I agree with this. It's not limited to Nirvana either. My least favourite Pear Jam album has always been TEN and to me it's the most dated of all their albums. Nirvana definitely has  a very dated 90s sound to them. I've never been into Nirvana but  when they first broke onto the scene they sounded fresh. Now they sound incredibly dated. Nirvana's music though classic is just as dated as MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice in my opinion and again this isn't limited to Nirvana. It applies to a lot of those early 90's "grunge" bands.  AFD on the other hand sounds incredibly fresh in the year 2013. The Illusion albums sound awfully dated in comparison.  That's another thing that makes AFD one of the greatest albums of all time. It has a timeless quality to it. It sounds as good today as the day it was released.

I'm not gonna meltdown but to say U2 has just done the same thing over and over since the 80's is ridiculous.

The Edge is an innovative guitar player whether people like his style or not. There's a reason why he was chosen to be inthe film It Might Get Loud.

U2 has  evolved in trilogies really. the have eras of three albums that sound completely different to the next three.

1. Boy, October, War

2. Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum

3. Achtung Baby. Zoororpa, Pop (Passengers if you conisder it a U2 album which many fans do)

4. All that You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, No Line on the Horizon.

the sounds of these eras are so completely different from each other era. There is no denying they have grown and evolved over the course of their career and thanks to The Edge they do have a distinct U2 sound in each era.  And I'd argue the trasnformation fo the band from 1989- 1991 was the most daring evolution of a band ever. At least in terms of a massively popular band. They were arguable the biggest band on earth yet they overhaulded their entire sound and image and did so with huge success. You may not like the band or their music but that is irrelevant when talking about a band in terms of how some people have chose to talk about th Beatles  for ths poll. I's not about personal taste it's about acknowldging what a band has accomplished and done.

the argument is easy. Who do you like better. Simple. Now if people wana debate thisto the end of the earth maybe there shoudl've been a detailed criteria on what we were voting on. But "Who's better" to me is simply who do I think is better. guns N' Roses are the reason I'm a  music fan not the Beatles.  Guns N' Roses were and still are a big part of my life. the Beatles never have been. I like the Stones better than the Beatles too and think they are a better band, with better songs.  It's not hard to make an argument when you like one band more than the other.

the poll should've said "which band has had a greater impact on music and which band as a collective are better song writer and which band paved the way fr other bands more?"

That's how it shoudl've been worded if people are offended that some of us are voting for Guns N' Roses.

As far as Axl goes I think it's a combination of being caught up in the moment when you're there and the vocals not being as clear when you're there so you don't realize how bad he sounds. I agree that he sounds so much better when you're there but this weird phenomenon of Axl sounded great when you're there and sounding like crap on film seems to only apply to Axl.  I can't think of another artists who is so night and day when you see them in person compared to seeing them on video.

I have no idea what it is about the band. Like you I respect the guys in Guns big time but for whatever reason it just doesn't sound right. People have mocked the idea that suggests they can't match Slash's tone but it's just a simple fact for those who hear it. There's somehting about the way Slah can perform the songs that nobody else can truly replicate even when they hit all the same notes. It's weird.