Led Zeppelin vs Nirvana
 

Which do you like best? Personally, I think that Led Zeppelin is (was)the ultimate rock band, very great playing and awesome vocals by Plant.

Compared to Nirvana....I don't really like Nirvana. I don't feel that their songs "work" as well as Led's. In a way they oughta, they just don't. Plus, they aren't as far as I have heard very difficult instrument-wise.

I love Led Zeppelin, I don't like Nirvana. And you?

Led Zeppelin vs Nirvana
 

What would make you even compare these bands? Led Zeppelin is a legend. Nirvana is, well, who is Nirvana again?

No contest.

To be honest, I don't care for either band, but Nirvana can't begin to compare with Led Zep.

Nirvana was created by MTV. Sure, MTV didn't actually form the band, but MTV chose Nirvana to be the next big thing, and then forced them down our throats every day. There were much better bands in Seattle at the time, with more talent than Nirvana (Soundgarden, anyone?), that could have been chosen.

What really angers me is these know-nothing kids that think Cobain is a master lyricist just because he whined all the time about how crappy his life was. I mean, some of these kids will try to tell you he's as good a songwriter as John Lennon, and they actually BELIEVE it!

nirvana is legend as well, but i honestly don't want to compare bands who's music isn't really even in the same genre.

let's compare Led Zeppelin & The Who
and Nirvana & Alice In Chains

:)

If Nirvana had another three great albums...

They'd still need to work a ton on the music and lyrics to even compare...

Alice in Chains by a mile.

why?

I actually prefer Nirvana, but only because I've listened to Led Zeppelin so long and so often I just don't enjoy them much anymore.

If I was making a list of 100 all time great bands, Led Zeppelin would be much higher on the list--I doubt Nirvana would even make it.

Nirvana is crap and I'm sick and tired of hearing how Godlike Kurt Cobain was. He was a junkie, nothing more.

if Kurt would have lived nobody would give 2 shits aboot him now.

he did the best thing for his career by blowing his head off.

[sarcasm]Yay, let's all just talk about how untalented and terrible Nirvana is, yay![/sarcasm]

Personally, while Zeppelin is a better band, and certainly produced more music, I happen to like Nirvana a lot. Plus, I think the argument could be made that they had at least as much influence on music and popular culture as Zeppelin.

But really, there's no need to shit on Nirvana just because you like Zeppelin.

i really wish people would work harder on actually discussing subjects rather than offending others with their tasteless comments.

which is why i feel the comparison isn't really too fair. i certainly feel LZ is the better band, but nirvana was a very very important part of music in a whole different era/genre.

there are just too many people <font color=green>[whose views do not coincide with mine but who have my implicit respect and whom I would never,<b> ever</b> think of "diss-ing" because I know how it distresses the moderators and admins who read here]</font> in this thread, that's all.

Nirvana! hands down.

the other band, NO COMMENT.

__________
<i><font color=blue>Hey, looks like someone [EvilGerry?]was posting brashly in your name so I edited things to what I am sure you mean to say so as to avoid all that nasty warning business....</i> [Benedict]</font>

Jerry Cantrell, nuff said. The most underated guitarist/singer/songwriter of recent times. Alice in Chains was miles ahead of Nirvana in terms of lyrical content and from a instrumental standpoint. Not just AIC, this includes Pearl Jam and Soundgarden as well.

The only reason Kurt Cobain and Nirvana are considered such "legends" or "pioneers" of this new breed of rock was because MTV started playing their video, and they shot to the top before the rest of them. After Nirvana made it with Nevermind, Ten came right back up and sold 10 million just as quick.

:lol:... yep it's the GEMINI in me:)

rotfl

No, wait....


rotfl rotfl

I'm glad Led Zeppelin is leading the talk in this.
Since when I read Rollin Stones Top Guitarest of All-Time they had
Kurt Cobain up there on the list.
And VH-1 had Nirvana's album real high on top albums of all-time
list.
So this bad is always getting overpraised.
I always believed this bad sounded more like Cheap Trick.

Wonderful. Another bash-Nirvana thread.

You don't have to like Nirvana to respect the cultural impact they had on music. Don't like Nevermind or "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? Peachy. But anyone that claims that Cobain's finest contribution to music was the shotgun he loaded is kidding themselves. Anyone that tries to take away from Nirvana's influence because of how much Cobain whined is missing the point: whether or not you like his moaning, many people did and it changed the way they viewed music. That impact alone is why Nirvana is so well-regarded. Deal with it.

