Seth: You can argue that many popular and unpopular bands started trends, sounds, styles, etc, but very few bands can be attributed to the seismic shift of an industry, and Nirvana is one of them. Music may have started to trend the way of bands like Nirvana, but it’s rare to point to a time in popular music history and say that something started/stoped here.

As much as I love the Clash, I’d have to say their influence on the day was a bit minimal. Did their social conscience manage to unseat Reagan and Thatchers’ brave new greed? Nope. Far from it. It could even be said that, by 1986, the Pet Shop Boys’ anthem “Let’s Make Lots of Money” better captured the zeitgeist of the western world.

None of that is the Clash’s fault, of course. My point is simply that they didn’t manage to turn the tide of the times the way Nirvana did. I still remember that Saturday in the fall of ‘91 when I first heard “Smells Like Teen Spirit”. Right away, it felt like things had changed. At that moment, there was enough anger in the world to start making changes. It was the sort of day you could picture Lewis Black loosening his tie, picking up a ball bat, and getting to work.

The lo-fi revolution was in the works long before nirvana – see REM, Pixies,other late 80s college radio bands. Things were already in the process of bubbling up, and “Nevermind” was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I’m of the opinion that the indie ethos is alive and well in spite of Nirvana rather than because of it. After Nirvana, the majors ransacked the indie labels. Any “buzz band” they could get their hands on got a big contract, and I think a lot of the music from the mid and late 90s was influenced by that knowledge. Granted, Nirvana didn’t set out to become the international superstars they became, but many of their followers sure as hell did.

I think the indie music scene rolls along just fine without Nirvana – sure there would have been a lot of undeserving bands who never got their payday had they not come along, but there are plenty of bands that were Nirvana contemporaries that have as much to do with today’s indie music scene as Nirvana did.

And again – I am not questioning level of influence, because that is undoubtedly there – I’m questioning quality.

Unless you’re confusing influence with imitation….

And yeah, watch yourself on Green Day, D. I can’t put American Idiot higher than London Calling, but it is certainly this generation’s LC. The Clash had the punk purists up in arms when they were one of 4 punk bands in the world too. Just because Green Day found a way to appeal to the masses that no other band did in no way diminishes their creative output. Again, it’s about evolution of the art… taking the punk ideals and making them accessible with pop hooks. The same way the Clash introduced elements of ska reggae and dub into punk.

I’m not or never did say that the Clash wasn’t an influence, however they did not impact an entire industry the way Nirvana did.

Of course, I see Creed and PoM as having less to do with Nirvana than Pearl Jam. I’ve always thought that Nirvana was one part grunge to three parts punk, whereas the rest of the crowd (PJ, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, STP) were pure grunge.

In any case, I had more trouble deciding to vote for here than I probably have any other pod….

I love Nirvana, but their popularity wound up giving us Creed and Puddle of Mudd – watered down imitators looking to cash in on the latest trend. Their contemporaries in the first wave of grunge were already doing their thing before Nirvana had a chance to influence them. The Clash have been cited by Billy Bragg, U2, Stiff Little Fingers, Rancid and Green Day as a major influence. And look no further than MIA’s “Paper Planes” to see that their work continues to influence artists today. For the Clash to come out of the crowded era that they did and have such a lasting impact going forward says it all I think.

This is certainly all based on my opinion, but on my scoresheet The Clash’s output is superior, the work they influenced is better, and that influence has more longevity.

Had they come along five years sooner they may well have been the game-changer, though.

I was in highschool when Nevermind came out, and I remember my brother (who was into Crue) saying, “This is f’n cool!”. It seemed like over night that stations changed formats, I remember our rock station going from the “Fox” to the “Edge” All of a sudden they played no metal, or 80’s (With the exception of the Cult). GNR and Metallica were still huge, and they basically stopped playing their music completely. I actually asked one of the guys why that was and he said he played what he was told, so part of it was fans, and part of it was corporate radio jumping on a trend. Of course now that station plays just about everything, because it’s “retro” to like those bands. That’s what Nirvana did to radio, they changed everything in a few short years. I didn’t live through the Clash’s hey day, and although I enjoy their music I can’t say that they caused a seismic shift in music the way Nirvana did.

Okay, now my head hurts. I have not found the words to express how crazy I think this statement is, so I will instead just say that I disagree. Strongly.

No more, no less.