Nirvana or Led Zepplin who is >

[Bumblebeef]

isnt my type of music but i think led zepellin was much more impactful for how this type of music will evolve in the coming decades than nivana.

when u talk about youth cultures and music history, the name led zepellin will take a higher place, than nirvana.

just my opinion.

 

[moreorless87]

The equivalent I would say is more Nirvana and the Stone Roses, appeared at the same time and arguably set the tone for the US and UK music scenes in the 90's respectively.

 

[moreorless87]

Yep. Also, a lot of his charisma was behind the scenes since he wasn't the frontman, but behind the scenes there was no doubt who the leader of the band was. On their last studio album before Bonzo died, Jimmy stepped back a bit because he was burned out, and the music really suffered. Not only was he the best songwriting guitarist, but he was an underrated producer, what he did on songs like When The Levee Breaks to achieve that sound was incredibly innovative.

It was essentially his band from the start until his post 77 burnout, assembled by him after the Yardbids collapse.

Plus of course I think you need to remember the era, the 70's was very much an era were a lot of the megabands had relatively little media presense, appearance onstage or in photo's taken on stage arguably played a bigger role at that point.

 

[IIIIIIII]

Led Zeppelin by a wide margin.

technically-speaking, it's led leppelin. but there was something artistically-special about nirvana, and it resonated with many, as much as led zeppelin did. i don't listen to either band that often, but if having to choose, i say nirvana.

off the top of my head, my favorite song from nirvana is probably sifting, in case anyone cares lol.

 

[IIIIIIII]

Jesus, the two aren't remotely comparable.
Zep was infinitely better, with a much wider range of styles and instruments, with each player having ten times the musical ability.

you're absolutely right. on the other hand, we can't deny the artistic attraction to nirvana. i almost liken it to mma, in a way. lots of people love gsp as a fighter. technically-amazing, and hardly ever lost. but then you look at someone like wanderlei, who was a whirlwind of a fighter, has many losses, but is still adored and loved by man fans. that's how i would characterize the two. led zeppelin is gsp, and nirvana is wanderlei.

i hope that made sense haha.

a better comparison between bands, in terms of similar sound, is the lesser-known king crimson. comparing led zeppelin and king crimson, i say king crimson every single time.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

you're absolutely right. on the other hand, we can't deny the artistic attraction to nirvana. i almost liken it to mma, in a way. lots of people love gsp as a fighter. technically-amazing, and hardly ever lost. but then you look at someone like wanderlei, who was a whirlwind of a fighter, has many losses, but is still adored and loved by man fans. that's how i would characterize the two. led zeppelin is gsp, and nirvana is wanderlei.

i hope that made sense haha.

a better comparison between bands, in terms of similar sound, is the lesser-known king crimson. comparing led zeppelin and king crimson, i say king crimson every single time.

Well, it was really apples and oranges. Nirvana was great for what they did, which was intentionally unpretentious and uncomplicated.

Zep strayed into the pretentious sometimes but the music they framed it with was pretty fucking impressive. Bombast can be awesome when coupled with instrumental prowess and an imagination that goes beyond canned licks.

And yes, as a huge KC fan, they're certainly more technical. I saw them on the Beat tour and the double trio when they reformed.

 

[BisexualMMA]

technically-speaking, it's led leppelin. but there was something artistically-special about nirvana, and it resonated with many, as much as led zeppelin did. i don't listen to either band that often, but if having to choose, i say nirvana.

off the top of my head, my favorite song from nirvana is probably sifting, in case anyone cares lol.

I liked Smells Like Teen Spirit and Come As You Are, but Nirvana and grunge in general don't resonate with me very much. They are mostly the opposite of my artistic sensibilities.

 

[IIIIIIII]

I liked Smells Like Teen Spirit and Come As You Are, but Nirvana and grunge in general don't resonate with me very much. They are mostly the opposite of my artistic sensibilities.

mine too, to be quite honest. that's why i said that i don't listen to both that often. i much more prefer the prog-side of things within rock and metal, like king crimson and gordian knot, and death metal like morbid angel and immolation on the death metal side of things. but sometimes artistry can overcome instrumental deficiencies.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Plant was an alpha male who was hung like a horse and looked like a really homely woman.

Fixed for the GOAT, Bobby P.