-edit to add-

And my vote goes to Nirvana. And the two shouldn't be compared.

Zep to Nirvana? Why not throw Tom Jones into the mix? It makes just as much sense. Personally, I enjoy Nirvana's music a lot more. And yes, I grew up listening to tons of Zeppelin. Every party I went to during my high school years in the eighties had gott-dam ZEPPELIN IV blaring over and over. I like Zeppelin. I have their two box sets so I have every studio recording of theirs. "Trampled Under Foot" off PHYSICAL GRAFFITI is my personal favourite Zep tune. It's just that Nirvana was a breath of fresh air on the wasteland of classic rock radio in the early nineties. Finally there was a band that didn't sound like the rest of the dreck out there. The old DIY punk rock mentality came back and every young band out there, rocking out in their garages, had a chance to do something original again.

Now lets be fair and compare Zeppelin to a contemporary of theirs: Black Sabbath... Sabbath kicks Zep's ass all the way home.

That's just my opinion, which happens to be the right one. Ha!
rotfl

The two cannot be compared because it was 2 totally different times in Music and how music was done, in both the media and the studio.

For being a creation of MTV, Nirvana did have some damn fine music. Cobain and crew wrote some of the best 90's music out there.

But they cannot compare to Zep for a whole host of reasons, and still that doesn't make them worse. Zep crafted songs that are just miles beyond what it took to make a Nirvana song, yet the Nirvana songs still drip with Cobains emotion and confused state of mind, almost as much as Zep's drip with pain, love, and mythology.

Heart Shaped Box is one of the best songs, both musically and lyrically, that I have ever heard. However, this song just can't compare, at least to me, with something like Since I've been Lovin you, which just oozes emotion from everywhere- from the pain in Jimmy Page's guitar, Bonzo's skins, jpj's bass, and of course, Plant's troubled voice.

I guess I'm trying to say here that Zeppelin was a much different musical juggernaut, and did it in much different ways than Nirvana. They're both good, but Zeppelin is legendary for their music over a decade and for selling full albums rather than just singles in a time when that was unheard of. Nirvana is legendary because they ushered in the voice of the youth from the dirge of aging and increasingly unentertaining hairmetal. Apples and Oranges...but who can discount the effect that Zeppelin had worldwide?

Led Zeppelin:
Classic material:
1
2
3
4 (untitled)
Houses
Physical
Also:
A fantastic guitarist
A fantastic drummer
A fantastic bassist
The greatest blues rock voice ever to grace a white boy

Nirvana:
Classic material:
Nevermind
a couple other songs.
Also:
A really good drummer

How is this a contest again?

This reminds me of people who try to compare Prince to George Clinton. Yeah...maybe if the Purple One had stayed at the level of "Sign 'o the Times" for twenty-five years he might compete. As is stands, Prince isn't worthy of wiping George's ass.

all I'm saying is if Cobain had lived he'd be a nobody right now, we'd just know him as a guy that released a couple of good albums.

society always has a thing for dead rock stars, especially rolling Stone.........this one.

Can you name some early/mid-nineties rock stars that the media is still obsessed with today?

No, and thats my point.

Parcher -" Led Zeppelin vs Nirvana
Which do you like best?"

Zeppelin hands down. This is no contest at all.

JestersTear - "What really angers me is these know-nothing kids that think Cobain is a master lyricist just because he whined all the time about how crappy his life was. I mean, some of these kids will try to tell you he's as good a songwriter as John Lennon, and they actually BELIEVE it!"

That upsets me a little also. It is funny, just how little most young people really know about music and it's history. You can blame it on MTV. Kids today are to lazy to go any farther than thier corperate radio or TV channel to learn anything real about music. To most, if it came out before Nirvana, it can't be any good. They have been brainwashed into corperate stupidity, and the music they listen to is getting worse, and takeing less talent to produce. Such a shame.

Hollowgen - "nirvana is legend as well"

They are not as big a legend, in the musical scheme of things, that thier fans, and the media try to portray them to be. There will come a time, when nirvana are forgotten by most, and Led Zeppelin will still remain.

