>>65348068
What gay porno flick is this?

>>65348068

Depends on the band.

Nirvana? Absolutely fucking not, they did nothing for grunge. Their greatest achievement could be considered "made grunge outsell metal for a while" but thats about it. Cobain was a terrible guitarrist (and it pains me to see that he is constantly listed in "top best guitarrists ever", in very high positions) and an average songwriter.

Other bands, like the ramones, or queen, deserve all the praise they get. Extremely revolutional and talented bands. Mercury is a marvel of singing

>>65348217
>Nirvana did nothing for grunge
What?

>>65348340

Nirvana did nothing for grunge.
They just made it popular, but they didnt revolutionized the genre.

This is a known fact, anon. Nirvana sits at the same level of merit as simple plan or sum 41

>>65348217
>Nirvana? Absolutely fucking not
>Queen? Deserves all the praise they get

summerpleb

>>65348498

Im not the guy you're quoting but denying Freddie Mercury's talent is pretty fucking retarded. He sang in a different tone because the band couldnt keep up with his natural tone.

Literally only like 5% of people can sing in 2 different tones and remain properly tuned.

Kind of how like no other artist has Whitney houston or michael jackson's vocal registry

>>65348068
What does Nirvana and Queen have in common?
They both have lead singers that now are dead.
Do they have a lot of fanbase? Yeah
But the death of the lead singer raise their status as "The Best".
Not every album of them were masterpieces. But now that they're dead they have this status. Like any other band that at the top suffered the loss of a bandmate.

>>65348603
Yeah, he was a baritone but sang as a tenor a majority of the time.

>>65348427
No one revolutionized grunge, no one even really made "grunge"

>>65350742
Yeah, Deakin and Animal Collective for example.