smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | rob@splitsville.com |
| Subject | =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiB3aWxsIHRoZSByZWFsIG5pcnZhbmEgcGxlYXNlIHN0YW5kIHVwIQ==?= |
| Date | Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:44:25 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (1.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Of course Cobain's.
Like Elvis, the Beatles and the Sex Pistols (in the UK only), they overnight made the then- existing rock music 'scene' seem obsolete and dated.
They then took many lesser bands along with them for the commercial ride.
Is was the Crue, Poison, Warrant and Winger before Nirvana.
After, not only the music, but also fashion, attitude and the perception of music changed.
Bless him, the selfish, suicidal fuck
>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: craigtorso@verizon.net
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Sent: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:53:14
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Seaman, Dave" <seamand@upmc.edu>
>>Who was better - Cobain's Nirvana or Simon
>Simopath's Nirvana?
>
>I gotta go with Cobain's: other than "Rainbow
>Chaser," which *is* an
>absolute stone classic of UK psych-pop, the first
>Nirvana just don't
>much do it for me. They're one of those bands
>where you can kind of
>tell why they never broke through commercially:
>they just weren't good
>enough.
>
>S
>
>===================================================
>====================
>Detailed Audities-List information:
><http://audities.googlepages.com>
>To manage your Audities List settings or
>unsubscribe:
><www.smoe.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?func=lists-long-ful
>l&extra=audities>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.