"let's compare Led Zeppelin & The Who
and Nirvana & Alice In Chains"

Better comparisons. A hard choice, but I'll take Zep. The other choice is easy. Alice In Chains blows Nirvana away. No contest once again.

Peat - "If Nirvana had another three great albums..."

That would have been asking a lot, from a band like them. You can only do so much with three chords. O.K., low blow, I know, I know. Just had to do it, so don't get bent out of shape Nirvana fans.

cactusoly - "I'm sick and tired of hearing how Godlike Kurt Cobain was. He was a junkie, nothing more."

I'm with you on this one, but it is a bit harsh. He did have a little talent, but nowhere near what his fans claim. His drug problem was a shame also, and his fans should learn from it. To call him Godlike is a joke, even Kurt himself would have laughed at that statement.

demonio - "if Kurt would have lived nobody would give 2 shits aboot him now."

As mean as this statement comes across, it is true(maybe could have been said nicer). Nirvana wouldn't have lasted much longer, thier last album was patheticly terrible, and I can bet thier next one, would have been the last, but we'll never know now. Even if Kurt hadn't shot himself, he wasn't cut out for this "Rock Star" image people put on him, and would have caved in, and quit. It seems he choose to quit early, but not in a good way. I hate to say it, but it was selfish and weak of him to take his own life. I feel for his family and friends.

LurkerDan - "I think the argument could be made that they had at least as much influence on music and popular culture as Zeppelin"

Your kidding right? The words "as much" needs to be removed from that statement. Just think for a minute, what has Nirvana influenced in music and popular culture? Thier influence on cultare is justified, but the culture they ifluenced the most lasted all of a year or two, and thier long term cultural impact will have very little effect, when it is all said and done. They are, and will be the influence of a lot of younger bands comeing along, but let's look at what it has created. Hmmmmmmm. mostly PURE CRAP. Sadly Zep is credited as some of these bands influence also. Nirvana will never even come close to haveing the influence on music that Zep has in the past, present, and futare. Zep was pretty darn original, when what Nirvana was doing, had been done before a million times, just not on a large commercial level.


wm lopez - "I read Rollin Stones Top Guitarest of All-Time they had
Kurt Cobain up there on the list.
And VH-1 had Nirvana's album real high on top albums of all-time
list."

Yes, and they both prove time and time again, that niether one of the people who run them know didly about music. I 've been playing guitar for 23 years, and found the RS top guitarist B.S. very offensive. I could swear that they mixed it up with the 100 greatest skin flute players of all time, but I could be mistaken, maybe RS is just that pathetic. VH1!! Don't even get me started on thier lists, and shows full of false facts. I've never heard so many lies, and BS about music and such, than I have heard on VH1. Do not EVER beleave anything you hear on VH1, untill you confirm it from a real source. I've busted them several times, trying to remold music history, just so they can help the music industries modern agenda.

fallow - "You don't have to like Nirvana to respect the cultural impact they had on music"

Hey Fallow, hows it going? (Now back to the quote)
That's just it. The cultural impact they had on music, is not a good one. Since they hit it big, music has gone south in a big way. I rank Nirvana's impact on the culture of music, and what it spawned, #2 on my chart, "the Day Music Truely Died". #1 being a tie between Aerowsmith letting Run DMC cover "Walk this Way", and the creation of MTV. O.K. I guess that would make it #3 on the list. like I said before, most of the bands Nirvana influenced are terrible IMO(and most others as well in my age group). They wrecked music culture, and what is funny is that people weren't as sick of things, as VH1, and MTV make them out to be. Back then we had more freedom of choice in radio, and music in general, it wasn't all Hair Bands, like they(the media 7n some people) claim. It wasn't peach's and cream either. The media have done all they can to make the 80's look bad, and what is funny, is the 80's were far superior music wise, than the 90's were, as well as today. All Nirvana helped spawn(along with rap/pop hip hop), was the corporate funneling down(downsizeing) of music. Something I think Kurt would not be proud of today, at all. They helped the media close more minds than open them. This could have been a small part of Kurts depression. His band(and now legend) became everything he was against.

"And my vote goes to Nirvana. And the two shouldn't be compared"

You are right, but thanks to LurkerDan's satement I quoted above in this post. Just knowing someone beleaves that, now gives us every reason to compare the two.


