You got to be kidding right lol
-
-
Nirvana is a joke. That band assembled the most untalented bunch of individuals. They did nothing original, they use only 3 cords in every song. There sound is awful. The only reason they got popular was people were tired of hair bands look. I am not a fan of the beatles but I can respect there musicianship and they are original.
Nirvana also got hot girls wearing clothes from thrift shops. Now how is that sexy?Comment
-
-
Nana Mouskouri beats em both...
Comment
-
It's hard to say. Who know's, Nervana may not have come to pass if the Beatles were never born.
They both did what they did for their genre's.
AIM sherierocks
ICQ 127-296-286
Skype traffichorComment
-
I'm not a great fan of their music, but I would say The Beatles for sure.80% Revshare or 30$ PPS on $1 trials: 200 Niches = Vidz.com Galleries / FLVs / Embeds
3 & 5mins FLVs | RSS & Tube Feeds | Matching Thumbs | FLV Browser & Exporter | No Prechecked Xsales
>> Mobile Redirection Script: mobile.vidz.com also paying 80% net Lifetime << ICQ: 198-394-557
Comment
-
The beatles. I liked Nirvana more but everything they stood for has been swept away by hahahahahaha music. The Beatles had a much larger impact on music, and thats still true with artists today.
Comment
-
-
Kurt Cobain was obsessed with the Beatles, the white album in particular. To imply that his band surpassed them in the relatively short time they were around is pretty ludicrous.LOVERCASH.COM
good dating sites.Comment
-
-
LOL, the Beatles by miles. It doesn't even make sense to compare the two groups.
Beatles took rock n roll, black music, added their unique style to it, and made it mainstream to white audiences. Made it essentially the pop music or normative music.
Nirvana was a great hard rock band, nothing more. Don't let the magazine articles and "New Rock/Grunge" marketing of Nirvana fool you into believing they were anything more. There is nothing original or groundbreaking with Nirvana.Last edited by Drake; 09-15-2004, 09:34 AM.Comment
-
How about you replace "Nirvana" with "Ramones" and then we could have a good discussion.Comment
-
Clearly Beatles made (and still make) much more impact on music than Nirvana, although I love both.Originally posted by pimplink
Some would say this is blasphemy but... my vote is with NIRVANA. (As you can tell I was born after the Baby Boomers).
What's your choice? and why?Comment
-
-
Punk is like "grunge", a fad comprised mostly of non-talented garage basement kids with loud guitars. It's kept alive by nostalgics and wanna-be rebellious middle class listeners.Originally posted by jollyperv
How about you replace "Nirvana" with "Ramones" and then we could have a good discussion.
Not saying the Ramones fit into that category but I think we should stay away anything that influenced "punk" music when talking about influence of the Beatles in comparison. Look up Ska, the real art that punk carbon copied.Last edited by Drake; 09-15-2004, 09:45 AM.Comment
-
Um.... Nirvana didn't make that big of a impact (just brought in grunge which only lasted a few years until Kurt died)... Beatles made a huge impact.
ICQ - 19961769Comment
-
Uh, right...so you're saying punk rock originated from reggae...Originally posted by Mike33
Look up Ska, the real art that punk carbon copied.Comment
-
Beetles where made by producers until after about 10 years, Nirvana was real the entire way.
Which is better? there is no such thing in music there is either your good or you sick the rest is relative.
Who had a bigger impact I would say Nirvana, it was Elvis that made blues mainstream, the beetles where destined no matter just like the stones, led zeppelin, AC DC, Rush, Metallica. All progressively harder and more intense rock and roll.
But when Nirvana came out they switched the entire perspective of rock at that time.
BTW Nirvana is not punk, they started a entire new form of rock called grunge.
I'm 29 BTW
Like the desert needs the rain
We do fully manged WordPress, VPS, and Servers. Adult Host Pro https://adulthostpro.com/ Since 2001Comment
-
The beatles. Hands down. They pioneered the concept of an album as a cohesive piece. Before it was a collection of songs, no more. They introduced the integration of orchestras into pop music and brought new instruments, like the sitar, to popular culture.SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.Comment
-
No, I'm saying that Punk originated from Ska and rock, as did Reggae since you mentioned it. You don't know a whole lot about music do you?Originally posted by jollyperv
Uh, right...so you're saying punk rock originated from reggae...Last edited by Drake; 09-15-2004, 09:56 AM.Comment
-
read my other responses in this thread before you assume I was in some way coming down on the beatles. My point was that if someone came back to say that Nirvana would have more platinum records in the long run it wouldn't mean anything.Originally posted by 12clicks
ok honey, by whatever means you want to gauge successful bands, 90% will say they were influenced by the beatles as opposed to nirvanaComment
-
Originally posted by RocHard
Nirvana = punk = lol!
yeah, I am still giggling too.Comment
-
Originally posted by Jamdin
This is like comparing apples to oranges...
