Nirvana or Metallica?

[Tb1]

I'd go with Metallica. More talent, more albums





I'd like to see a good argument over this one.




BEGIN

[OverTaker]

You know what would settle this? Celllllebrity!! Deathmatch!!

But I agree. Metallica > Nirvana

Nirvana kicks ass also.

[RoXer]

I cannot wait to hear what everyone else has to say.

[DaveWadding]

here's a great arguement: They both suck.

Carry on.

[Blitz]

Apples and oranges.

Also, I must agree with Monsieur Wadding.

[Bad Company]

Both rule.

[Tb1]

here's a great arguement: They both suck.

Carry on.

Well then, what bands do you like?

[DaveWadding]

Well then, what bands do you like?

Ones that aren't Nirvana or Metallica, who suck.

[Skippord]

I vote Alice In Chains and Megadeth

[Rob]

Metallica

[Kane Knight]

Well, I'm tempted to go with "They both suck," but if I were to do that, it would be a waste of my superior intellect and debate skills.

So let's break it down more.

Popularity:

Metallica can sue their fans, and still sell millions of records.

Nirvana...Well, if Courtney Love can't kill their popularity...

Conclusion: Tie.

Philosophy:

Nirvana--It's better to burn out than to fade away.

Metallica--If we sue people, we can retire without selling another record!

Conculsion: Nirvana. Cobain was the tiebreaker, by not only living his philosophy, but then removing himself from the gene pool.

Image:

Metallica look like dirty drug addicted roleplaying gamers.

Nirvana made lesbian "fashion" popular.

Conclusion: Go Metallica! Nerd Chichue>Dyke Flannel.

Followers:

Metallica drove nerdy kids to kill.

Nirvana drove potentially emo kids to suicide.

Conclusion: Metallica.

Music:

Nirvana can all play instruments.

Metallica...Ummm...Lars Ulrich.

Conclusion: Nirvana.

Overall conclusion: Nirvana, shitty as they were, could play live without sounding like a mentally retarded kid was trying to be Roger Taylor. They may have created a fashion faux pas by letting lesbians pick out their wardrobe, but they left a lasting impression (mostly buckshot in the wall) and a drummer worth his salt.

[ct2k]

Are they at all comparable?

[ct2k]

Overall conclusion: Nirvana, shitty as they were, could play live without sounding like a mentally retarded kid was trying to be Roger Taylor. They may have created a fashion faux pas by letting lesbians pick out their wardrobe, but they left a lasting impression (mostly buckshot in the wall) and a drummer worth his salt.

Nirvana Unplugged is one of the worst live recordings i've ever heard, yet fans act like its one of the most fantastically amazing pieces of live music in history

[KingofOldSchool]

Nirvana's popularity nowadays is based on the media's portrayal of Kurt Cobain as some God. Because we all know that 90% of the people who actively watch MTV or listen to the radio on a regular basis can not think for themselves. Most of these people who idolize Cobain are 15 year old kids who were practically toddlers when he killed himself. The same people who idolize him are the same fags who listen to Panic at the Disco and My Chemcial Romance. And if Kurt was still alive and he knew his fans were listening to the crap, he'd kill himself all over again.

He is no where near a symbol as a God, pussies who kill themselves should be be pissed on, not worshipped...especially when said person's talent is somewhere above Ashlee Simpson and below Creed.

Metallica on the other hand is a collective assembly of crap. They think they are God's gift to music, but in reality they have not done anything remotely good in 15 years or so. They are basically the Hulk Hogan of music, they drew for so many years, but in the last 10+ years their popularity dropped off. So what did they do? They did everything they could draw attention to themselves (ie: Napster, that movie, suing fans, etc) so they could sell more albums, but it didn't work.

So this is a tie due to the vortex of suckitude that is surrounding both bands.

[Kane Knight]

You don't need to be very good to sound better than Metallica live.

I've never listened to unplugged, just some shitty bootlegs and (I think) official live recordings of the band live, and while they're shitty, their music is unambitious enough that lack of talent doesn't take away from them anywhere near as much as Lars "I can't even play my own licks live" Ulrich does to Metallica.

If I can avoid it, BTW, I will probably never hear unplugged. But it's such a shame to hear the obviously good guitar work Metallica could have going to waste because nobody can predict the rhythm's Ulrich comes up with.

though Nirvana was shitty enough they had an entire genre created just to describe the shit they were putting out.

[El Fangel]

Metallica

[St. Jimmy]

here's a great arguement: They both suck.