I don't mean to make all you Nirvana fans mad at me, but I find the Nirvana legend, just as much a joke, as compareing them to Led Zeppelin. It is cruel to say, if it wasn't for Kurts death, they would be just another here today and gone tomorrow band, that started a small movement (that became huge in a similar way that the Valley Girl craze or Madona look alike craze did in the early 80's, then poof! died) back in the early 90's, but this statement is true, sad to say. I can bet, if he never killed himself, this thread would have never been started.

Can you name some wonderful and contemporary bands that Zeppelin has influenced? The Darkness? The Music? Those bands are jokes - the masturbatory rock-star/arena-rocker image that LZ perpetuated is, well, hard to swallow these days. Does that diminish their importance to you? Probably not. My point is that influential popularity moves in circles: people will crank the reverb and jesus-hair back up soon enough, we'll get some more gritty mopers too.

Right now, in the weird-world of independent music at least, we seem to be in a huge 80s throw-back - what with the rise in popularity of clubs' 80s nights, VH-1's I Love the 80s (now getting a Strikes Back! edition), and the success of dance/synth happy bands. (How you came to the conclusion that everyone still mocks the 80s is beyond me?)

Nirvana came at a time when it was needed - if they hadn't, they wouldn't have blown up. All the publicity in the world can't build a band to Nirvana's status unless it was wanted by the public. Do you honestly think that people only listened to Nirvana because they read that they were supposed to? Please tell me what the "music industries modern agenda" is while you are at it.

So, for you Nirvana-naysayers (which is fine, I could case less whether you love-em or hate-em), if Nirvana had no, or a bad*, effect on music, then define "grunge" before Nirvana. If Cobain and co. have no cultural importance, who made the mid-90s grunge sound happen? I'm not asking for yr taste, I'm asking for the astute musical-knowledge you claim no one outside of the Zeppelin aisle has.

How in the hell has rap and hip-hop brought about the "corporate funneling down of music" (which, by the way, sounds like you are saying that labels are more selective and, thus, the bands better??)? This is a statement with no validity or research: the path of MTV cannot be traced to Nirvana and/or hip-hop. That's simply inflammatory and incorrect.

And music is poor right now? Perhaps if you only listen to those same sources you claim to detest (MTV, VH-1, Clear Channel). Music is ridiculously good right now.

*Let me note that it's a little weird that you keep switching between "they had no important impact" to "they had a bad impact." How good or bad the bands that came after them are is irrelevant. They had an impact and it's undeniable.

Agreed!

oh yeah... i forgot to mention that even though i find this to be a strange comparison, i definitely take Led Zeppelin. they are my all time favorite band, hands down. i just really don't follow the rampant dislike of nirvana on this forum.

Fallow

I will answer your questions when I get home from work. I can answer everything you asked very easily.

That's what I find humorous too. I said that Nirvana arguably had more impact on music and popular culture than Zep. A number of people here got all upset by that, but respond by saying all of Nirvana's impact was bad. Of course, Bust just laughed.

Well, my statement was value-neutral. Arguably, Nirvana did have more impact. You can decry that impact and call it bad, but to hide your head in the sand and act like it didn't happen is silly.

And, FWIW, I lived in Seattle at the time Nirvana, Pearl Jam, et al hit it big. Before the machine got a hold of them, Nirvana was STILL a more popular band in Seattle than PJ or AIC. I'm not saying they were better musically, but there is something VERY visceral about their music that captivated Seattle before it captivated the country.

That visceral quality is what people loved. If it didn't or doesn't affect you, you are going to think they are crap and way overrated. But if you feel it, as some in this thread do, you know what I mean...

And Zep kicks ass. No need to feel threatened.

Raider said:
"thier last album was patheticly terrible"

Ummm, I hope you're not refering to In Utero...most people will agree that those songs are FAR stronger than the tunes on Nevermind. It's not even a contest.

I completely agree, LurkerDan. There is a load of energy crunching around in Nirvana. It isn't the technicality that people should pay attention to when evaluating them (though, if that is yr deal, I can see why you would hate them); it's about the grit and ****-all aesthetic. That they can pull it off w/o pretense is what I love the most.

god, this had flame war written all over it's title. why would you compare zeppelin to nirvana? I love zeppelin and i enjoy nirvana. but considering nirvana's untimely demise I think you can say that they are not evenlly matched to be compared to one another.

