[Pudding]

Why don't you just accept the fact that the majority of this board disagrees with you and then we can move on.

If you like Nirvana then fair enough, no one can argue with that but to expect people to agree with your statements because you like them, shows not only naivety and ignorance on your part but is insultive to other peoples opinions and tastes.

Get over it, Nirvana sucks - although I do like All Apologies and that's it.

Pud :twisted:

[Rob The Badger]

The fact that you had to make a poll to try and prove your (non-existent) point proves just how tiresome you are.

I have presented numerous, valid points as to why Nirvana are where they are.

You on the other hand simply spout "Nirvana suck, Nirvana are crap" blah blah blah. . .
In fact, all I'm reading is:
"OMFG!!!!!!!11!1!1 GNR |2 T3H 1337!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!!ONE!!!!11!! NIRVANA |2 sUxx0|2Z!!! 1 PWN J00!!!!!ONETHOUSANDONEHUNDREDANDELEVEN!!!!!!!!!1!!!!"

Moreover, saying "Nirvana sucks" is insultive to my tastes and opinions, please don't be a hypocrite.

This seems like some vain attempt at being bohemian and 'anti-cool', and I can see right through it.

The majority of this board can think what they like, it makes not one bit of difference to me. I would throw record sales in your face but that's just petty.

You're boring me now. Please go away.
Someone lock this thread please, it's making me want to stab people.

[evil nickname]

The fact that you had to make a poll to try and prove your (non-existent) point proves just how tiresome you are.

Says the one who makes a poll called "GNR vs. The World", propably to prove some point that I'm completly missing.

I have presented numerous, valid points as to why Nirvana are where they are. You on the other hand simply spout "Nirvana suck, Nirvana are crap" blah blah blah. . .

Yes, I agree, force-feeding your opinion that Guns N Roses has no heart, no conviction, crap lyrics, overblown productions, noodly guitar solos, etc. is so much better.[/sarcasm]

The majority of this board can think what they like, it makes not one bit of difference to me.

Well, apperently, it does make a difference to you. See, I don't give a rats' ass if you like Nirvana, and and have a huge distaste for all that you think Guns N Roses stood for. All I've been trying to do in this discussion, is to adress the "valid points" you've been making, when and if I doubt their validty.
And for what it's worth: I don't think you've built a very solid case for Nirvana, or against GNR for that matter, since most of your points are your opinions, assumptions and generalisations.

And they really wouldn't have been what they were now if they'd carried on and Kurt hadn't got himself shot.

I happen to think that is one of the truest statements in this topic. Nirvana has reached a mythical status. Just like ABBA. What they have to do with it? Just imagine what would happen if they would reunite and tour/record again. It can only take away from the public image there is of them.

W.

[Rob The Badger]

I didn't start this topic, okay? I was defending the band because otherwise it would have turned into a "NIRVANA SUX" thread.

The point of the "G'n'R vs The World" poll was to parody the pointlessness of the G'n'R vs Nirvana poll.

Here is my side for and against each band. I'm going to say this then I'm not going to post in this thread again.

Note: Yes, I do think providing reasons for why I think the band aren't all that is better than saying they plain suck. There's nothing technically wrong with the band, therefore I can't say there is. So I'm pointing out points that annoy me. Some most people (Except yourself, actually) have just said "Oh, Nirvana, that's not real music. Let's go listen to some ROCK!"


Guns n' Roses:
FOR
1. Slash has great hair.
2. Slash really can play the guitar.
3. Slash has nice hats.
4. Their albums have cool names.
5. erm. . .
AGAINST
1. Axl has one hell of an annoying voice.
2. Too much noodly guitar work.
3. The song structure of many songs is remarkably similar.
4. Covered Bob Dylan.
5. Awful production.
6. No real lyrical intensity.

