The difference between The Beatles and Nirvana is that in 10

>>72687951
People like you are why Nirvana has a reputation as a band for assholes

Nirvana already sounded dated by 1997

I just might have Nirvana slightly higher rated overall than The Beatles on RYM. Mostly because of the MTV Unplugged album/singles...

you sound like someone who laughs at rage comics

>>72687951
>song from 1968 sounds more dated than song from 1991
All music will become dated someday anon
That they even have guitars in them puts a sell-by-date on them if the way music's going at the minute is any indication

It's already the case. Look at the amount of comments and views on those 2 videos.

The truth is, Teen Spirit is one of those rare, truly transgenerational songs, it will never sound truly dated. It may sound like "old music" to young people because it's not a trendy style, but it does not sound dated. Young people can enjoy it without being some ridiculous thing that only our parents would think its cool.
It trascended into the mainstream when it all began as some underground thing, and it will keep resonating next generations.

The Beatles... they simply sound too dated already.

Strawberry Fields Forever is a masterpiece

>>72687951
nirvana sucks ass. there, I said it. fight me.

>>72687983
Grunge in its entirety sounded extremely dated by 1995.

>>72687951
This is a joke right?

Go listen to Pixies or Meat Puppets or literally any band that influenced Nirvana. You'll find a much more intense "fresh" sound in those bands than you will in Nirvana.

Nirvana didn't do anything new. All they did was make it popular through a pretty face and a unique voice.

Only people that think SLTS sounds old are fucking edm bro crowd
Nirvana will always be relevant cause it cathers to the anxious edgy teen and thats ok.

>>72688064
See >>72688022
>song from 1968 sounds more dated than song from 1991
OP is autistic and/or can't count confirmed

>>72687951
Nice bait friendo :^)

>>72688104
>Go listen to Pixies or Meat Puppets or literally any band that influenced Nirvana
While that is certainly true, in no way it makes Nirvana's music sounding not timeless. And by timeless i certainly don't mean better.
>>72688139
The beatles already sounded dated by the 70's though.

>>72688104
Nah, bot Pixies and MP dont have that punch in their songs. Kurt's raspy voice, the sound of the production, it's just better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jPglNrZhkA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT1BuLYt2RU

*that is a live performance btw

>>72688212
LMAO did you just seriously try to argue that Nirvana's cover of Lake of Fire has more punch than the original? You could have chosen any of the other covers but you chose the one where the Meat Puppets blow Nirvana out of the water. Also, I'd like to point out that that is the Meat Puppets playing with Nirvana, in case you didn't know that.

>>72688022
You don't get it.

There are tresholds in things, its no different in music.

Nirvana enters that treshold of music, where it will always resonate within next generations, even if the entire style etc is super dated and not trendy.
Specially Nevermind which got the most clean production.

The Beatles are simply too dated, it seems like from another dimension already, looking at those black and white videos where people just act weird.

>>72688370
listen to Abbey Road you filthy pleb
if you think Helter Skelter sounds dated and SLTS is not then you are a serious turbopleb

>>72688330
I disagree desu, Kurts raspy voice is perfect on those songs, and the live sounds better than the MP album versions.

>>72688400
nah senpai, Kurt straining his voice to hit the high notes is unpleasant. Curt, on the other hand, does the caterwauling wonderfully, and the little bit of grit around the second chorus adds some wonderful personality that is lacking in the cover.

File: 2_cd_kleiber_beethoven.jpg (27KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 250x250px

>>72687951
>caring what teenagers in 100 years will be listening to
This is why popular music sucks.

>>72688386
Yes, but they sound too "rock and roll".
It's like Steppenwolf, you can play "Born to be wild" which is one of those "10/10 songs" that "everyone knows" to some young people and they may get it, or "Ace of Spades".. etc, but ultimately there's something TOO dated about it.

>>72688370

>The Beatles are simply too dated, it seems like from another dimension already, looking at those black and white videos where people just act weird.

Vid related:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbgKEjNBHqM

It's cool to see Beatles era aesthetics with Nirvana's new sound, you can really see the huge gap, they were aware about it and made a videoclip out of it. That video is perfect and shows the treshold or "cut" im talking about. It's like another dimension, those people in concerts just acted so fucking weird, it's ridiculous.

And I think that sound will easily resonate within people from next generations even in 100 years wereas other bands simply will not. Kurt made some of the catchiest songs and the production is clean enough to translate within generations pretty much forever while actively listening to it while enjoying it beyond "for historical purposes". I mean that song, so fucking catchy, has that pop vibe to it without being trash. It's just that sweet spot where everything works.

>>72688629
>i can't enjoy nirvana as an adult

>>72687951
Here's something for you to think of. Think of any music from 1917. Anything at all. Got anything?