Carry on.

[ct2k]

Metallica are so desperate for fans they even tried to lure their original ones back with St Anger, which was shit, incidently

[Tb1]

Ones that aren't Nirvana or Metallica, who suck.

Names?

[FakeLaser]

They're totally different bands.

But Nirvana.

[Skippord]

Layne Staley

[D Mac]

Metallica followed closely by AIC then Nirvana.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Nirvana's popularity nowadays is based on the media's portrayal of Kurt Cobain as some God. Because we all know that 90% of the people who actively watch MTV or listen to the radio on a regular basis can not think for themselves. Most of these people who idolize Cobain are 15 year old kids who were practically toddlers when he killed himself. The same people who idolize him are the same fags who listen to Panic at the Disco and My Chemcial Romance. And if Kurt was still alive and he knew his fans were listening to the crap, he'd kill himself all over again.

He is no where near a symbol as a God, pussies who kill themselves should be be pissed on, not worshipped...especially when said person's talent is somewhere above Ashlee Simpson and below Creed.

Metallica on the other hand is a collective assembly of crap. They think they are God's gift to music, but in reality they have not done anything remotely good in 15 years or so. They are basically the Hulk Hogan of music, they drew for so many years, but in the last 10+ years their popularity dropped off. So what did they do? They did everything they could draw attention to themselves (ie: Napster, that movie, suing fans, etc) so they could sell more albums, but it didn't work.

So this is a tie due to the vortex of suckitude that is surrounding both bands.

Ya know, how do you feel when you realize Eddie Vedder was a huge Nirvana fan, that constantly felt down in the dumps whenever Kurt slagged his band off. The band you ride hard all over, was a band that had a frontman who wanted Kurt and Nirvana's support. I find this amusing.
The reason Nirvana is still big to this day is because their music holds up, plain as. It isnt just the media that is up their asses, but it's artists from other great, talented bands, who know good music when they hear it.
You dont have to play your instruments with techical precision to be great, or to write excellent songs. BTW, Grohl is an excellent musician. Kurt a great writer, with the ability to portray emotion through his voice and simple words better than most.
Also, I grew up with the band, and I consider them to be what they are portrayed as. There are many people just like me that Nirvana clicked with, in a big way. You generalize too much on this topic, assuming you know exactly why everyone likes them, blah blah. I dont listen to fucking emo, or My chemical romance.
They had changed music before Kurt died, and they had been a major band before Kurt died. Reason? The music fucking kicked ass, and was something fresh. After he died new fans came along the way, and his legend grew, but it didnt affect whet he did while he was alive.

As for this thread question, Nirvana has the better catalogue, imo. Metallica is good, I like them, but yeah, I may be biased here, but there arent many bands that dethrone Nirvana for me.

[MVP]

Nirvana, cause I can tolerate it more than Metallica.

[Rammsteinmad]

Dream Theater > Metallica > Millions of other bands > Nirvana.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Dream Theater is like fucking for a really long time without getting any sort of climax or satisfaction from it.

[The One]

Tovo Votes Nirvana.

[D Mac]

Tovo is smoking something.

[The One]

Tovo is not straight edge.

[KillerWolf]

metallica > nirvana

don't mistake lack of talent for genius

O-

[KingofOldSchool]

Ya know, how do you feel when you realize Eddie Vedder was a huge Nirvana fan, that constantly felt down in the dumps whenever Kurt slagged his band off. The band you ride hard all over, was a band that had a frontman who wanted Kurt and Nirvana's support. I find this amusing.

I know Pearl Jam were fans of Nirvana, just like Nirvana were fans of them. But I don't care if Eddie likes them or not, it still doesn't change my opinion of them. Eddie smokes pot and smokes cigarettes, doesn't mean I'm going to do it too. I'm not so far up the bands ass that I'm going to listen to every band that they praise, I'm not going to do everything they do just because they do it. That's just plain retarded.

And I don't recall mentioning Eddie and/or PJ anywhere in that post, so I fail to see what they have to do with Nirvana sucking.

P.S. I like Dave Grohl.

The reason Nirvana is still big to this day is because their music holds up, plain as. It isnt just the media that is up their asses, but it's artists from other great, talented bands, who know good music when they hear it.

