spatdrastik Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Nothing's shocking is a great album...I also loved siamese dream I can't stand nirvana...or pretty much the whole grunge thing...I think the only cd like that I have is badmotorfinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 You can borrow mine anytime, brother! Might have to take you up on that Ev. Just a quick 25 hrs drive down the I-5. I'll call my wife."Hey honey.I'm gonna be a bit late for dinner". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I'm sorry, i difn't really review the thread. maybe the guy ment somthing diffent. The guy stated about nirvaina: "the hidden gem of a melody-driven trio in which influences as disparate as the Beatles and Black Flag somehow coexisted to create songs every bit as classic as Led Zeppelin's finest" Now he used the word classic, not good, nor great. Classic. If you take that as it's meaning, you get popularity. So what i think he's saying that songs like Smell's Like, Lithium, Come as you are, and heart shaped box, will transcend time like Black Dog, Rock & Roll, Whole Lotta, The Ocean and others. Which is true, It's not about what songs are better, but if those songs will still be liked by a great majority in the future. Zep still kicks Nirvana ass in radio play, but nirvana kicks alot of other bands ass that were popular once, but are forgotten. IF you had to make a list of the 100 greatest hard Rock songs ever. Nirvana will have at least one, maybe a few songs up there, so would Zep. He also stated that they're as classic as zeppelin songs not more classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragster Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 For me the Smashing Pumpkins are the best band of the 90s. Today the Pumpkins are very anachronistic in a positive way...they are really into this extending Songs live thing just like Zeppelin was... Of course they remain different bands... I think Zeppelin and the Pumpkins (and of course Nirvana) represented their "zeitgeist" Nowadays Zeppelin and the Pumpkins are exactly the opposite of the zeitgeist, which is very important, because for me all the new bands suck... Ever considered why there were so many reunions in 07...? Greets Of course SP were and still are good!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabal200 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I'm sorry, i difn't really review the thread. maybe the guy ment somthing diffent. The guy stated about nirvaina: "the hidden gem of a melody-driven trio in which influences as disparate as the Beatles and Black Flag somehow coexisted to create songs every bit as classic as Led Zeppelin's finest" Now he used the word classic, not good, nor great. Classic. If you take that as it's meaning, you get popularity. So what i think he's saying that songs like Smell's Like, Lithium, Come as you are, and heart shaped box, will transcend time like Black Dog, Rock & Roll, Whole Lotta, The Ocean and others. Which is true, It's not about what songs are better, but if those songs will still be liked by a great majority in the future. Zep still kicks Nirvana ass in radio play, but nirvana kicks alot of other bands ass that were popular once, but are forgotten. IF you had to make a list of the 100 greatest hard Rock songs ever. Nirvana will have at least one, maybe a few songs up there, so would Zep. He also stated that they're as classic as zeppelin songs not more classic. Add me to the group that thinks really highly of Nirvana, but doesn't think they belong in the same category as Zeppelin. I will say this, however; after hearing Tori Amos cover Nirvana, I did have a greater respect for the songs themselves. The only band (for me) that comes close to Zeppelin is Metallica. Even with that, I would concede that Metallica is way more one dimensional that Zeppelin and is still a distant second (for me). Oh... and ditto on the props to Jane's Addiction!!!! Great stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Yes, i believe Metalica did have the Zeppelin Crown. No offense to G & R and Van halen fans, but metallica was the band of the 1980's. They had that charisma, Im not sure who ruled rock in the early 80's (Van Halen) but they quickly lost it to Mettalica. Guns and Roses should of had it, but i think they made numerous bad choices after they're 1st album. I'm not sure how to define the Zep crown, or who has it now. I've heard that Soundgarden was the zeppelin of the 90's, but there run was too short. Maybe Tool for the last 10 years, but they been on and off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TheWitch- Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 well you can't really compare this two bands. lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstork Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I remember an MTV interview with Robert in the 90's. The interviewer brought up Nirvana and Robert said he didn't know if they were any more important than Herman's Hermits! The reporter was waiting for Robert to crack a smile but he never did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Add me to the group that thinks really highly of Nirvana, but doesn't think they belong in the same category as Zeppelin. I will say this, however; after hearing Tori Amos cover Nirvana, I did have a greater respect for the songs themselves. The only band (for me) that comes close to Zeppelin is Metallica. Even with that, I would concede that Metallica is way more one dimensional that Zeppelin and is still a distant second (for me). Oh... and ditto on the props to Jane's Addiction!!!! Great stuff... I would say that Dream Theater has come closer to Led Zeppelin --more often-- than Metallica does. Metallica has Sad But True and One and Dream Theater has Lie and