The Beatles made a much stronger impact on music. They are part of history and have such a rich history themselves. Nirvana could have made the distance but Kurt died before they really had the chance.
nope, I like Nirvana but had he stayed alive they would have died out like pearl jam, soundgarden, etc.Comment
-
well except that prior to the Ramones there was punk and while the Ramones were fantastic they still wouldn't have been as big an influence as the Beatles. In punk alone we could talk Sex Pistols (who changed an entire country) or the New York Dolls.Originally posted by jollyperv
How about you replace "Nirvana" with "Ramones" and then we could have a good discussion.Comment
-
Funny I thought he already died out before he killed himself and that's why he did it. Didn't he say he wanted to burn out while the condle was still lit or some shit.Originally posted by sarah_webinc
nope, I like Nirvana but had he stayed alive they would have died out like pearl jam, soundgarden, etc.Last edited by chaze; 09-15-2004, 10:02 AM.Like the desert needs the rain
We do fully manged WordPress, VPS, and Servers. Adult Host Pro https://adulthostpro.com/ Since 2001Comment
-
You know, I never listened to a lot of ska or reggae, but I thought it was the other way around...I always thought ska came from reggae.Originally posted by Mike33
No, I'm saying that Punk originated from Ska and rock, as did Reggae since you mentioned it. You don't know a whole lot about music do you?Comment
-
It is threads like this that lead me to wonder if today's youth aren't totally screwed up in the head, or maybe some just had twit parents who had no inkling of what matters in life to pass down to their kids. Unreal.
Someone said Nirvana made punk more mainstream. Holy shit I don't even know what to call this person, it's uncanny the stupidity of that statement. The CLASH served to make punk more mainstream, about 12 years before anyone knew who Nirvana was.
And in this contest, it is no contest. If you put it all on a graph, the beatles' bar would be about 100 miles higher than Nirvana's.... which would require a lot of paper and one bigass mother printer to create such a graph. There was and has been no greater impact on any music scene, before or since.Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!
ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634Comment
-
the story of reggae - ska is a form as is rock steady, etc. The ska revival that came out of the UK punk scene in the late 70's/early 80s with bands like The Specials and the rest of the Two-Tone label stuff has its roots in the growing CaribbeanOriginally posted by jollyperv
You know, I never listened to a lot of ska or reggae, but I thought it was the other way around...I always thought ska came from reggae.
community of London at the time which made it only natural to mix punk with another form of street music.
now I have to go listen to Too Much Too YoungComment
-
Yeah, I had this 'arguement' with my husband the other day. He was a London punk at in the 70's and did some PR stuff for the Pistols and he hates The Clash with a passion for exactly that reason - that they made punk more mainstream. In my eyes the Clash invented punk-pop and that was in the 70's. Modern bands such as Greenday (though gosh they are 'old' now too) take their sound directly from the Clash where as other punk acts like Rancid obviously dip from the Ska ink.Originally posted by CDSmith
Someone said Nirvana made punk more mainstream. Holy shit I don't even know what to call this person, it's uncanny the stupidity of that statement. The CLASH served to make punk more mainstream, about 12 years before anyone knew who Nirvana was.
Comment
-
Grunge bands like Nirvana definitely "borrowed" heavily from the original punk groups. They just recycled it and mixed it up with a little pop rock. In that sense, they didn't have much of an impact on music at all. Rather, they had huge marketing impact. Everything is cyclical, and they had perfect timing. People were sick of hearing happy rock, and Nirvana was there to exploit the teen-angst wave.
In all seriousness, Kiss had a bigger impact on music than Nirvana.- *** -Comment
-
I can appreciate your opinion on how you view Nirvana on having a huge impact on you personally......but to say they have had a much bigger influence on music is flatly absurd......
There will never be another band that has the global impact on culture the way the Beatles did.
Nirvana was merely a band that had a lead singer die and assisted with the help of Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, and Sound Garden to shift the hard rock paradigm to a much more grass roots less manufactured sound of the hair band phenomenon of the late 80's....and the Seattle soundfd thing came at a time when American pop Culture was in the midst of re-inventing itself.....
A chapter and a fairly small one in Rock and Roll History......
The Beatles changed rock and roll and for that matter changed the world
Kurt Cobain will never be looked at like any of the Beatles......
I dig Nirvana but on this one you are probably just a little too young to understand the impact the Beatles had.....in fact it was not until I was almost 30 did I even understand....your argument here is not one at all.
Nirvana rocked but the comparrison is like asking who was better in Basketball Billy waldorff from the tenth grade or Michael JordanComment
-
Originally posted by Joe Citizen
I love both The Beatles and Nirvana, and as much as I think Kurt was a genius to put Nirvana up against The Beatles is ludicrous.