Yeah which is exactly why a lot of today's bands try so hard to sound like Pearl Jam and fail miserably at it. I'm not denying Nirvana's influence on artists or anything, it's how they (the media) are portraying Kurt's death. And if you want to be technical about it, although Nirvana made it big first, Pearl Jam had more impact sales wise than Nirvana (especially with Ten and Vs against Nevermind and Bleach). But once again this has nothing to do with that. The only reason why they have the enigma around Nirvana is because of Kurt's death. If they were still a band and made more albums, their auroa would not be like it is today. Although it's hard to tell where they would have been today, would they still be a band? Or would they be like Pearl Jam and be among the top 5 live acts in the country altough their airtime would not be as great as it once was?



You dont have to play your instruments with techical precision to be great, or to write excellent songs.

Well that explains Nickleback's popularity.

BTW, Grohl is an excellent musician. Kurt a great writer, with the ability to portray emotion through his voice and simple words better than most.

I like Grohl and the Foo Fighters, Kurt was a better song writer than a lot of musicians out there today, but that still doesn't mean I like him. If you compare shit to shit, you can only decide based on the shit that stinks the least.

Also, I grew up with the band, and I consider them to be what they are portrayed as. There are many people just like me that Nirvana clicked with, in a big way. You generalize too much on this topic, assuming you know exactly why everyone likes them, blah blah. I dont listen to fucking emo, or My chemical romance.

I didn't say everyone, I said the vast majority of them. Because nowadays all I see are the 13-17 year olds who claim to love Nirvana, because it's the cool thing to do.


They had changed music before Kurt died, and they had been a major band before Kurt died. Reason? The music fucking kicked ass, and was something fresh. After he died new fans came along the way, and his legend grew, but it didnt affect whet he did while he was alive.

I never denied the impact they had, but they weren't alone. It was the whole "grunge" scene that did it. Mainly Pearl Jam, Nirvava, and to a lesser extent Soundgarden. If Kurt killed himself today, people wouldn't care as much as they did back then. Only because he did it during the appex of grunge, like he know that killing himself was the only way to become "immortal."

[bigdaddysuperfreak]

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">Nirvana became popular by staying the same, Metallica became popular by going from thrash metal to hard rock. I would have to say Nirvana.</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Just John]

Metallica: Epitome of Heavy Metal

Pearl Jam: Epitome of grunge

Nirvana comes close though, even if I'm not a big fan of them.

[Stickman]

It's comparing apples to oranges but I'd pick any metallica CD before nirvana. I do like both bands a lot. To me there's just something about Metallica that I love that I cannot describe. I love every album they put out. Yes I said that. Even Load, Reload and St. Anger. I saw Metallica in concert a couple years ago and they were better live than I expected and I expected them to be great live. Like I said, i can't explain what it is, maybe the energy they play with, maybe the ability to change their sound, maybe really loud noises, I don't know.

As for Nirvana, as I said, they're pretty damn good. But I cannot listen to any album from start to finish nonstop. Kurt has an amazing voice, but the instruments leave much to be desired. Oddly enough I find Nirvana to be more "noise" than Metallica. Having seen live video and hearing live downloads they're absolutley terrible live. MTV Unplugged or whatever it was was pretty bad.

In conclusion, two different kinds of bands, extremely hard to compare, but Metallica > God

[Ogen]

I used to quite like Nirvana when I was a kido so them

[ClockShot]

Metallica

[weather vane]

Metallica

[Skippord]

Metallica: Epitome of Heavy Metal

Alice In Chains: Epitome of grunge

Nirvana comes close though, even if I'm not a big fan of them.
Fixed

[Kane Knight]

I always thought AIC was too produced to really be considered grunge.

Not knocking the band, I just can'tsee them as epitomising a genre.

[redoneja]

I listen to both Nirvana and Metallica, but I'm not an incredibly huge fan of either. I'm an AiC guy.

[redoneja]

I always thought AIC was too produced to really be considered grunge.

Not knocking the band, I just can'tsee them as epitomising a genre.

I agree. Some of their stuff was grungy(if that's a word) while there other music simply wasn't.

[Kane Knight]

I really like AIC. They had a dirty sound sometimes, but it was usually a very controlled, well-produced sound.

[Rammsteinmad]

Dream Theater is like fucking for a really long time without getting any sort of climax or satisfaction from it.

meh... get's me to climax. :naughty:

[Zen v.W.o.]

AIC basically reaped the rewards of being labelled grunge. They were origonally a metal band playing on the metal circuit. Grunge became big and out came their flannel.

Either way though, they kicked ass. And deserved as much attention or acclaim as they could get.

Same with Pearl Jam, same with Soundgarden..the qaulity of music that came from these bands at the time was significant.