Quote:
Originally posted by AlienQ
Now your talkin about Styles
Pink floyd is very passive and non agressive with exception of a few tunes like "The Wall" or "Dirty Woman".
Zepplin is blood and guts from "Dyer Maker" to "Battle of Evermore". Again not a fair comparison. Zepplin had the knowledge of what made Hendrix a monster in the first place and set up ground breaking rifts on there own.
The saddest thing about todays rock is there is no understanding of what music is.
Sorry but things like "Limp Bisquit" or "Blink 182" make rock look stupid. Progression of the art of shred and great composition ended with Nirvana.
There is no Comparison between Nirvana and the rock of yesterday like Zepplin.
Infact...
The first day I heard Nirvana's "Nevermind" is the day I put the guitar down and decided to never pursue professional playing.
I knew the record label's cashed out true musicians for stupid retards.
|
No. Van Halen in a yellow Lycra bodysuit made rock look stupid.
The first day you heard Nirvana was the day you heard substance retake the podium over wank. Nirvana has a lot more in common with 60's rock than Van Halen, for a starters songwriting taking the front seat again instead of technical wank for the sake of itself.
There is a reason why Jimi Hendrix and Led Zepplin continue to find a new audience and continue their legacy and Van Halen is limited to fans at the time, wannabe virtuosos and humourous 80's references to hair metal.
If you think Nirvana and "grunge" was any less of a musical gimmick and record company manufactured product than hair metal then you are being naive.
Ps I don't think I even own a Nirvana album (which is a feat considering the hundreds of albums in my collection) So it's not like I'm a fan. Just that like Hendrix, Cobain could generate more emotion with ten notes in a minute than Halen could with 573 in 10.9 seconds.
If I want virtuoso I listen to Al Di Meola.