The Beatles have an extraordinary body of music that no artist since has managed to match. They were pioneers. They did it all first. They were constantly pushing the envelope and exploring new musical territory.
The Beatles cannot be equalled.
Even Kurt would agree. If he wasn't dead that is.
Exactly what I wanted 2 say! I completely agree
Comment
-
The Beatles.
(*don't get me wrong here, I LOVE Nirvana
)
sig for sale.
ICQ :338213644Comment
-
the beatles without a doubt.Comment
-
To put it in more visual terms, if each band is a wave on the ocean, Nirvana would be a larger-than-usual wave, say a 15-footer. You'd look at such a wave standing above the usual 4-to-8-footers and say "wow, that's a big one".
Then the Beatles' wave would come along. It would be a 100 foot wall of mayhem, and seeing it's size and power swell as it approaches you would literally make you shit your pants.
Have none of you (who are saying Nirvana) not seen any footage of how the US and the world reacted when the Beatles first came to their country?? There is simply no describing how huge of an impact they had for so many years, and if they were all alive today and held a concert I hazard a guess they could have more people at it than an entire Lollapalooza or "Us festival". The only concert with more people would probably be Woodstock, but they might even surpass that level. It would be huge.Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!
ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634Comment
-
Let's state first I definately am not old enough to have been around when the Beatles were....but here's my view:
How many groups around today cite the Beatles as their influence? How many have in the past.
Same question with Nirvana.
I dare say that there are a slew of bands now who will not tell you it's the beatles
I also think you cannot compare at this moment, as Nirvana hasn't been gone as long. In 20 years, I easily think people can remember Nirvana, as people now remember the Beatles.
Skype variuscr - Email varius AT gmailComment
-
no you are wrong periodOriginally posted by Varius
Let's state first I definately am not old enough to have been around when the Beatles were....but here's my view:
How many groups around today cite the Beatles as their influence? How many have in the past.
Same question with Nirvana.
I dare say that there are a slew of bands now who will not tell you it's the beatles
I also think you cannot compare at this moment, as Nirvana hasn't been gone as long. In 20 years, I easily think people can remember Nirvana, as people now remember the Beatles.
any real music fan as you can clearly see from above has set this thing straight......
your question was impact on music....clearly thery have had one and oneon you as shown....
but now you are just looking like a dumbass.....see the reason we ask questions is to seek answers....you have this questioned answered....
now it seems you are just being argumentative......listen more talk less and you find yourself learning......
todays lesson.......the idea of Nirvana having a biggewr impact on music than the beatles is ridiculous........any other perspective makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about......you heard some very articulated answers to your question today....listen...stop acting like your one opinion is above those who may have deeper ties, who have studied the industry....and flat out have been aroun to see the influence....the notion that Nirvana has an influence in silly.....nirvana was influenced by the beatles which will send us back to the fact that even if they were the miost influential band in thwe world...the influence they have on music is dirivitive from the beatles......
how do special ed teachers do it????Comment
-
The Beatles for sure !UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress!
Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 ! 
Comment
-
Originally posted by jimholio
no you are wrong period
any real music fan as you can clearly see from above has set this thing straight......
your question was impact on music....clearly thery have had one and oneon you as shown....
but now you are just looking like a dumbass.....see the reason we ask questions is to seek answers....you have this questioned answered....
now it seems you are just being argumentative......listen more talk less and you find yourself learning......
todays lesson.......the idea of Nirvana having a biggewr impact on music than the beatles is ridiculous........any other perspective makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about......you heard some very articulated answers to your question today....listen...stop acting like your one opinion is above those who may have deeper ties, who have studied the industry....and flat out have been aroun to see the influence....the notion that Nirvana has an influence in silly.....nirvana was influenced by the beatles which will send us back to the fact that even if they were the miost influential band in thwe world...the influence they have on music is dirivitive from the beatles......
how do special ed teachers do it????
Anyone else being reminded of the teacher on Charlie Brown talking
What I'm saying is that in 20 years, people might consider Nirvana to have a had a huge impact on music, in exactly the same way you consider the beatles to have had effect now.
See the way it works is, the young people who enjoyed the beatles in their time, are the ones defending them now. In 20 years, the cycle will change, and the people who enjoyed Nirvana will be that age and defend them.
Life is cycles. Even you can udnerstand a circle right ???
Skype variuscr - Email varius AT gmailComment
-
Nirvana was the best band ever. Music will never be the same again, and I hate to say it, music died for me when Kurt Died in 1994.
RIP KURT, you will always be the best.Comment
-
It's been a little over 10 years and most now agree they were over-rated. That trend will only continue.Originally posted by Varius
...
I also think you cannot compare at this moment, as Nirvana hasn't been gone as long. In 20 years, I easily think people can remember Nirvana, as people now remember the Beatles.
