Author Topic: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?  (Read 3681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rman

  • Senior Member
Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« on: October 26, 2019, 03:27:45 PM »
The Beatles are way more influential, sure.  But I'd rather spin up some Nirvana albums than anything Beatles. 

#hottake

Don Rumata

  • Hard To Be A John
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2019, 03:35:40 PM »
At suicide by girlfriend? Sure.

EchoRin

  • Hey, it's that dog.
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2019, 03:39:23 PM »
Nirvana is my favorite band, but I don't know man.
Kurt was heavily influenced by The Beatles.

Real talk though. Go check out those 50 anniversary editions of White Album and Abbey Road on Spotify.

jorma

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2019, 03:42:28 PM »
A dream you dream alone is only a dream

Raist

  • Winner of the Baited Award 2018
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2019, 03:44:26 PM »
Haha good one.

Rman

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2019, 03:57:42 PM »
Nirvana is my favorite band, but I don't know man.
Kurt was heavily influenced by The Beatles.

Real talk though. Go check out those 50 anniversary editions of White Album and Abbey Road on Spotify.
I have. I wouldn't post my take without being informed!

I'm a bigger Revolver album fan than those two you mentioned.

EchoRin

  • Hey, it's that dog.
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2019, 04:01:54 PM »
Nirvana is my favorite band, but I don't know man.
Kurt was heavily influenced by The Beatles.

Real talk though. Go check out those 50 anniversary editions of White Album and Abbey Road on Spotify.
I have. I wouldn't post my take without being informed!

I'm a bigger Revolver album fan than those two you mentioned.
Revolver is my favorite Beatles record too  :)

CatsCatsCats

  • 🤷‍♀️
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2019, 04:10:13 PM »
No

headwalk

  • brutal deluxe
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2019, 04:21:10 PM »
neither made an album as good as ten though.

TEEEPO

  • hi, i suck
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2019, 04:45:37 PM »
fuck the beatles

Trent Dole

  • the sharpest tool in the shed
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2019, 06:11:11 PM »
Nirvana only had three proper studio albums and a b-side collection during their actual existence. The Beatles did a bit more than that. It's not really a fair comparison to try to make. I was more of an AiC dude back in the day. 8)
Hi

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2019, 10:32:58 PM »
Weird Al >>>>>>>>>>>> Nirvana + The Beatles

dog

Mr Gilhaney

  • Gay and suicidal
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2019, 11:04:00 PM »
Nirvana was not even the best grunge band

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2019, 11:23:00 PM »
Nirvana is not even better than Pearl Jam

Raist

  • Winner of the Baited Award 2018
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2019, 05:32:07 AM »
Nirvana is not even better than Pearl Jam

Or Foo Fighters

Mr Gilhaney

  • Gay and suicidal
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2019, 06:43:38 AM »
Foo fighters is what an AI would make, if you told it to make generic rock music.

EchoRin

  • Hey, it's that dog.
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2019, 06:55:42 AM »
I'll go to bat for the first two Foo albums. After that it's usually just a few select cuts per album. I agree that when the Foos are at their worst its very dull straightforward rock. It's never Nickelback level, but it's like if you told someone who is vaguely familiar with both bands that they are on the same concert bill, they could easily believe you.

What really annoys me is that after the early Foos records, usually they don't pass the first 15 seconds test. By which I mean their songs don't naturally grab me immediately. Some turn out good, but on an mp3 player set to shuffle its like "ehhhh, skip".

team filler

  • filler
  • filler
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2019, 06:55:45 AM »
ff is pftbot for dad rock ;)
*****

Raist

  • Winner of the Baited Award 2018
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2019, 06:56:59 AM »
Nirvana is not even better than Pearl Jam

Or Foo Fighters

Ok we're going too far with that cause Foo Fighetrs is legit, inarguable trash.


Still better than Nirvana.

headwalk

  • brutal deluxe
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2019, 07:41:16 AM »
pearl jam weren't really a grunge band, they just rode that wave and sort of morphed straight into mediocre dad rock after two and a half albums.

ten is an absolute masterpiece though and might be my favourite album ever. it sounds huge, every cut is choice, the instrumentation is the perfect mix of driving rock, grunge sensability with SRV bluesiness and the lighter more laid back proggy influences thrown in. half a dozen big radio hits on it that still sound great after the 8000th listen. the perfect rock record.

EchoRin

  • Hey, it's that dog.
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2019, 07:47:42 AM »
The anniversary/single mixes for Ten are so damn good I wish it was used originally too for the record, but whatever. The production on Vs. is *muah*.

Also, dat 1-2 punch of Go and Animal. Holy Christ. Soooo gooooood. Rearviewmirror, godlike

True edit: oh right. I absolutely love Dave Abruzzeesse's drumming. Too bad his personality did not fit with the band, but his work on the second and third record will always be there.

Side note. Pearl Jam considered Kurt Cobain as someone who kept them honest musically. Kind of an interesting little tidbit. Kurt of course didn't care for their band, even though he was down with Ed.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2019, 07:53:03 AM by EchoRin »

headwalk

  • brutal deluxe
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2019, 08:06:06 AM »
The anniversary/single mixes for Ten are so damn good I wish it was used originally too for the record, but whatever. The production on Vs. is *muah*.

Also, dat 1-2 punch of Go and Animal. Holy Christ. Soooo gooooood. Rearviewmirror, godlike

True edit: oh right. I absolutely love Dave Abruzzeesse's drumming. Too bad his personality did not fit with the band, but his work on the second and third record will always be there.