>>72687951
this post is such memage

>>72687971
>>72687983
>>72688001
>>72688022
>>72688078
>>72688104
>>72688139
>>72688157
>>72688197
>>72688330
>>72688386
>>72688629
>>72689323
He's right, you know.

>>72689287
https://youtu.be/t8EMx7Y16Vo
https://youtu.be/U06jlgpMtQs
I can literally think of two off the top of my head.

File: 40398.gif (999KB, 350x250px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 350x250px

in conclusion

underdeveloped brain
>nirvana
>the beatles
developed brain
>hole
>yoko ono/plastic ono band

My only point of discussion is that in 100 years NOBODY is going to care about rock/metal/punk/subgenres of those 3
Everybody will be listening to:
Literal Bleeps Bloops or
A nigger throwing money to some random slut, while only saying ass or money

>>72687951
I have seen 1000 years into the future and even though it's not historically accurate people remember The Beatles yet nobody has ever heard of Nirvana!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z2vU8M6CYI

File: 1480005909435.jpg (10KB, 255x223px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 255x223px

>>72687951
>nirvana
>intense
>fresh

>>72688699
I wonder how Cobain was able to come up with that "easily resonating" sound and those "catchy" songs, the "pop vibe without it being trash". It probably doesn't have anything to do with The Beatles being one of Cobain's biggest influences and favorite bands. Nah, no way.

File: Kurt_Cobain_believe_on_the_lord_billboard.jpg (158KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 600x450px

>>72689563
Bullshit.

In the year 3000 there will be a second coming of Grunge with a global rebelion of angsty outcasts against the stablishment and Kurt will be seen as Jesus Christ himself.

>>72689287
Exactly. But Nirvana's music is new enough to get digitally distributed on every future kid's iPhone 3000 playlist and they will grow with it. The songs are catchy, good, and Kurt has this mistique around him that makes it an iconic figure.

Music 100 years from now will not be as different as 100 years ago.

>>72689494
I think we may see a comeback to Nirvana guitars type of stuff because everything has been done already in electronic music and rap, people will get tired and go back to bands.

And the cycle will continue forever but iconic bands and musicians like Aphex Twin will be remembered.

>>72689287
It's not a good comparison imo. Mass media changes the game when it comes to how something will be remembered.

Not that I think either of these won't be dated in a 100 years, no matter how much I love Nirvana. At the very least Nirvana and the Beatles will be remembered as culturally icons, but it's far too presumptions to think people will still jam to them. Who knows, in a 100 years the guitar and drums may be considered irrelevant like some other anon said. And in 200 years the guitar may come back in style. A whole lot of trends and styles can come and go in a 100 years.

>>72690132
This

>>72688629
That is a God tier seventh symphony recording.

Nirvana B-sides are great

I legitimately cannot tell if this is a troll thread.

like holy fucking shit dude

File: kurt-cobain1.jpg (35KB, 520x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 520x300px

>>72690132
The cycle will continue forever until sooner or later humanity ends either in a fatal war, an asteroid impact, sun explosion or universal big crunch or any other final destiny of the universe theory ending up in total darkness, proving that Kurt Cobain's nihilism and hopelessness was ultimately right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmtbsFW0tCw

>>72690063
>year 3000
>history of the past 2000 years has blurred considerably.
>Kurt Cobain was crucified by corporate pigs
>Nevermind's awesome sound fed the hungry and cured the sick
>Heroin is used every sunday to reach Nirvana
>Dave Grohl is judas
>Followers of Courtney Love, Hole fans, are persecuted into ghettos and are only allowed banking jobs

>>72690145
But the whole point is if guitars come back, Nirvana will translte better to future generations and Beatles will sound too "classic" dadrock tier.

>>72690100
Exactly. Probably 90% or more of music from the 20s, even the popular ones, haven't been stored very well or at all. And even the ones that were could never have the same cultural impact without mass media. And like you said, Kurt Cobain, along with Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix and probably the Beatles, will literally be historical figures for defining their generations. That will be enough draw for the edgy kids to listen to Nirvana.

It will be like the edgy kids who read Edgar Allen Poe and Dostoevsky. Maybe Nirvana shouldn't be remembered

>>72690145

obviously there wont be any popular music in 100 years

>>72690447
But how can you know that? In 100 years the difference between the 1960s and 1990s will be negligible in terms of production quality or how classic they sound.

It will really depend on the mood of the day. Both bands were products of their very different times. The 2110s may resonate more with the upbeat Beatles, and vice-versa. That's just a possibility though, I think Nirvana will age better too. No teenager will listen to music a century old unless it's angsty.