The Mirror, and other songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I remember an MTV interview with Robert in the 90's. The interviewer brought up Nirvana and Robert said he didn't know if they were any more important than Herman's Hermits! The reporter was waiting for Robert to crack a smile but he never did! What I remember is this... Robert saying when referrring to Nirvana and America: "You've got your own 'punk' now." I think Robert meant that in a 'good' way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tadpole in a Jar Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Yes, i believe Metalica did have the Zeppelin Crown. No offense to G & R and Van halen fans, but metallica was the band of the 1980's.Heavily revisionist history says Metallica was the band of the `80's. Metallica was an opening act until about 1988. Van Halen had already been headliners for about nine years at that point and had sold a ton more records. Even U2 was light years bigger than Metallica in the `80's. Metallica actually just formed a bridge between the Van Halen-type bands to the grunge bands: they were fast and heavy like Van Halen, but with a darker vibe and more rough look like the grunge bands. They were only really big between about 1988-1992, then grunge took over and they had to play catch-up with the trends after that. No band has ever taken the Led Zeppelin torch. Even the best are second-rate to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Heavily revisionist history says Metallica was the band of the `80's. Metallica was an opening act until about 1988. Van Halen had already been headliners for about nine years at that point and had sold a ton more records. Even U2 was light years bigger than Metallica in the `80's. Metallica actually just formed a bridge between the Van Halen-type bands to the grunge bands: they were fast and heavy like Van Halen, but with a darker vibe and more rough look like the grunge bands. They were only really big between about 1988-1992, then grunge took over and they had to play catch-up with the trends after that. No band has ever taken the Led Zeppelin torch. Even the best are second-rate to them. Maybe it was revisionist history, but the Who and Stones out sold zep until 1973 or 75 and zep only did two more tours after that. but who really ruled the 70's. I think the who is up there with zep and to a lesser degree the stones. I may be wrong on that point, but i also think Van halen were MTV driven like nirvana was. Dream Theater may have talent, but they are not as popular as alot of bands in thier time, Zep was a great band that was the most popular band at the time. Talent plus worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrule Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 Hmmm, well, I was hoping for feedback concerning the two aforementioned bands, and their relative impact on our world. I seem to have gotten that. It would seem we all agree, with one lone brave dissenter. You see, from what Bryan said to me, I am quite sure he is being a role model for the youts who want to play Nirvana style music. O.k., if you want to feel manic depressive, dance in a mosh pit, and hit strangers hostilly, whom am I to question your entertainment? Too much thantatic destructive energy for me, I agree with Robert, where has all the magic in the world gone? Just for the record, I am talking about relative impact... one cannot deny the Rolling Stones are the greatest act of our age, based on Top Ten Albums along with other considerations... the Beatles must be reckoned with always, and should actually probably get the nod based on some data I just observed... but, neither are exactly my usual cup of tea anymore. I still love them and always enjoy hearing their music though. While Led Zeppelin is my favorite band, Close to the Edge will always be my favorite album for all my life. With Fragile close behind. South Side of the Sky, and the thought of Sir Hillary summitting Everest, God rest his soul... yep, the hair on my arms still stands on end. For the moment, the newest CD in my player is what I would call a funk fusion/big brass band style release recommended a few months back by Mr. Beller: http://cdbaby.com/cd/dougjohns Heck, just type in Stanley Clarke at Amazon.com, that'll keep you busy for years listening through his works. That is, if you want to ignore the current zeitgeist and keep the magic alive. Perhaps Gen X is simply overmedicated in their youth, hence the whole rage thing... just kidding. Kinda. You do have to wonder what changes the world to the point these kids will shoot each other at school in mass shootings. Kids with problems generally did not do these things until 1994, which is the time when, for me, it was time to generally turn the radio off. There were a lot more stations when I was young, I still have my WPLJ membership card from Manhatten, New York, back in the '70s... I remember when WAPP went on air in 1985, they played Zeppelin all straight through the summer... Well, when and if Zeppelin come back to Madison Sqaure Garden, I will be there. No matter what. I saw Jimmy play with Rob back in '89 at the Meadowlands, and I've always wanted to see the surviving bandmates perform together. Never thought I would get the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirchzep27 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Nirvana had a power punk sound, any fans should listen to husker du and killing joke and they can hear influences and would really like those bands. I think that kurt cobain did speak of the disillusion of generation x to a certain degree, but the lyrics were deeply depressing at times on -in utero, drenched in heroin addiction. The unplugged record showed that they could have explored more acousitc songs. Who knows how experiemtal they would have been. They certainly could have made more power punk type stuff...but cobain would have had to recover from the whole time around -in utero record and tour. led zeppelin/power blues/great acoustic songs/arrangements/experimental songs/ultra hard rock/force of nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pentangleafternoon Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 (edited because middle zep hit the nail nicely) ...maybe the writer meant nirvana and zeppelin were both good band names? