flair

That is a no brainer for me, I chose nirvana.

I would have to agree that nirvana's music is very simple, anyone that picks up a guitar or a bass can play there music as long as they have the tabs (for most songs, anyway), but that is what makes them so good. It is very hard to make a song with only a few chords stand out and sound incredible. The only band that i have heard since them that play that simple of music that i enjoy would be The White Stripes.

Kal-El

No brainer. Guns all the way.

nodeerforamonth

Another reason why Nirvana would be better: no keyboards.

sataniko

No F'ing doubt - GUNS N' ROSES

POWERBOMB

Take the best cd by both groups:

Nevermind or Appetite for Destuction.


IMO, Appetite is the cd you can listen too over and over while Nevermind is a once in a while cd.

Supermallet

Personally, I think that Axl Rose's vocals ruined every GnR song ever made, so I'd easily go with Nirvana on this.

As for rocking out, I know I'll get flamed for this, but Iron Maiden rocked harder than GnR ever did. I'd take Somewhere In Time or Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son (their albums from 1986 and 1988, respectively) over GnR any day.

InnocentBlood

i don't intend to flame you as i'm a HUGE iron maiden fan myself but don't you think they are 2 different groups who write/ sing about different stuff?

i mean could you seriously imagine maiden writing & performing 'Paradise City' ? likewise i don't think GN'R would ever be able to write an album like Seventh Son of a Seventh Son... they just aren't into stuff like that...

as for vocal performances, i honestly think Axl & Bruce have 2 of the most distinctive voices in hard rock and heavy metal respectively... there's no need to diss that

turborobb

As a huge fan of the hair metal era, I never understood what made GnR so big, they were just a spin off band from L.A. Guns and L.A. Guns was way better. GnR was ok, but really no better or worse than Bang Tango or the Bulletboys.

If GnR had stayed together, I'm sure they would be doing those summer hair metal tours with Dokken, Slaughter and Warrant opening for Poison.

If Kurt hadn't of killed himself, Nirvana might still be around playing shows at the House of Blues at best... but I don't think they would be the legends they have become. Most likely they would have broken up around 98 and started other bands and did solo albums like most the other Grunge acts did.

Supermallet

Couldn't you say the same thing about Nirvana and GnR? I think Iron Maiden is more comparable to GnR, in that they both do heavy metal. Nirvana isn't particularly comparable to GnR except that they're both aggresive.

Axl is certainly distinctive, however, his voice grates on me. It is not to my taste at all. I think Slash and co. made some great music, but I can't listen to any of it due to Axl Rose. I'm not trying to diss him, per se, I'm simply stating my opinion that his voice is not one I would want to listen to.

WestEndRiot

while technically they weren't, their original sound wasn't far off. a fair amount of the Foo demo/self-titled cd has a noticeable Nirvana sound which Dave thankfully got away from. certainly understandable being just a few months removed from his old band.

as for the question, i vote GnR as well. plus had Kurt not been a selfish bastard we wouldn't have one of my favorite bands right now, the aforementioned fighters of foo.

MJKTool

I understand that, but thats not what I was saying. I was saying the Foo Fighters, as a band, were not part of the Seattle Explosion. They came afterwards. Thats all.