hahahaha Well, if Mozart was the best performer of his time, then hell yes Nirvana is the Mozart of modern music. I love Nirvana (not as much as Led Zeppelin, but that's a whole different arguement) and they are the BEST band of modern music - modern being from 1990 'till now. For one thing, they are the most influential and hell, they just kick ass. P.S. My favorite Nirvana song - Lithium
I just don't get why Nirvana is considered to be so bad ass. What makes them any different than any other guitar-centric band? I've actually sat and dissected some of their songs trying to find an answer to that question, but I just couldn't hear it. I'm not trying to bash them here...just wondering. Is there any tangible thing that clearly separates them from everyone else?
Cobains unique torn, melodic voice. Grohls pounding, good sounding (for lack of a better term), quick drumming. They have some great sounding guitars and stuff. Alright I don't really know how to technically explain it, but they are the best rock band of the 1990's, just are. STP in second, IMO. And oh yeah, if you're a teenager you can really identify with some of the stuff Kurt is talking about. That along with great sounding music just makes it better.
Nirvana is a great band without question, but I don't know if I would say that they are the modern Mozart. Granted, they did influence a lot of other bands; however, Mozart despite dying at the age of 35, had an enormous amount of work. Nirvana only had 3 studio albums in "Bleach", "Nevermind", and "In Utero". To me, that is not enough in terms of works to make that comparison. I think this is an extremely tough question to answer in who was this then but Led Zeppelin is the closest one that comes to my mind.
Woah. When I saw modern, I assumed since 1990. If you mean it to include Led Zep, then NO QUESTION they are the Mozart of modern times. The Mozart of all bands to pick up a guitar - LED ZEPPELIN The Mozart since 1990 - Nirvana
I agree but I just think that Nirvana's body of work is not enough to make this comparison where obviously Led Zeppelin's is.
Yeah, that's true. From what Nirvana did come out with though, I think it just might make them worthy of being up there with the greats of rock n roll.
Cobain is to Mozart what a fish is to a doorknob. I do not understand Nirvana's music being classified as punk, other than that was the only category music critics (otherwise known as lifeless assholes) could fit their music into. I also do not understand the overall popularity of Nirvana, other than it was Cobain telling the teenagers of the early 90s the right thing at the right time lyrically. To me, there are many punk bands in history that musically and lyrically blow Nirvana right off of the stage, especially British punk bands of the late 70s (The Clash, The Jam, Elvis Costello and the Attractions) and New York punk bands of the mid to late 70s (The Ramones, Television, Talking Heads). Maybe it's my age talking, but that's how I see it.
Talk bad about Nirvana, I can take that, but DO NOT deride Led Zeppelin. You can't win on that. Not only will you look bad for going against Led Zep, but you will also get into many arguements you won't win.
If you are comparing individual musical genius, then I would hazard to say Prince would be more of an equivalent to Mozart. But that's jut me...
Who says I was deriding Led Zeppelin? You posted that they were the "Mozart of all bands to pick up a guitar". I think that is a rather peculiar statement, and although I think I understand what you are saying, I disagree. To me, Page was a great guitarist, with his work in Led Zep, The Yardbirds, and his session work, but not the best ever. Both Hendrix and Clapton had him beat as a player. On a side note, if you have seen Page play live recently, as I have, you might notice that his skills are in decline. I even think he might be suffering from some kind of neuro-muscular disorder. He just cannot play like he used to, unfortunately.
I don't know very much about Mozart, but my question to those of you that do know - Was Mozart the Mozart of his time, during his time? I know that he was a prodigious musician that had some pretty good gigs, but was he really recognized for his genius back then as he is now? I still consider Nirvana to be too recent to really see how the future will hold their music. Personally, I would consider Nirvana to be one of if not the most influential band of the 90's and beyond, but I do not consider them musical geniuses. They came out with the right sound and image at the right time. I don't think that Nirvana music will become timeless like Mozarts music. Musically I think that Led Zep is closer to genius level, but I think that the Beatles will be the most "timeless" of what will come out of the Rock and Roll era. This opinion is based upon the music that will survive centuries from now - like Mozart's music.
The best thing to ever happen to Nirvana was Kurt Cobain blowing his head off. Now if the other former band members would just follow suit.....NIRVANA SUCKS! Nirvana is like rap: it's not music. It's a bunch of guys attempting to piece together some horrible form of whining and carrying on that they somehow create into mainstream BS that changes the music industry forever. Down with Nirvana! Up with Metallica! Speaking of Nirvana, has anyone seen the music video of or heard the song "Smells Like Nirvana?"
