Nirvana ahead of Queen, LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and Bee Gees and ABBA in the 80s? Come on.......

[This message has been edited by Agnzona (edited 9/6/2010 11:06p).]

quote:

---

Beyonce doesn't belong on that list

---

You've just made Kanye's list.

Where's Buddy Holly?!?

quote:

---

4. Nirvana should be higher. They were a seminal band which defined a genre for an entire decade.

---

um.. I think they got just a wee bit of help from soundgarden, pearl jam, and alice in chains..

and those bands aren't on there.

Queen at 17 is a joke.

The "List" is a joke.

quote:

---

You place a lot of focus on career length, remember that the Beatles only recorded music for 6-7 years.

---

I should completely eliminate length from the equation?

ummm... All you younger folks need to understand that when Johnny Cash was starting out, he was NOT a "country" singer.

Ok, maybe I have way different tastes than others.....but no Creedence Clearwater Revival?

Have they faded out of history?

Nirvana would be a much better band if they got rid of Cobain and Novoselic then have Dave Grohl do the lead vocals.

And they should change the name.

quote:

---

I should completely eliminate length from the equation?

---

No, I am just saying career length shouldn't be a big factor in importance. Jimi Hendrix was dead 3 years after Purple Haze, does that make him less important to music?

I am always amazed at the love people throw at Nirvana.

I know Nirvana is generally ranked pretty high in terms of their influence, but I have to wonder too if the quality of the bands being influenced should be a consideration. For example, if Nirvana influenced alot of other bands, but most of those bands are crappy, should that influence be considered on the same level as a different band that actually influenced other good bands?

So can anybody list some bands influenced by Nirvana that are considered good bands?