Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
No way man. Comparing Beatles to Nirvana is like comparing Picasso to Banksy.
|
This may be true. Hell, it is. But Nirvana was the closest thing our generation ever had to the Beatles, like it or not. So the comparisons are inevitable. Just like Eminem has been ridiculously compared to Elvis fucking Presley.
Growing up, as the son of a Beatle-maniac, I think I consciously attributed some Beatle-like qualities to Nirvana, simply because it felt as though my father's generation had been such a meaningful one, and mine had been so empty and ultimately meaningless.
....
Still, Nirvana was just accepted into the rock n' roll hall of fame on their first year of eligibility. That's something only a handful of artists can claim, the Beatles being one of them. The world clearly views Nirvana as a band that defined an era better than anyone else. I think the case is closed on them being the band of the 90's. To say anything else is to admit obliviousness. If you didn't live through the 90's, or were too young to know what was going on, you probably think it was Radiohead. That's bullshit, though.
A better comparison is Kurt Cobain and John Lennon. As strange as that may sound, they were equally snarky, sardonic, pop-culture hating social justice advocates for their own time. Lennon did Bed-ins; Kurt slandered homophobic rock stars and middle american skinheads.