Originally Posted by: PonyOne
Neither one is MORE revolutionary than the other; I mean, how 'bout this for a question? Of these two, whom was more revolutionary: Napoleon or Ghengis Khan? Different merits, different points in time, both revolutionary.

:rolleyes: Of all your arguments, this one shows the most solid conclusion, and I agree because it only proves that neither one of the two is MORE revolutionary than the other coz they both change the course of music on their own right and in their own time or era.

It doesn't matter who came first. The important thing is that they both revolutionized music in a way that it leaves a great impact (like Elvis or the Beatles) that in one way or the other litteraly change the face of music and their legacy still last till now.

To all other reasons which favors anyone of them regarding who is more revolutionary than the other is plainly subjective and its just a matter of taste and personal preference in favor of the one we like better.

I voted for Hendrix and I supported it because he is one of those that influenced and inspired me and it is same for those who was inspired by Kurt, ofcourse they will vote for Cobain. But it does not mean Cobain is more revolutionary than Hendrix and vice versa. Its like your example, comparing Ghengis Khan to Napoleon, they are both revolutionary in their own era but its senseless to compare them who is greater since their impact to the world is separated by time, but nonetheless both changed the course of history.

The conclusion is, BOTH are revolutionary.........But when it comes to personal taste I still vote for Jimi Hendrix....PEACE Bro!! ;)