The Beatles VS. Nirvana

The Beatles VS. Nirvana

Created by Bubba on Dec 18, 2012

301 votes

Click on an option to vote

The Beatles

Nirvana

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Octopus

Albany, NY

#26 Jan 9, 2014
*someone that grows up thinking that manufactured Hip Hop, dance pop, boy bands and bimbos lip syncing under flashing lights is good, is not going to like guitar based rock n roll.

(it is sad but true)

But whatever...

Obviously, things change.
Chris

Marshall, MI

#27 Jan 10, 2014
Octopus wrote:
*someone that grows up thinking that manufactured Hip Hop, dance pop, boy bands and bimbos lip syncing under flashing lights is good, is not going to like guitar based rock n roll.
(it is sad but true)
But whatever...
Obviously, things change.
Their are some of the younger generations who know better, & they like the classic rock we listen to. So all is not lost on these youngsters, some of them know what good music is. I live in a college town, & I see a lot of them wearing classic rock shirts. The ones I see the most are Beatles, Zeppelin & Hendrix. I think some of them realize that most of today's music is garbage, so they turn to the classics. About the Beatles being called a boy band, that's the latest ignorant thing being said about them. Some people on these forums have compared them to Backstreet Boys, 1Direction & even Menudo. So I'm sure you can understand why I would feel the need to set the record straight.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#28 Jan 10, 2014
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Their are some of the younger generations who know better, & they like the classic rock we listen to. So all is not lost on these youngsters, some of them know what good music is. I live in a college town, & I see a lot of them wearing classic rock shirts. The ones I see the most are Beatles, Zeppelin & Hendrix. I think some of them realize that most of today's music is garbage, so they turn to the classics. About the Beatles being called a boy band, that's the latest ignorant thing being said about them. Some people on these forums have compared them to Backstreet Boys, 1Direction & even Menudo. So I'm sure you can understand why I would feel the need to set the record straight.
I know that my wife's nephew's listen to a little of everything but The Beatles, Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix is not their generation. It is more that they are curious. Wearing rock t shirts is more likely a fashion statement as oposed to when we were kids. They have their own likes and dislikes but they aren't exactly fans of classic rock. In fact in recent years, a lot of classic rock stations have changed their formats in my area. It caters to more modern pop and rock from the 90's and up. I was a bit surprised because it has been years since I've even heard later period Beatles on the FM radio. Like Elvis, The Beatles are either being played on soft rock or oldies stations. You hear "Suspicious Minds" "Let It Be" "In The Ghetto" "Get Back" "Kentucky Rain" "Something" but rarely anything older. At least, they can be still played along side other more mellow classics. Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Black Sabbath do not even get that. Things change but to me, it is not a big deal. It doesn't exactly mean anything. It just means that radio wants to appeal to a more broad, up to date format because they think it is what people want to hear.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#29 Jan 25, 2014
You know that because Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney are rumored to be performing at the Grammy awards sunday night, that McCartney will probably win one for his horrible song done last year with ex members of Nirvana and the publicity given to his latest solo album that was released around the same time as The Beatles BBC sets. Of course, the Grammy awards have become somewhat of a means to get hype and promotion for an artist to generate extra sales since some people apparently need to be told what is good and what is not. I myself, do not buy music that way because if I do not hear a good performance, I am still not interested. I've noticed that a few older artists are up for nominations this year including Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and David Bowie. Out of the three chosen to get awards, David Bowie would be my pick because his "The Stars Are Out Tonight" is at least a brand new song and performance that actually still sounds like Bowie. Creepy video though. Black Sabbath's "13" was all new material but the sound quality is really bad. Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" performance is from London 02 arena in 2007. Good enough clip and Jason Bonham was impressive but Robert Plant's voice was weak. Nothing new.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#31 Feb 1, 2014
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Their are some of the younger generations who know better, & they like the classic rock we listen to. So all is not lost on these youngsters, some of them know what good music is. I live in a college town, & I see a lot of them wearing classic rock shirts. The ones I see the most are Beatles, Zeppelin & Hendrix. I think some of them realize that most of today's music is garbage, so they turn to the classics. About the Beatles being called a boy band, that's the latest ignorant thing being said about them. Some people on these forums have compared them to Backstreet Boys, 1Direction & even Menudo. So I'm sure you can understand why I would feel the need to set the record straight.
I think most kids really listen to whatever is popular with them at the current moment and their taste in music changes as they grow older. I can see that in my nieces or my wife's nephews but I think they definitely are not rock n roll collectors or do they buy music like we did in the eighties. It is a throw away generation. They listen to music that they download on their i pods then delete the songs they no longer like. It is not the album or the cd as the whole that they are buying rather the songs from different artists. Of course they aren't going to exactly like what I do. My nieces certainly do not like the sound of the electric guitar and cover their ears. They dismiss someone like Jimi Hendrix because they will never understand its pleasures. That is sad but it is just their generation. They are growing up on watching American Idol, The X Factor or Glee. The music is manufactured so it remains to be seen if they are ever going to like great music as something other than what they are currently being forced fed by what is around today in terms of music. History does not seem to be what they are interested in.
ASHISHBHATT

Surendranagar, India

#32 Dec 22, 2015
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.
Nirvana was around for only 4 years and yet people are comparing it to the beatles.The beatles were arround for decades and many albums to get the reputation they had, but Nirvan did it with only 3 albums. Imagin if they were for longer period.
p.s. kurt kobain had bipolar disorder and struggled personal life

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
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
For your eyes only (Feb '15) May 28 Little monster 42
The Beatles Are Overrated (Jul '09) May '16 Greg 1,079
News Michael Jackson: Your number one music icon (Aug '10) May '16 Spotted Wee 137
News Rihanna Ties Michael Jackson On The List Of Car... May '16 Burning Love 2
News You can't always get what you want, but maybe a... Apr '16 Amused Octopus 1
News Beatles Albums, Ranked Worst to Best (Jun '15) Apr '16 JJJ 2
News Paul McCartney's concert 'the heaviest show on ... Apr '16 King Prince 4
More from around the web