>>72687951

the beatles had such punchabe faces and they ALWAYS looked like they just got out of bed, fucking gross dude

File: kurt.jpg (2MB, 3000x2352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2352px

>>72690375
>year 4000
>science finds a way to bring back Kurt to life via DNA remains from his grave
>Kurt is reborn and so are Krist and Dave
>Nirvana is officially back recording his 4th album
>3 years later
>Nirvana's 4th album finally released
>This event is seen as the second coming of Jesus H Christ himself
>Best album ever released
>Anthony Fantano (whose still lives thanks to Patreons allowing him to cryonically freeze his body for years until a cure for aging was found) is still reviewing albums
>Has 100,000,000,000 Youtube subscribers
>Anthony gives Nirvana's 4th album a strong 10 to strong 10
>Every song is a massive hit
>One of the songs reaches the entire Milky Way on all exoplanets with human colonizers
>It's the new "Teens Spirit"
>a revolution against the stablishment begins
>corporations get raided and destroyed by angry outcasts wearing Nirvana t-shirts and long hair
>Kurt becomes the biggest leader of all times above the likes of Lenin
>Kurt hates all of this praise and starts getting sick of people looking up to him
>eventually Kurt kills himself (again) jumping into a volcano to guarantee he never gets revived into this scam called life
>the world cries
>1000 years later, Kurt is still remembered as an iconic musician but the world has finally descended into an ultimate idiocracy
>Kanye West becomes the president of Earth
>Will.I.Am becomes the vice-president of Earth
>Young Thug becomes minister of interplanetary affairs
>Someone, somewhere: "Kurt was right, the only way out was always suicide"

>>72687951
Sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0gpPs4flw8

>>72688629
came to say esentially this

File: 1365829531311.png (327KB, 495x498px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 495x498px

>all these 100% serious replies
Jesus fucking christ, /mu/

>>72691226
>redfoxbennaton1 year ago
>This song is about 4chan.

>>72687971
No they don't. Literally everyone at least kind of likes Nirvana. It's impossible to narrow their fanbase into one niche group once you get to that level.

This is fucking retarded. Of course nirvana doesnt sound dated to someone whos grown up with music influenced directly by it. Beatles songs may be hit and miss but something like shes so heavy, come together, strawberry fields just doesnt conform enough to pop trends to alienate someone with no knowledge or context of 60's music.

songs like happiness is a warm gun and a day in the life are still ahead of our time

Kids like the Beatles, actually. I was introduced to Yellow Submarine in elementary school as part of a school project (we were learning to write parody lyrics. this was easy for elementary school students). Not a great song but I liked it just fine.

Breed was Nirvanas only good song

I doubt kids will be able to relate to either in the future any more than people these days relate to Bach... which is still significant, but emotional power aside there's a historical value to Bach.

Pop music, in its broadest sense (encapsulating rock, hip hop, EDM, etc.) will be remembered in a similar way to how we remember classical music. Obviously classical/art music is still made, but it's of little social importance, mostly confined to academia. Classical is important because it served a huge social role. Pop music now has that role in the modern era. People will use our music to understand our era.

>>72687951
Let's face it, anon, you're gay and you've got a hard on for Kurt Cobain. It's fine, he was a very handsome man.

Just don't try to make some sort of distorted argument out of your homolust.

>>72689287
Everyone knows "Over There".

>>72689287
IDK if that's a fair comparison since in 1917, recorded music was limited to extremely scratchy 78 discs with analog recording and there was no footage of musicians performing beyond grainy black and white film with no sound.

>>72691181
I like this timeline

Also >>72687951
What was his problem, /mu/?

>future generations won't ever resonate with a song about agreeing with a sentiment but not perusal of said sentiment

yeah, that kind of stuff just comes and goes like the wind OP

File: 137593505136-2.jpg (14KB, 240x320px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 240x320px

>people took OP seriously even for a second.
The Beatles are the Beatles guys c'mon seriously?

Because we have instant access to pop culture through the decades, people are removed from the history, origins and styles.

Citizen Kane is consistently voted the greatest film made but if you compare it to something good in 2017 it doesn't stand as tall. The film pioneered so much of contemporary film language that you don't notice the innovations watching today.

The Beatles is rated as a great band because everyone was influenced by them and continues to be generations later whether its primarily secondarily or further along the music tree.

>>72688072
I can agree

>>72694662
The Beatles suck. Scaruffi was right.

>>72693206
You are so wrong. There is no footage of Bach performing his music in high quality. Kurt's music will be remembered easily, also the sound will translate easily in future generations, not so much with classical music.

>>72692958
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1gB6J7e3Bg

kys

I don't lie nirvana simply because Kurt couldn't play guitar.