 

[Skarr]

Nirvana went largely unnoticed in the UK.

the UK isnt where the core of music is decided at least not at that time

Nowadays everyone sings the praises of Nirvana being this revolutionary band when that was far from the truth. Pearl Jam were a much bigger band than Nirvana at the time and Ten is an infinitely better record than Nevermind

nowadays lol....I was there in those days and know firsthand how before nirvana came along it was all GnR, Motley Crue, Poison and that kind of shit ((as the mainstream rock)) and it was Nirvana's teen spirit that opened the floodgate, Pearl was never a bigger band at any point in their career, Ten is a comparable disc for sure tho, without Nirvana...pearl jam doesnt become half as successful as they did, Nirvana opened it up with something that was radically different than what was going on musically and that created an audience more ready to accept the wave of other new stuff((tho less radical than Nirvana per say))such as STP, Pearl Jam, Sound Garden and AiC, all of those groups together washed away the hair band phase but it was Nirvana at the head of that charge .....

 

[Jimmy McGill]

the UK isnt where the core of music is decided at least not at that time

the core of what music ? the UK by and large shunned grunge or whatever pigeon hole you care to put Nirvana in, we had a very vibrant music scene at the time,

 

[Tiny]

If you are saying nirvana you need to stop listening to music

Its zepplin.

The two are not even remotely comparable

 

[Tiny]

Wait... this is actually a SERIOUS thread?

Fuck this gay earth.

The thread starter is currently in the process of transitioning and picking out his new pronoun.

 

[loisestrad]

If you are saying nirvana you need to stop listening to music

Its zepplin.

The two are not even remotely comparable

They aren't comparable, yet you compare them?

I prefer Nirvana, but you're right, they aren't comparable.

 

[Tiny]

They aren't comparable, yet you compare them?

I prefer Nirvana, but you're right, they aren't comparable.

Im not comparing them. One mixed blues and jazz with rock to redfine rock n roll and is widely renowned as the best/talented rock band in history with a collection of songs that both sound better and are radically different to each other.

The other created alternative rock. A softer version of metal rock but most of the sounds and the bands sound extremly similar.

Nirvana doesnt have any song in their short lived collection that even has a shred of whats going on in stairway to heaven.

Its an embarassing argument and one sided.

I grew up with nirvana and pearl jam did it better. My fav band is now zepplin and nobody has done it better. Even bands that generally try to copy outright like greta van fleet cant do it better.

Its a ridiculous notion

 

[Skarr]

the core of what music ? the UK by and large shunned grunge or whatever pigeon hole you care to put Nirvana in, we had a very vibrant music scene at the time,

Im sure you did and Im sure it was very popular among a few million people in the UK

 

[loisestrad]

Nirvana doesnt have any song in their short lived collection that even has a shred of whats going on in stairway to heaven.

Its an embarassing argument and one sided.

Lol, you sound like a Led Zeppelin fan, which is fine, and you didn't compare them in the sense that they sound alike or anything - but you're certainly being judgemental by saying that "If you are saying nirvana you need to stop listening to music".

Do I need to stop listening to music cuz I find Zeppelin boring as hell? I sure respect them as musicians, and I acknowledge their mark in music history - I simply prefer Nirvana. The point is, why are we comparing Led Zeppelin and Nirvana?

 

[Beef Motif]

Led Zeppelin = British band plagiarising Americans

 

[moreorless87]

technically-speaking, it's led leppelin. but there was something artistically-special about nirvana, and it resonated with many, as much as led zeppelin did.

I would say though part of the appeal of Led Zeppelin was that like the Beatles they had that initial sound/image that had a strong resonance BUT also came up with a very large and broad catalog of music beyond it. They could just have released variations on Whole Lotta Love and Communication Breakdown forever with diminishing returns but they didn't.

 

[Tiny]

Lol, you sound like a Led Zeppelin fan, which is fine, and you didn't compare them in the sense that they sound alike or anything - but you're certainly being judgemental by saying that "If you are saying nirvana you need to stop listening to music".

Do I need to stop listening to music cuz I find Zeppelin boring as hell? I sure respect them as musicians, and I acknowledge their mark in music history - I simply prefer Nirvana. The point is, why are we comparing Led Zeppelin and Nirvana?

Grudge rock versus classic rock aside, im comparing skill, style, range content of lyrics melody...unique sound, plantes voice, page’s solos.

One nirvana song sounds like the rest with moderate slight changes.

fucking stairway opens with a different tempo and range then how it closes. It opens with a flute ffs.

When i attempt to sing along to nirvana i can more or less without training or talent, copy his sound. I cant come close to minicing plante. His voice is crazy in range amd unique in sound. Thats skill. What cobain did was just talk into a microphone with a rusty voice. Give me a break.

Granted i can do the same with pearl jam and eddie vedders voice.

And i still say pearl jam > nirvana even though nirvana created the genre pearl jam did it better.

Nobody has done it better then zepplin. And there is a reason for that.

Because zepplin is that good.