Side note. Pearl Jam considered Kurt Cobain as someone who kept them honest musically. Kind of an interesting little tidbit. Kurt of course didn't care for their band, even though he was down with Ed.

the best surfing beach was about a 45 minute drive away and for years i'd only listen to vs. on the way over and ten on the way back. the smell of sex wax still puts the first bars of "go" into my sense memory.

MMaRsu

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2019, 09:30:40 AM »
 :lol

no
What

EchoRin

  • Hey, it's that dog.
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2019, 10:03:35 AM »


That quote comes from the Pearl Jam Twenty film. Couldn't find that specific clip on youtube at this time.

And here is Kurt back in 93 (along with the rest of Nirvana including Pat Smear) with his quick quip on PJ and Eddie


agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2019, 11:44:16 AM »
pearl jam weren't really a grunge band

neither were The Beatles, but I guess comparing anything to anything is fair game.

Propagandhim

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2019, 01:35:41 PM »
Vedder is awesome.  No stupid rockstar ego like Kurt.  Consistently good records.    Philanthropist.  Big, thick cock.  Stuck his neck out for people wrongfully imprisoned.    Good guy all around.

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2019, 02:25:30 PM »
Thanks to this thread, I listened to Ten and I forgot what a great album it is.
🍆🍆

TEEEPO

  • hi, i suck
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2019, 03:27:32 PM »
though can we compare mission of burma's vs. with pearl jam's

pilonv1

  • I love you just the way I am
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2019, 10:27:48 PM »
I'll go to bat for the first two Foo albums. After that it's usually just a few select cuts per album. I agree that when the Foos are at their worst its very dull straightforward rock. It's never Nickelback level, but it's like if you told someone who is vaguely familiar with both bands that they are on the same concert bill, they could easily believe you.

What really annoys me is that after the early Foos records, usually they don't pass the first 15 seconds test. By which I mean their songs don't naturally grab me immediately. Some turn out good, but on an mp3 player set to shuffle its like "ehhhh, skip".

This very much sums up my thoughts on them. The Color and the Shape is amazing. Everything after that sounds exactly the same.
itm

Leadbelly

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2019, 12:25:32 AM »
Both are probably the most overrated bands within Rock and weren't even the best bands of their respective eras.

I like both though but ehhh. Sixties wise I'd rather spin Velvet Underground and Rolling Stones, and Grunge wise i'd rather spin the other three good grunge bands in Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains :yeshrug

Nah, they're not overrated. I will say though that I think most of their albums are not as good as the sum of their work. Like for instance, before I heard Sgt Pepper I assumed that songs like "All You Need Is Love" and "Strawberry Fields" were on there. They were from around the same period with the same psychedelic style, but of course they were used for Magical Mystery tour. That's the thing, they spread a lot of songs over various projects. And that makes the sum of their work great, but would have made certain albums better if they just stuck to that.

That said I could give you some examples of why they are not overrated.

Helter Skelter. A song seen as a huge influence on Heavy Metal. Some might say the first heavy metal song. You can hear it when you think about it in those terms.


Tomorrow Never Knows. You could say one of the first electronic songs. It basically uses tape loops. Not the first bit of music to use tape loops, but certainly the first pop song. And to think this was made in the 60s and still sounds modern. Imagine ehat it sounded like back then. Must have blew people's minds. We're talking real innovation


And these are just two songs. The beatles were hugely influential, in well, music full stop.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2019, 12:37:56 AM by Leadbelly »

Leadbelly

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2019, 05:36:19 PM »
Leadbelly, I know all the shit you posted. I am a fan. I still vastly prefer other work from that era. You're misinterpreting not celebrating their work as the end all be all for not being familiar with it.

Influence is great and all, and I do appreciate it when I find it. I just don't think The Beatles ever were that great musically. And I'm not alone in that thought.

I don't know. In terms of taste, there is other music I would listen to over the beatles, but that is just taste. What one person likes someone else hates after all. I think influence and what a group has contributed to music in general is also a legitimate metric. And so I would argue that they are not overrated exactly because of their contribution to music and their influence.

That said, there are still certain Beatles songs that when i hear them from time to time, there is something about it that fills me with joy. And then I started thinking yeah they really were good, despite not quite being exactly my taste.

Like Ticket to Ride for instance. There is something about it that when it comes on I just feel, yeah this is a fun little song. Something about the drum rhythm as well, which while simple I also find brilliant for some reason.

« Last Edit: October 29, 2019, 05:46:57 PM by Leadbelly »

Leadbelly

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2019, 06:02:06 PM »
Also actually, I've always felt there is something about 'Girl' that I've found really interesting. It seems like it has a kind of old folky melody, but married to a more 'modern' almost psychedelic chorus. Something about it just works for me.


HardcoreRetro

  • Punk Mushi no Onna
  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2019, 06:04:47 PM »
Rubber Soul is a fantastic album in general.


Leadbelly

  • Senior Member
Re: Nirvana is better than The Beatles, no?
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2019, 06:58:40 PM »
Yeah it is funny actually, because you have people who prefer Paul McCartney or John Lennon. I acknowledge that Paul McCartney was very innovative. Like for instance it was him that suggested using tape loops for Tomorrow Never Knows. However, I realised quickly that most of my favourite Beatles songs are John Lennon songs.

including this one: