Dogwatcher wrote:As much as we love them, c'mon they weren't all that talented were they?
A questionable statement
Dogwatcher wrote:I'm not saying they weren't talented.
It just gets weirder.
Dogwatcher wrote:I'm on a loser here aren't I boys?
Not entirely.
They did take alot of tweaking in the studio.
They were good enough to form a sound that proved popular, but only the base of it.
After many different effects and synthesizing, they had a marketable product.
The best bands are the ones that can do their thing live.
That's the essence of being a musician.
If you can't do it live, and do it good, you aren't worth a pinch of shit.
Grohl stands out.
ACDC stands out.
Nirvana, as a whole, do not.
(Exception made for the Gorillaz)