Nirvana:
FOR
1. Kurt Cobain has great hair.
2. Lyrical intensity of the highest order.
3. 4 chord progressions that sound better than the 15 million chord changes in any one G'n'R song.
4.The Nirvana Unplugged concert.
5. Excellent rythm section.
6. Changed rock, history.
AGAINST
1. Cobain was an asshole.
2. They really are overrated.
3. The song structure of many songs is remarkably similar.
5. Covered David Bowie.

[Pudding]

Admit it Rob, you don't like anyone who has an opinion different from your own and when they do you try and come up with smart arse answers that aren't smart. Your last couple of posts have proven this.

Let it go Rob, you can do it, we have faith in you........................just-let-it-go.

Pud :twisted:

[The Flying Mouse]

The fact that you had to make a poll to try and prove your (non-existent) point proves just how tiresome you are.


:twisted: Cmon folks.
Don't let this turn personal.

This has been a very interesting thread to read :D .We're all interested in music, and there has been some great debating and well thought out posts 8) .
PLEASE remember to keep this as a musical debate, and refrain from any personal attacks.
Attack the words, not the person :wink: .

Continue :mrgreen:

[Biter]

Right. Listen Pudding, you are the one who started this argument, yet you don't like it when other people say stuff you don't agree with. This is wrong. I thought everyone had a say on this forum but as soon as somebody (i.e. Rob The Badger) speaks their mind and tells you their opinion, you smack them down. Ok, this is a good subject but do you have to be so aggressive with people who don't share your opinion?
Rob has made some good points but you seem to speak down to him. People go onto these forums to get away from that because they've had to put up with crap like that at work too. Anyway, if you really want a good debate, choose a band like Iron Maiden or Led Zepplin. Decent bands who haven't had all of their members kicked out by their drugged up crap-for-brains of a lead singer.
You gonna have a go at me now?

[Rob The Badger]

Admit it Rob, you don't like anyone who has an opinion different from your own and when they do you try and come up with smart arse answers that aren't smart. Your last couple of posts have proven this.

Let it go Rob, you can do it, we have faith in you........................just-let-it-go.

Pud :twisted:

Don't patronise me. I don't mind people with different opinions, if they back them up. You tell me that I'm force feeding my opinions on people, then you tell me "Nirvana sucks, get over it!".

Hypocritical nonsense.

[Pudding]

Right. Listen Pudding, you are the one who started this argument
Actually I didn't. 03gills started the thread, Rob then replied disagreeing, and then I gave my opinion, then you 'Totally agreed with Rob The Badger'.
You gonna have a go at me now?
Not at all, your opinion matters very little to me and it's obvious your going to agree with everything your friend Rob The Badger says anyway.

Pud :twisted:

[Pudding]

Don't patronise me

If I want to patronise you I bloody well will and there's not a great deal you can do about it.

I'm through with this thread

Pud :twisted:

[KebLou]

IGuns n' Roses:

AGAINST
1. Axl has one hell of an annoying voice.
2. Too much noodly guitar work.
3. The song structure of many songs is remarkably similar.
4. Covered Bob Dylan.
5. Awful production.
6. No real lyrical intensity.



I've heard more bad things about Guns and Roses, but to be honest neither of them I really like.

Slash's outbursts on stage even though they were before my time weren't pleasant from all accounts.

Nivana to me is just noise but everyone is entitled to an opinion and not everyone will like every artist.

[Biter]

'your opinion matters very little to me and it's obvious your going to agree with everything your friend Rob The Badger says anyway.'

Well, you know what, I don't really care. The only reason I agree with Rob is because he thinks about what he is going to write instead of spewing up a load of tripe like yourself. I also stick up for people who can't defend themselves such as Kurt. You put your opinion across and expect everyone to feel the same and when they dont, you have a go at them. You're just a spoilt little child. I don't care how old you are.

[Rob The Badger]

Don't patronise me

If I want to patronise you I bl**dy well will and there's not a great deal you can do about it.

I'm through with this thread

Pud :twisted:

I find you wise beyond your years, sir. Now let us eat cake, till we shall both grow old.

[The Flying Mouse]

This is going nowhere.
I'm gonna lock it and melt the lock.