- *** -Comment
-
And as I said before, if you ask Nirvana who started it, they'll name the band that inspired them (and did it 20 times better) - The Melvins.Originally posted by chaze
BTW Nirvana is not punk, they started a entire new form of rock called grunge.
I'm 29 BTW
Comment
-
BTW, the beatles did have a bigger impact on music than any other band.Comment
-
Dude, why can't you accept it when you are wrong? Just let it go. Christ I was just being born when the Beatles first hit North America, but I grew up with older brothers and sisters who played the tunes, and you couldn't help but see the incredible impact on the entire planet, and that impact has carried on to this day, to this century.Originally posted by Varius
Anyone else being reminded of the teacher on Charlie Brown talking
What I'm saying is that in 20 years, people might consider Nirvana to have a had a huge impact on music, in exactly the same way you consider the beatles to have had effect now.
See the way it works is, the young people who enjoyed the beatles in their time, are the ones defending them now. In 20 years, the cycle will change, and the people who enjoyed Nirvana will be that age and defend them.
Life is cycles. Even you can udnerstand a circle right ???
Each individual Beatle is larger than life in and of themselves as well. Why I or anyone has to explain this to you is the real tragedy here. (for you)
Get a clue. Go watch A & E and wait for them to air a biography on the Beatles or any one individual Beatle, and you will soon figure out just what the hell you're trying to talk about. Cobain & co. were but a blip on the radar compared to the Beatles.Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!
ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634Comment
-
Can't help but agree... I mean they are a great band and had some good tunes... but you can't compare their influence to that of the beatles.... no comparison there at all.Originally posted by hottoddy
It's been a little over 10 years and most now agree they were over-rated. That trend will only continue.
ICQ - 19961769Comment
-
People kill for the beatles:
Someone even killed a beatle:
Now these were DEFINEATLY not intentional effects of the beatles- but it shows how much power music can hold over a fragile mind. What has anyone done for the love of Nirvana?
Who came first in this argument is irrelevant in my opinion. There were bands playing the same brand of rock when the beatles were playing clubs just like the damned put out their first single before the sex pistols probably played a gig, there's more to a band then originality- it's who brings the brand to the main stream that holds all the power.
The beatles took it, they owned it, they created mass hysteria the likes of which we will never see again in our lifetimes.
When Nirvana came around, Sub Pop was already picking up, Soundgarden was the first grunge band to break through, and Perl Jam's album sales buried the lot of them. It wasn't until cobain put a gun in his mouth that the band became legendary. If he hadn't died he would have faded away.
As someone who was punk rock before Nirvana, the real fresh cut 2nd wave of punk didn't hit until Greenday and Rancid hit MTV- that was followed by a 3rd wave of Ska that didn't hit until the Bosstones hit the telly in prime time. Now Emo is in full effect and it's driving me bonkers- our country is in a state of political unrest and everyone's singing about their "feelings"- errrr!
I think the nouveau hardcore stuff they are turning out today is horrid as well. The punk scene needs new blood, and Anti-Flag sucks.
Start making money with the hottest hookup site!
up to $55 PPS or up to 75% Revshare
ICQ 196766477Comment
-
ShellyCrash = someone who gets it.Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!
ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634Comment
-
How can I be wrong, when this thread is asking for opinions? We can each have our own opinions and you can't say one is wrong and the other is right. That's just your opinionOriginally posted by CDSmith
Dude, why can't you accept it when you are wrong?
Skype variuscr - Email varius AT gmailComment
-
Oh dear - you are wrong on so many levels and really can't see it? Amazing. Sit back, chill out and take an hour or so to REALLY think things though and see the vary obvious flaws in your attempts at logic.Originally posted by Varius
Anyone else being reminded of the teacher on Charlie Brown talking
What I'm saying is that in 20 years, people might consider Nirvana to have a had a huge impact on music, in exactly the same way you consider the beatles to have had effect now.
See the way it works is, the young people who enjoyed the beatles in their time, are the ones defending them now. In 20 years, the cycle will change, and the people who enjoyed Nirvana will be that age and defend them.
Life is cycles. Even you can udnerstand a circle right ???
As a little clue you can't compare like for like when the two subjects are completely different on oh so many levels, including the whole 'cycle' thing you seem to have totally screwed up in your head.Last edited by Tipsy; 09-15-2004, 11:39 AM.Ignorance is never bliss.
Comment
-
What the fuck has opinion got to do with it? Try looking at facts. Go do a little very basic research. Anybody with half a brain can only come to one conclusion from the data available. Opinion really doesn't come into it on this one.Originally posted by Varius
How can I be wrong, when this thread is asking for opinions? We can each have our own opinions and you can't say one is wrong and the other is right. That's just your opinion
Ignorance is never bliss.
Comment
Comment