'inspired', if that's the word, by the 'hole are better than nirvana' thread. fair enough if you prefer listening to band A or if band B are not your 'cup of tea', but surely when somebody says something like the statement above, deep down they know that they're just, well, wrong? you could probably write a thesis on the cultural and musical impact of nirvana, hole on the other hand?
anyway, the point of this thread - if you dismiss certain bands, e.g. the stones, the beatles, sonic youth, the clash, etc, as 'shit' or whatever, are you not crossing the line from personal taste to just plain bullshit? or is it all subjective? can we not consider certain bands worthy of respect regardless of our own personal preferences? does stuff like influence and critical acclaim no tell it's own story?