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcrock Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Hell yes to the Jane's Addiction comment. Love them, and they really do have that "Zeppelinesque" sound at times. Just take their "Then She Did". The intro always reminds me of "What Is and What Should Never Be" for example. Anyway, yeah, Jane's Addiction is the band from that time period that I keep coming back to actually. As far as the Nirvana vs. Zeppelin thing... There are no words. I'd say it's just because they have proven to be so popular over the years (Nirvana I mean) that they get the comparisons of greatness. I don't mind Nirvana, but God how overrated they've become imo. hail to Jane's.....great to see some props here for my favorite band of all time, and the only band where my obsession reached or surpassed my Zeppelin obsession. The music in and of itself is very different in that Jane's isn't really born out of the blues like Zeppelin.....but the epic feel, the musicianship of all the members, the way they all feed off each other live, and the constant chills down the spine factor make them similar to me. I remember first listening to Janes and making Zepplein comparisons right off the bat I recommend all "open Minded" Zep fans give Janes a listen....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluxe Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Comparing Nirvana to Zeppelin is like comparing Britney Spears to Ella Fitzgerald. It's just not the same league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhak0n Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 He's comparing them to the wrong band. Nirvana although good had what? 3 albums? With some great stuff no doubt.. But the band to make generational comparisons to is not Nirvana.. It's Pearl Jam. Musically they always were and always will be a better band.. and for people to make Pearl Jam the second fiddle always makes me giggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle87 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 For me, Nirvana's music is as disposable as the MTV-fueled hype which brought them their fifteen minutes of fame. One of the most overated bands of all time. AGREE! Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olipticle Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Nirvana shouldnt even be put up Vrs anything Zep. It just doesnt work man, Nirvana is way to overated imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccerzubs Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I'm 23 years younger than you and Nirvana is nowhere near in comparison to Led Zeppelin or their music. Some people are very music illiterate and cannot quite understand yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcrock Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I'm 23 years younger than you and Nirvana is nowhere near in comparison to Led Zeppelin or their music. Some people are very music illiterate and cannot quite understand yet. see this is where people fail to realize that, like I said before they are 2 completely different types of bands/music that, in my opinion cannot be compared. If you don't "Get" Nirvana, you don't get it ...it's really as simple as that. Kurt Cobain's/Nirvana's music was appealing for several reasons, none of which would be the reason Zeppelins music is appealing. Nirvana was about simple melodies, passionalte lyric/vox and was "mood" music. If you got where Kurt was coming from and dug simple riffs and melodies with a little crunch to them, the Nirvana was your thing. The appeal of Nirvana to me was always Kurt, his vox his lyrics and his demented passion if you will Led Zeppelin was about something much much different. power, riff driven, musicianship, groundbreaking etc Frankly I feel people that get caught up in "comparisons" are really those that really don't understand yet. I guess it's natural for the yonger people to get into the comparing Nirvana v Zeppelin, Hendrix versus Page etc etc......I've grown to think all of that is silly music is art afterall and is very subjective.......everybody's got differnet tastes and a different "ideal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDog71 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Led Zeppelin vs. Nirvana?? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That's the only two reactions i can have to any claim that Nirvana is even close to the same galaxy as Zeppelin. Give me a break. We'll just see when the 40th anniversary of their pretentious music comes along. The answer will be clearer to a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I am a fan of Nirvana, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with the author of the article. However, I don't really think the two bands sound at all similar, and I wouldn't see any point in comparing them in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootingstar Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I am a fan of Nirvana, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with the author of the article. However, I don't really think the two bands sound at all similar, and I wouldn't see any point in comparing them in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.