Everyone seems to think that Nirvana stopped before they got bad and I agree totally.
No one seems to mention that Fugazi didn't do this.
Nirvana or Fugazi
32Christopher_Dragon wrote:Everyone seems to think that Nirvana stopped before they got bad and I agree totally.
No one seems to mention that Fugazi didn't do this.
I don't know a lot of people who think Fugazi has gotten bad.
drew patrick wrote:Peripatetic will win.
Nirvana or Fugazi
33Peripatetic wrote:Christopher_Dragon wrote:Everyone seems to think that Nirvana stopped before they got bad and I agree totally.
No one seems to mention that Fugazi didn't do this.
I don't know a lot of people who think Fugazi has gotten bad.
You don't know a lot of people who are smart then.
Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Shin guards for all!
Nirvana or Fugazi
34Christopher_Dragon wrote:Peripatetic wrote:Christopher_Dragon wrote:Everyone seems to think that Nirvana stopped before they got bad and I agree totally.
No one seems to mention that Fugazi didn't do this.
I don't know a lot of people who think Fugazi has gotten bad.
You don't know a lot of people who are smart then.
I don't know what you mean.
drew patrick wrote:Peripatetic will win.
Nirvana or Fugazi
35Ally In Exile wrote:ABBA though... i can't get into ABBA at all. i would probably have to be on a lot of drugs to listen to ABBA.
bad drugs.
...or be gay, drugs or be gay. The two causal factors of ABBA liking.
Nirvana or Fugazi
36mattw wrote:Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:
I've heard versions of this argument a hundred times on this board, and it's time to dispense with this weak logic once and for all. Just because something constitutes the "gateway" to a bunch of good things, that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing in and of itself.
Lame. Next.
This isn't Fred Durst prancing around with a Joy Division t-shirt. Nirvana went out of their way to bring underground bands into the spotlight, everyone from Flipper to the Vaselines, Meat Puppets, Big Black and so forth. Being at an impressionable age when I first got into them, when bad bands creep to you like rapists in the night, this was a godsend. Almost like they were saying, "Hey, we're alright, but these guys are ten times better than us. Check them out instead." There are enough good songs in the Nirvana catalog for them not to be saddled with the silly "gateway" tag.
Precisely. Nirvana are not good (or bad) because they were a gateway to other bands; their relative worth is based on other elements, primarily musical one hopes. I was not dismissing Nirvana; I was dismissing the gateway argument, which has been used to champion bands not nearly as good as Nirvana--Soundgarden, for example.
For the record, I never saddled Nirvana with the gateway tag--I was arguing against it.
Nirvana or Fugazi
37Peripatetic wrote:Christopher_Dragon wrote:Everyone seems to think that Nirvana stopped before they got bad and I agree totally.
No one seems to mention that Fugazi didn't do this.
I don't know a lot of people who think Fugazi has gotten bad.
i think so! i think everything since red medicine is worthless.
so now you know one.
Nirvana or Fugazi
38BClark wrote:Peripatetic wrote:Christopher_Dragon wrote:Everyone seems to think that Nirvana stopped before they got bad and I agree totally.
No one seems to mention that Fugazi didn't do this.
I don't know a lot of people who think Fugazi has gotten bad.
i think so! i think everything since red medicine is worthless.
so now you know one.
Glad to meet you BClark, I'm Peripatetic.
drew patrick wrote:Peripatetic will win.
Nirvana or Fugazi
39BClark wrote:
i think so! i think everything since red medicine is worthless.
so now you know one.
That's funny coz I think everything before In on the Killtaker sounds lifeless and boring.