Originally posted by PonyOneI've read your detailed analyses of their material, and why its important to you in particular, and Music in general, but I have to say that if you believe that statement, it underlines just how much [u]lower[/u] current expectations have become.
I'm 18. Nirvana are my Beatles.
If you can, take some time to sample some music, starting with the late '50s. You will hear what I consider to be primative Rock'n'Roll. That is meant in an academic sort of way, not as a put-down. Quite simply, the technology in use at all phases of the recording, production and even playing music was at an early stage of development. Even a contemporary reincarnation of Mozart would have been frustrated. And there were no writers of that calibre in The Biz just then. Even The Biz was a disorganised bunch of independants fighting for survival.
In the early '60s, the countrified RockaBilly represented by Elvis et al, started to share the airwaves with Folk music, Folk-Rock, and Surf. Vocal harmonies, as presented by The Everley Brothers, The Beach Boys and The Mamas And The Papas, were becoming part of the North American public's musical consciousness.
Then came The British Invasion! The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who may be the most recognised names today, but there were dozens of other bands getting airplay on this side of the pond. Herman's Hermits were making hits with material that George Formby had written in the '30s! The Dave Clark Five, The Mersey Beats,
I can say, with a resonable degree of certainty, that there is a remarkable, readily noticeable difference in popular music pre-Beatles, and post-Beatles. Their influence has faded somewhat over the last [u]35 years[/u], but it can still be found.
PonyOne, I respectfully submit that, even 10 years from now, Nirvana will appear as an important, but much smaller, blip on the chart compared to the massive shift in musical styles brought on by the arrival of The Beatles.
