The Smiths are miles better than Nirvana.

> How would you argue that point?

Because they were Nirvana's main influence and produced a higher quantity and quailty of singles and albums in a short life time.

E.g. Nevermind was truly great, but was In Utero.
 
The Smiths were Nirvana's main influence? I think that would be The Pixies. I can't see anything of The Smiths in Nirvana.
 
> How would you argue that point?

Here is a quick and easy way:

Pearl Jam is miles better than Nirvana
 
> The Smiths were Nirvana's main influence? I think that would be The
> Pixies. I can't see anything of The Smiths in Nirvana.

The Smiths were a massive influence on Frank Black
 
> How would you argue that point?

It all comes down to the songs. The Smiths wrote the best songs. Nothing else matters.
 
> Here is a quick and easy way:

> Pearl Jam is miles better than Nirvana

Agreed!!!
 
generally, I make a point not to argue about music...

because everyone has their opinions and its extremely difficult to change them.

Plus, who really cares? If someone thinks Nirvana was better than the Smiths, good for them. Lots of people love Led Zeppelin, but I'd rather stab myself with long, rusty nails than listen to a single note sung by Robert Plant.
 
Re: generally, I make a point not to argue about music...

> because everyone has their opinions and its extremely difficult to change
> them.

> Plus, who really cares? If someone thinks Nirvana was better than the
> Smiths, good for them. Lots of people love Led Zeppelin, but I'd rather
> stab myself with long, rusty nails than listen to a single note sung by
> Robert Plant.

I couldn't agree more with your last sentiment.
I sit next to a couple guys here at work that think Jimmy Buffett sings and performs circles around Morrissey. I mean it's not even worth arguing with people in that mindset. Ignorance is not bliss.
 
Re: generally, I make a point not to argue about music...

But what if these people who like Nirvana and denounce The Smiths are musical snobs, even though they listen to shit music?
 
Re: generally, I make a point not to argue about music...

They're the worst.
The ones who listen to crap yet truly believe it's of the upmost taste.

The Smiths are good music. And I know I am RIGHT, when I say that.

It's hard to argue. I just keep in mind that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.
 
> Here is a quick and easy way:

> Pearl Jam is miles better than Nirvana

If you think that, then you smoke as much pole as you do crack!
 
> How would you argue that point?

Are The Smiths better than Nirvana? Probably.

But the music Nirvana was making at the time was a whole lot better than what Morrissey was putting out.

Nirvana OWNED Morrissey in the early '90s. Pushed Morrissey out of the way. The great indie/alternative god went from Morrissey to Cobain faster than a shotgun blast through the head.

Another curse of Cobain was that he was the REAL DEAL. Morrissey may sing the most beautiful lyrics about desperation, death and despair, and suicide, but Kurt did it.

Morrissey lost a lot of cachet after Nirvana came out. Everyone did, from Johnny Rotten to Sonic Youth to Husker Du. No one was as untouchable or god-like after Nirvana destroyed the scene.

Not even Jane's Addiction could kill GN'R, Poison and Van Halen all in one swoop. Nirvana did it and that's why they're in the stratosphere.
 
> How would you argue that point?
Only total losers shoot themselves in the head, especially at the
highlight of their career. Noone in The Smiths would ever do
that.
 
> Only total losers shoot themselves in the head, especially at the
> highlight of their career. Noone in The Smiths would ever do
> that.

Why?
 
> Why?
Look Nirvana are American and Smiths are English.
I've always preferred English bands, so I'm pretty one
eyed about it. Don't feel I can intellectualize the whole
discussion, if you know what I mean.
My personal taste goes for The Smiths particularly
as I find Morrissey's tones much more pleasant than
Kurt Cobain's ever were. Just between you and me,
although a good songwriter I find Kurt Cobain'ts voice
a little distasteful, even grating.
 
> Because they were Nirvana's main influence and produced a higher quantity
> and quailty of singles and albums in a short life time.

> E.g. Nevermind was truly great, but was In Utero.

In Utero was better than Nevermind!!
 
> If you think that, then you smoke as much pole as you do crack!

Exactly, even if they were surely Pearljam are better than Nirvana rather than 'is'?
 
Back
Top Bottom