created by: Bubba | Dec 18, 2012

The Beatles

183 votes

The Beatles VS. Nirvana

Click on an option to vote

  • The Beatles
  • Nirvana
Comments
1 - 20 of 25 Comments Last updated Feb 1, 2014
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
chris

United States

#1 Dec 19, 2012
Why would anyone want to start such a post? Their is no comparrison. The Beatles accomplished more than Nirvana ever will. Nirvana were around for about 4 years, recorded a few albums, then the lead singer killed himself. Why do people think these guys were so great? They were good, but far from great.
Bubba

Everett, WA

#2 Dec 19, 2012
chris wrote:
Why would anyone want to start such a post? Their is no comparrison. The Beatles accomplished more than Nirvana ever will. Nirvana were around for about 4 years, recorded a few albums, then the lead singer killed himself. Why do people think these guys were so great? They were good, but far from great.
Some ignoramus always has to compare the Beatles to a lesser known band. We all know Nirvana doesn't even come close and not everyone likes The alternative crap they put out .Grunge died very quickly thank God because it sucked mostly. Kurt was a loser and so is his sleazy no talent wife.
Greg

Athens, Greece

#3 Dec 19, 2012
Well Bubba, to tell you the truth I liked grunge. Of course, there is no way comparing Nirvana to the Beatles or Stones, whatever. Cobain to me was a sensitive, depressive young man whose complex character unfortunately led to suicide. But, he was talented. I was in my early twenties when grunge became a hype, it was like Rock and Roll being reborn. Some stuff of it was depressive and angry, very angry. I didn't like that part. In general, I remember quite a few songs that bring back memories and I do own some CDs. I had never been a long haired guy with a short, I always listened to music. However, I didn't have anything with those who followed that style nor I found their attitude annoying. Just different.
Bubba

Renton, WA

#4 Dec 19, 2012
Greg wrote:
Well Bubba, to tell you the truth I liked grunge. Of course, there is no way comparing Nirvana to the Beatles or Stones, whatever. Cobain to me was a sensitive, depressive young man whose complex character unfortunately led to suicide. But, he was talented. I was in my early twenties when grunge became a hype, it was like Rock and Roll being reborn. Some stuff of it was depressive and angry, very angry. I didn't like that part. In general, I remember quite a few songs that bring back memories and I do own some CDs. I had never been a long haired guy with a short, I always listened to music. However, I didn't have anything with those who followed that style nor I found their attitude annoying. Just different.
The best thing I saw them do was Nirvana unplugged. They did grosseyed Mary. But Smells like Teen Spirit I never have liked the angry depressing sounding music.
Allan

Houston, TX

#5 Dec 19, 2012
I bought Nevermind when it first came out and liked it quite a bit.
As Bubba said, the Nirvana Unplugged was a great show, think it was right after their third album which has my favorite Nirvana song, All Apologies.
Grunge was like a revised/reborn Punk genre, and like Punk it had a very short lifespan.
Most of the Grunge groups went through rough times, Alice in Chains,Mother Love Bone,Blind Melon etc....
Courtney Love is very upset about the McCartney and Nirvana pairing, but then Love is full of hate isn't she ?
Bubba

Renton, WA

#6 Dec 19, 2012
Allan wrote:
I bought Nevermind when it first came out and liked it quite a bit.
As Bubba said, the Nirvana Unplugged was a great show, think it was right after their third album which has my favorite Nirvana song, All Apologies.
Grunge was like a revised/reborn Punk genre, and like Punk it had a very short lifespan.
Most of the Grunge groups went through rough times, Alice in Chains,Mother Love Bone,Blind Melon etc....
Courtney Love is very upset about the McCartney and Nirvana pairing, but then Love is full of hate isn't she ?
Courtney Love is a sleaze bag. She was jealous of Kurt doing better than her. I thought it was cool that Paul played with them. I didn't like the song but it did have a lot of energy behind it.Courtney is a has been or more like a never was. She toured with freak boy Marylyn Manson but they couldn't get along with him.
gonond

Pittsburgh, PA

#7 Dec 19, 2012
Greg

Athens, Greece

#8 Dec 20, 2012
I don't understand why some people consider more Rock John than Paul. Or more underground let's say. They were more or less similar over their musical preferences and song composition. Melody and harmony lovers and in love with early Rock and Roll. And both of them contributed a lot into the development of Rock sound.
Chester Bursipes

