Man I gotta say...Creed was really good.

[CharlotteBeer.com]

I would also throw Sublime into the Nirvana Pearl Jam duo for best bands of the 90's. I know it's not part of the grunge/seattle scene but I love me some Sublime.... Just my opinion though....

Sublime is probably my favorite band. Speaking of covers, they certainly did their fair share.

[Panthers128]

I never got into Pearl Jam (although I like Last Dance) or Nirvana. In the 90s, I always preferred Smashing Pumpkins and Nine Inch Nails. As for how their mentioned in the same breath, how about both being popular and both being rock bands?

These conversations about music just get silly. People worry too much about image and in that respect many fans of Nirvana or Pearl Jam are no different then fans of Katy Perry or Snoop Dog.

I personally listen to anything that catches my ear whether it be David Bowie, Bob Dylan or Michael Jackson. At the end of the day what will ultimately link all popular musicians is they have the most resources available to them to make music and have great exposure.

Interesting Creed never hired a big name producer for any of their albums and instead stuck with the same producer (a relative unknown when they made their first album) for all three. In comparison, Nirvana brought in a former member of Soundgarden to produce their first album, then went and got the guy who produced one of the Smashing Pumpkins albums. Then they went and got the Pixies album producer (David Bowie has pointed this out as a big Pixies fan in several interviews mentioning how some Nirvana songs borrow the Pixies sound - or the sound that originated with the Pixies).

So who has more credibility? I say they have the same amount. The both wrote songs, performed songs, had success, etc.

[CharlotteBeer.com]

I never got into Pearl Jam (although I like Last Dance) or Nirvana. In the 90s, I always preferred Smashing Pumpkins and Nine Inch Nails. As for how their mentioned in the same breath, how about both being popular and both being rock bands?

These conversations about music just get silly. People worry too much about image and in that respect many fans of Nirvana or Pearl Jam are no different then fans of Katy Perry or Snoop Dog.

I personally listen to anything that catches my ear whether it be David Bowie, Bob Dylan or Michael Jackson. At the end of the day what will ultimately link all popular musicians is they have the most resources available to them to make music and have great exposure.

Interesting Creed never hired a big name producer for any of their albums and instead stuck with the same producer (a relative unknown when they made their first album) for all three. In comparison, Nirvana brought in a former member of Soundgarden to produce their first album, then went and got the guy who produced one of the Smashing Pumpkins albums. Then they went and got the Pixies album producer (David Bowie has pointed this out as a big Pixies fan in several interviews mentioning how some Nirvana songs borrow the Pixies sound - or the sound that originated with the Pixies).

So who has more credibility? I say they have the same amount. The both wrote songs, performed songs, had success, etc.

So well said. I think a lot of people hate on Creed and bands like Creed because it's almost expected of them, not because they genuinely dislike the music. It's become as trendy to dislike these overly "pop" bands as it is trendy to like the bands they were influenced by.

[Panthers128]

Please do not put Led Zeppelin in the same paragraph as Creed. They don't deserve that.

Despite my comments about the image obsessed, I agree with a certain idea of this statement but not exactly what is stated. Led Zeppelin and most of the late 60's and 70's rock bands originated a lot of sounds. I don't think you can really compare some of those bands to anything out today.

Iggy Pop, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, The Who, etc. There wasn't as much precedent when they did it. Most music was softer rock like the Beatles (a band I do not like at all, but have respect for). Now adays too often you hear what sounds like rehashed ideas and material or bad ideas and bad material (hip hop, rap, most pop).

But even if you evaluate these bands, I'm sure you can find something that influenced them that probably wasn't nearly as popular or respected. Bob Dylan liked some guy named Woody guthrie and people draw comparisons. David Bowie borrowed from Marc Bolan and the Velet Underground. Iggy Pop was out of ideas as a musician and had David Bowie produce a couple of his albums.

No one is entirely original or as unique as you might believe.

[boo7382]

I really don't understand how people cannot like the Beatles. Please tell me why you do not like them. This was a group that I was raised listening to, so I realize that I am biased. But, I would really like to know.

[boo7382]

Despite my comments about the image obsessed, I agree with a certain idea of this statement but not exactly what is stated. Led Zeppelin and most of the late 60's and 70's rock bands originated a lot of sounds. I don't think you can really compare some of those bands to anything out today.

Iggy Pop, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, The Who, etc. There wasn't as much precedent when they did it. Most music was softer rock like the Beatles (a band I do not like at all, but have respect for). Now adays too often you hear what sounds like rehashed ideas and material or bad ideas and bad material (hip hop, rap, most pop).

But even if you evaluate these bands, I'm sure you can find something that influenced them that probably wasn't nearly as popular or respected. Bob Dylan liked some guy named Woody guthrie and people draw comparisons. David Bowie borrowed from Marc Bolan and the Velet Underground. Iggy Pop was out of ideas as a musician and had David Bowie produce a couple of his albums.

No one is entirely original or as unique as you might believe.

Pretty sure Zepp was a lot of blues, some folk and some jazz as well. WHich is widely represented in their music if you listen to it.

[Zcustom]

I kill you Sunday.

It's for your legacy.

Schweet! My album's sure to go aluminum now

[Zcustom]

I really don't understand how people cannot like the Beatles. Please tell me why you do not like them. This was a group that I was raised listening to, so I realize that I am biased. But, I would really like to know.

I don't care for the Beatles, but I respect them.

I never listened to them growing up and when I did finally have a listen it was like "What's the big deal"

[C47]

I don't care for the Beatles, but I respect them.

I never listened to them growing up and when I did finally have a listen it was like "What's the big deal"

I think it's because of the simplicity of the music. When compared to rock bands now the Beatles just don't seem very talented. I can appreciate the music for the time period it came from, but I would much rather listen to more complex in depth songs....

[C47]

Sublime is probably my favorite band. Speaking of covers, they certainly did their fair share.

[Zcustom]

I think it's because of the simplicity of the music. When compared to rock bands now the Beatles just don't seem very talented. I can appreciate the music for the time period it came from' date=' but I would much rather listen to more complex in depth songs....[/quote']

True.

Also Ringo Starr is a hack on drums

[Scrumtrilescent]

But he has an All-Star band!

And he was on SHINNING TIME STATION!!

[CharlotteBeer.com]

I really don't understand how people cannot like the Beatles. Please tell me why you do not like them. This was a group that I was raised listening to, so I realize that I am biased. But, I would really like to know.

Life will be a lot less frustrating for you once you realize that not everyone is required to like or hate the same things.

[Scrumtrilescent]

Except:

midgets, ma...you can fill in the rest.