I'm working on a paper for one of my Lit courses and I came across an interesting passage that I think applies to our argument. This is from the introduction to Janice A. Radway's A Feeling for Books

If you were to replace the 'high culture' with Led Zeppelin and 'middlebrow' with Nirvana, I think it supports my argument that an art form's (whether it be literature, music, or fine art) success is dependent on the public's need for it at that time.

I like both. If you want to argue that Cobain is overrated, I can also argue that Page is overrated. Wow, he can play barre chords and play fast solos! In all honesty, on a technical level, the man receives far too much praise for his guitar playing.

fallow - "the masturbatory rock-star/arena-rocker image that LZ perpetuated is, well, hard to swallow these days."

Not to be off topic, but why is this? Your in college, it seems, and that would put you in a good age group to ask such a question. Why is it, that these days, kids do not like the over the top masturbatory rock- star/arena-rocker image? I tend to think it is the way they have been marketed to , considering most young people today, never knew a world without cable TV, let alone MTV, and such. I'm sorrey if I did missjudge your age in any way, I'm just asumeing, your being in college, that you are somewhere between 19 and 24 years old.

Those bands are jokes - Does that diminish their importance to you?

You make a good point here, and thier are a lot more bands that really suck that Zeppelin influenced, but over the last 30 years Led Zeppelin have influenced so many great bands, that it outways the bad. That is my opinion though. Just as it is only my opinion, that all of the modern bands influenced by Nirvana suck. It's not fact, just my opinion. I'm sure I could find a band influenced by Nirvana I would like, someday, but so far no dice.

"Right now, in the weird-world of independent music at least, we seem to be in a huge 80s throw-back"

Any suggestions of bands, that you think I might remotely like. I'm allways willing to give a listen. I like most everything that is not commercial Hip hop or Pop/top 40. Mainly Hard Rock/Metal are my favs though.

"VH-1's I Love the 80s (now getting a Strikes Back! edition), and the success of dance/synth happy bands."

Although I find "I love the 80's" entertaining to watch, they leave a lot out, and some of the "so called' exsperts do tend to mock a lot of the material in a way that rubs me wrong. The dumb-ass with the thick black glass's should be canned from the show, he spends most of the time mocking things, and pokeing fun at stuff, yet I allways wonder, who the Hell is he anyway?

I can't think of to many 80's sounding synth bands in pop/rock music right now, can you name a few for me. I don't listen to much radio anymore, but have heard a few, that maybe are the ones your talking about. I just can't think of the songs name's. not that I would like them anyway(more into harder stuff etc..), just courious.

"How you came to the conclusion that everyone still mocks the 80s is beyond me?'

Well, seeing how you are a bit younger, I assume, you probably don't notice it, as much as I do. I do work with, and around a lot of people at college age, and they mostly think the 80's were one big joke. Almost all of them. The overall image of the 80's, that I have noticed, in young people, is that it was to flashy , and sold to them as a big joke by the media, when they were growing up . The music media for a long time used to joke on 80's bands of all different popular genre's, makeing people beleave that it was loaded with a bunch of no-talent morons, who dressed funney. The problem is they focused on only mainstream bands of the time, so the kids, then, just asumed that everything from the 80's is junk. A good test I used, was to say to a young kid with a little musical scence, "do you like Iron Maiden or Judas Priest etc..?" The answer would be either who? They are old farts etc.., or those guys are Hair-Metal. The latter would piss me off, because most young kids don't take the time to realize Hair-Metal, and real Metal are two different kinds of music in the same genre(just as Grunge is hard rock/metal also, and in the same gere,yet the fans seem not want to beleave thier beloved grunge is really only hard-rock/metal music with a different name) , yet they still would go "Metallica rulez though dude!!", not even realizeing, that Metallica are damn near just as old, and just about as close to hair metal as Iron Maiden or Judas Priest are.

Then I would ask them, what about Pink Floyd, The Doors, or Bob Marley? I would get either, who?, or oh hell yea I love Marley and Floyd man, thier fresh dude(in thier best fake urban accent). Then it makes me laugh, because most of these kids who say they like Marley or Floyd etc.., are the same ones who say Priest, and Iron Maiden etc.. are old. The media influenced them this way, weather you want to accept it or not. The music media spent most of the 90's trying to deny the 80's, and this made an impact on kids who were born in the early to mid 80's(If you can't see it, then you are one of those kids). The funny thing is, that the 90's music scene(and up untill today) sucked ass compaired to the 80's. I'm not just talking about the bands, I'm talking everything from the concert industry on downthe line. Kids just aren't getting as much bang for thier buck, as we did. Sad to say.