Renton, WA

#9 Dec 20, 2012
I like Noxema better than Nirvana. Nirvana doesn't do anything for my Zits damn it.
Merle Wilker

Renton, WA

#10 Dec 20, 2012
gonond wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=E8qGa3bbgW g neither
Dumb De Dumb Dumb it cost nothing at all.
Sean Christian

Middletown, PA

#11 Aug 25, 2013
I really do appreciate the Beatles and all that they contributed to music, however I still feel that Nirvana was just as revolutionary if not more. This is because they came on the scene at just the right time and pushed the hairbands out of the mainstream! To put it bluntly, I like Nirvana more. Even Kurt was a huge Beatles fan and I agree that they really were a great band, but yet there was a time and place for them and that was then and this is now. When it comes to Nirvana, I believe that if Kurt was not taken out by that psycho bitch Courtney, then they would have definitely contributed much, much, more greatness. You cannot compare a band like the Beatles to Nivana only because they are both so different in many ways (music genre, etc.). I do believe that both the remaining members of the Beatles and Nirvana respect one another and like each others music, so that shows that we as fans are the ones who are not content with how things are today, and not them. Anyhow, I still think that Nirvana had a huge influence on most rock bands of today. When it comes to the Beatles, they are of course more respected than Nirvana due to their insane success and fame as well as their music type. But I do think that a good comparison would be John and Kurt, because they had a lot in common if you ask me. Times will always change and its kind of like the way water flows, because if you throw something in it there will be a ripple. Anyway, I like both bands and if I could bring one back today it would be Nirvana, because the Beatles had their chance to show us their best but yet Nirvana was taken from us right when we needed them most. As a result, now Hip-Hop controls the mainstream and good music these days is pretty much dead.
No Myth

Houston, TX

#12 Aug 26, 2013
You simply can't compare. Whether it's the Beatles with Paul or Faul, it doesn't matter. The Beatles were light years ahead of not only Nirvana but also their own contemporaries, including the Stones. Nothing in terms of rock bands compares to the Beatles. They remain the greatest of all time.
There

Assèmini, Italy

#15 Jan 6, 2014
Nirvana, The Beatles are the most overrated crap ever. Everytime I hear a song by them I get so irritated, damn.
Chris

Ypsilanti, MI

#16 Jan 6, 2014
No Myth wrote:
You simply can't compare. Whether it's the Beatles with Paul or Faul, it doesn't matter. The Beatles were light years ahead of not only Nirvana but also their own contemporaries, including the Stones. Nothing in terms of rock bands compares to the Beatles. They remain the greatest of all time.
That's right, noone has topped the Beatles yet. It's been 43 years since they broke up, & they're still very popular. The Beatles are the greatest band ever, let all the pretenders fall by the wayside.
Chris

Ypsilanti, MI

#17 Jan 6, 2014
There wrote:
Nirvana, The Beatles are the most overrated crap ever. Everytime I hear a song by them I get so irritated, damn.
If you get irritated when you hear great music, then their may be something wrong with you.
There

Assèmini, Italy

#19 Jan 7, 2014
If you think Beatles are the best band ever you don't know very much about music.
Chris

Williamston, MI

#21 Jan 8, 2014
There wrote:
If you think Beatles are the best band ever you don't know very much about music.
Since I've discovered the Beatles, I've always thought they were the best because they're my favorite. But, I'm not the only one who thinks that. Besides, the best is also very successful at what they do. And, guess what, the Beatles are the most successful band ever, with over a billion in sales, & more #1 hits than anyone else. Greatness always equates to success.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#23 Jan 8, 2014
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Since I've discovered the Beatles, I've always thought they were the best because they're my favorite. But, I'm not the only one who thinks that. Besides, the best is also very successful at what they do. And, guess what, the Beatles are the most successful band ever, with over a billion in sales, & more #1 hits than anyone else. Greatness always equates to success.
And that is because some are jealous because anyone can criticize an artist or a band. They have their favorites as well. However, in terms of the recording industry when people were actually buying records, we know who the legends are. In reality though, it doesn't matter how much it sold or if an album or song hit number one. The artist did it because they wanted to create. Because The Beatles and Elvis have such a legendary standing within the history of rock n roll music that saw a shift in popular culture, they still stand out. Of course, there are many other great bands and artists that became legends but The Beatles and Elvis remain timeless because of their fans. They did not exist in order to please everybody. If everyone liked the same music, it would be boring. Take it with a grain of salt and realize that it wouldn't matter if these legends remain popular today or not. It surprises me that they both do very well but if you come right down to it, they have nothing else to prove. They have already proven their worth over and over and over again. Not many can say that, Chris. I would be an Elvis fan regardless if he was still popular or not. The same applies to The Beatles. If some do not get the joy from it that we do, it really doesn't matter. What I think is what upsets them is that they assume that we care about who is selling the most. To me, I never expected Elvis to keep getting gold and platinum releases thirty seven years after his death. It is nice but it doesn't mean that I shove Elvis down people's throats. I enjoy the music.
Chris

