Re: A genie gives you the chance to resurrect a singer that died to soon
Originally Posted by camisadelgolf
In Utero is better than Nevermind, and Nevermind is also one of the most overrated albums ever. What we like to latch onto is that Nirvana is responsible for creating such a unique sound and making it so accessible.
Foo Fighters are less unique, but overall, they are better than Nirvana. It's kind of like a Beatles vs. Stones argument for me. On one hand, in their primes, I feel like they were about equal with each other. On the other hand, the Stones have lasted much longer and have come up with more quality music as a result of releasing more material.
Nirvana is one of my all-time favorite bands, and I haven't liked a Foo Fighters album in years (although I respect them). However, if I try to be objective about it, I must admit that Foo Fighters have come up with better songwriting. But I'll be damned if I haven't spent several more days listening to them over Foo Fighters.
What I take from all of this is you seem to be arguing a band that sticks around and writes a few really good songs and releases them on otherwise mediocre albums year-after-year is superior to a band that burns brighter, albeit for only a few albums, and then disappears, simply because the former band accumulates more material and as a result more good songs? So we should measure a band's quality based upon gross number of good songs recorded during their careers?
"On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."