" Nirvana came at a time when it was needed! - if they hadn't, they wouldn't have blown up.'(is this a quote from MTV or VH1?)

Really!! How old were you when this happened, and who was it needed by? The bands I liked weren't played on the radio anyway, and Hair-Metal was on it's way out soon,even if Nirvana never even came along. Why would I, and the vast throngs of rockers who didn't need the media to decide what was cool for us. Need any change, and why couldn't the sheep just turn off thier MTV, and top 40 stations? Nobody needed Nirvana to make them turn it off, they just needed to free themsleves from the grips of the comercial music media, but were to weak to do so, Just as the kids of today are. It's arrogant to think Nirvana were NEEDED! I ,and thousands of others didn't NEED them.
Yes! Nirvana helped spawn the short lived Grunge-Metal era, but if they never came along, change would have happened anyway. MTV would have made it so. We now give Nirvana credit for killing off Hair-Metal, but I think the HM bands did enough to kill themselves off, before Nirvana came along. It was just a matter of time.

If MTV played a test pattern it would blow up and become a hit. Even back then it would. Nirvana was just in the right place, at the right time. (example)If they(MTV) latched onto Slayer(crazy thought huh?), they would have been the Nirvana of that time, and instead of the grunge era, it would have been the Death Metal era, and we would probably be sitting here argueing over how Slayer sold out insted.


" All the publicity in the world can't build a band to Nirvana's status unless it was wanted by the public.'

That is not true, but also true, if that makes scence. Most of the music buying public, even then, are sheep, who will latch onto anything, if it is forced on them long enough. How do you think advertising retail products work? All MTV was(before it became, teenie bobper T.V.) was a big billboard for bands. Videos are nothing more than promos(advertisements) for an album that the record lable wants you to buy, nothing more, nothing less. The record company who pays out the most, gets thier product pushed harder.

The true part is, that there is always a wanting public for anything, so yes Nirvana would have found a nich group of fans without MTV, just as my favorate band Iron Maiden did. Without MTV, and Kurts suicide , Nirvana would have never garnered legindary status. Thst's what the whole stink about Nirvana is.

" If Cobain and co. have no cultural importance, who made the mid-90s grunge sound happen?"

Can you tell me what cultural importance thay have now, and to whome? I never said they didn't have cultural importance for thier fans back when thay came out(every damn band does), but damn! People were pissed off and wearing flannel over a rock band shirt long before Nirvana came around, and thier grunge following sheep. Shit, half my school had the "grunge" look in the early 80's. The only difference was the T-Shirts had better bands on them.
The thing is, MTV wasn't around to make it a fad, like the so called grunge look was made into. The only difference was that in the 90's, the media loved it, in the 80's they were "grits". or "Hellions" or "pot heads" etc... Grunge was a fad, and a fad fads fade away.

Who made Grunge happen? Well first the original fans, then the hype of the media, then all the second wave fans(as I call them), then the hype of the mass media(MTV etc..), then the mass volume of sheep who ate up anything MTV would rut in front of thier face.

"I'm not asking for yr taste, I'm asking for the astute musical-knowledge you claim no one outside of the Zeppelin aisle has."

Where did I claim that? This is what I said

"It is funny, just how little most young people really know about music and it's history."

This is the truth, as pertained to most of todays kids, and notice the word "most" being used here, as well in my REAL statement.

"How in the hell has rap and hip-hop brought about the "corporate funneling down of music"

Do I need to exspalian this to you in this thread? Are you a Hip Hop fan or somethin'? It's getting late, so I'm going to bed soon. I'll return to answer more, but here's a word from our program director

Disclaimer - This was written while highy intoxicated, as was my other post. i have been overworking myself, and had a few bad things happen in the past week(one being the reason, I didn't reply yesterday. My pet Prairie Dog passed away, the other being a good friend murdered) so I am soorrey if things just don't make much sence or are just plain silly at times. I'll be back tommorow maybe to reply with the rest, which is much, much more than this. sorrey for the Novel.