Northville, MI

#24 Jan 9, 2014
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is because some are jealous because anyone can criticize an artist or a band. They have their favorites as well. However, in terms of the recording industry when people were actually buying records, we know who the legends are. In reality though, it doesn't matter how much it sold or if an album or song hit number one. The artist did it because they wanted to create. Because The Beatles and Elvis have such a legendary standing within the history of rock n roll music that saw a shift in popular culture, they still stand out. Of course, there are many other great bands and artists that became legends but The Beatles and Elvis remain timeless because of their fans. They did not exist in order to please everybody. If everyone liked the same music, it would be boring. Take it with a grain of salt and realize that it wouldn't matter if these legends remain popular today or not. It surprises me that they both do very well but if you come right down to it, they have nothing else to prove. They have already proven their worth over and over and over again. Not many can say that, Chris. I would be an Elvis fan regardless if he was still popular or not. The same applies to The Beatles. If some do not get the joy from it that we do, it really doesn't matter. What I think is what upsets them is that they assume that we care about who is selling the most. To me, I never expected Elvis to keep getting gold and platinum releases thirty seven years after his death. It is nice but it doesn't mean that I shove Elvis down people's throats. I enjoy the music.
I know what you mean about record sales, awards etc. They really don't matter, it's the music that matters. And you're right, Elvis & the Beatles have nothing else to prove. But, sometimes I feel the need to bring up sales & awards, because it helps to solidify, Elvis & the Beatles legendary status, to people who may not have all the facts. When people want to say that Elvis was just a cover artist, or the Beatles are just a boy band, I think their sales & awards help to prove otherwise.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#25 Jan 9, 2014
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>I know what you mean about record sales, awards etc. They really don't matter, it's the music that matters. And you're right, Elvis & the Beatles have nothing else to prove. But, sometimes I feel the need to bring up sales & awards, because it helps to solidify, Elvis & the Beatles legendary status, to people who may not have all the facts. When people want to say that Elvis was just a cover artist, or the Beatles are just a boy band, I think their sales & awards help to prove otherwise.
Someone that grows up thinking Hip Hop, manufactured dance pop and boy bands are not going to care about what Elvis and The Beatles did. We do because we listened to rock n roll music in the eighties. It was basically the same concept of instruments being played by musicians live and in the studio. I really couldn't tell you why they would think Elvis just did covers because he did original material that was sent to him to consider also. Besides, many artists did covers. It was popular to want to hear another version of a favorite song. The Beatles being called a boy band is new. I do not know why some would say that. They were young when they started out and rapidly improved by 1965-1966. They were a rock band. Anyway, the recording industry today is all about overblown hype. No so called artist is selling like the acts of thirty or forty years ago. Elvis and The Beatles will always be unbeatable. I wouldn't worry what others might say because it is only their opinion. I am just glad that it is still here to enjoy. I never listen to what someone else might say or think because I think the music today is garbage.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Beatles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do people hate Asparagus ? (Jan '10) 7 hr Nave Spelled Back... 20
The Walrus Was Wrong; Paul is Alive and Well Tue Kid_Tomorrow 2
150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) Aug 25 Octopus 12,754
The year after the Beatles met E Aug 22 ElvisGirl1970 173
Beatles Las Vegas Aug 20, 1964 (Jan '06) Aug 20 Greg 32
Women of the Beatles Aug 19 Greg 1
11 Things You Probably Didn't Know About The Be... Aug 5 Greg 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

The Beatles People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••