The Beatles vs. Nirvana : which made a stronger impact on music? - GoFuckYourself.com

pimplink · 09-15-2004, 03:28 AM

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?

r0nin · 09-15-2004, 03:32 AM

Quote:

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?

explain your choice

pimplink · 09-15-2004, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by r0nin
explain your choice

Nirvana basically made PUNK mainstream. Punk is more of a sensibility rather than any discrete musical style. It's liberating Do It Yourself attitude stands in stark contrast to the corporate machinery and counterculture naivette that made the Beatles the top act of the 60s.

uchase/webpry · 09-15-2004, 03:36 AM

beatles, but ask the same question again in 50 years and the answer may be different.

pimplink · 09-15-2004, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uchase/webpry
beatles, but ask the same question again in 50 years and the answer may be different.

What about the beatles? Melodic structure? Sgt. Pepper's?

Living For Today · 09-15-2004, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink
Nirvana basically made PUNK mainstream. Punk is more of a sensibility rather than any discrete musical style. It's liberating Do It Yourself attitude stands in stark contrast to the corporate machinery and counterculture naivette that made the Beatles the top act of the 60s.

How did nirvana make punk mainstream? Im not seeing it.

uchase/webpry · 09-15-2004, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink
What about the beatles? Melodic structure? Sgt. Pepper's?

The Beatles were vilified and accused of corrupting the youth of America. But that sort of condemnation and associated record banning and burning is practically standard procedure for anything new that is feared or misunderstood by "the establishment."

whee · 09-15-2004, 03:47 AM

Evanscence.. But they just started.. lol.

Joe Citizen · 09-15-2004, 03:47 AM

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.

Pornweaver · 09-15-2004, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink
Nirvana basically made PUNK mainstream. Punk is more of a sensibility rather than any discrete musical style. It's liberating Do It Yourself attitude stands in stark contrast to the corporate machinery and counterculture naivette that made the Beatles the top act of the 60s.

Nirvana was "Grunge" not "Punk". Some of the first "Punks" on the scene were the Sex Pistols.

Joe Citizen · 09-15-2004, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink
Nirvana basically made PUNK mainstream. Punk is more of a sensibility rather than any discrete musical style. It's liberating Do It Yourself attitude stands in stark contrast to the corporate machinery and counterculture naivette that made the Beatles the top act of the 60s.

Dude you don't get it.

Nirvana weren't punk. They were a 90's rock and roll band.

pimplink · 09-15-2004, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
Dude you don't get it.

Nirvana weren't punk. They were a 90's rock and roll band.

Please explain

SpikeHeel · 09-15-2004, 03:58 AM

both.. why not right? both make big impact in the music industry....

Joe Citizen · 09-15-2004, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink
Please explain

The music they played was rock and roll, just with a different sound and nihilistic lyrics.

Tipsy · 09-15-2004, 04:37 AM

The original argument really is simply flawed on so many levels. I love Nirvana. I listen to a huge variety of music including a lot of beatles stuff but would still generally prefer to listen to Nivvana when in the mood. However to claim Nirvana has had a stronger 'impact' on music is at best very uneducated.

Do a little research on the subject. Few if any bands can even come close to the Beatles 'impact' on popular music. Certainly not Nirvana. The influence of the beatles was enormous and remains so to this day.

Oh - and nirvana aren't punk. There were also a lot of true punk bands pre-nirvana that had a very big influence. I'm guessing from your post that you're not very old. As I say go off and do some research and don't jump to wild conclusions based on your own tastes and maybe you'll see a much bigger picture, and in the process come to appreciate some superb bands from back in the day.

mardigras · 09-15-2004, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tipsy
I'm guessing from your post that you're not very old.

That could be the only explaination for the post.

Kristian · 09-15-2004, 04:41 AM

easy, beatles

the_wizz · 09-15-2004, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tipsy
Oh - and nirvana aren't punk. There were also a lot of true punk bands pre-nirvana that had a very big influence. I'm guessing from your post that you're not very old. As I say go off and do some research and don't jump to wild conclusions based on your own tastes and maybe you'll see a much bigger picture, and in the process come to appreciate some superb bands from back in the day.

Tru! Nirvana hahahaha Grunge (seattle grunge at that, you know, the flannel, hair in the face, I'm sad cause I'm all pimply type music)
Nirvana != Punk.

And I think its wrong to say that Nirvana can be called responsible for making anything mainstream.

They came from the city that gave us STARBUCKS!!

Not to mention that Perl Jam (Who I would argue has a bigger following than Nirvana) was making just as big of a splash at the time as Kurt and Dave and the other guy.....

(I don't like nirvana, but I do like the foofighters.....??)

Oh, and the Beatles are like Elvis. They'll never be matched.

Shoehorn! · 09-15-2004, 04:50 AM

The Beatles without a doubt.

Rebel D · 09-15-2004, 05:14 AM

The Beatles By Far. They Were more then Just a Band, They Shaped Music. Nirvana i don;t think Made that much of a staying impact. Sure they May have made grunge cool for a while but where is Grunge Now. With Kurt Dead! I have had Bowel Movements longer then the grunge Movement. Why Not Just ask WHo was the better guitarist Eddie Van Halen or Kurt cobain. just no Comparison

Thats my 2 cents

Theo · 09-15-2004, 05:21 AM

nirvana weren't punk.

Sarah_Jayne · 09-15-2004, 05:25 AM

two things:

#1 No Beatles = No Nirvana so hence by extension either way they had a stronger impact.

#2 Nirvana were in no way punk and even if they WERE punk (which they weren't) giving them credit for making punk popular makes me want to gob and shows that you might just be a bit young.

Sarah_Jayne · 09-15-2004, 05:30 AM

btw that isn't to say that Nirvana didn't have an impact but they didn't have as massive an impact over the global music scene as people that were too young to honestly remember them emerge tend to think. They certainly ruled their genre and spawned a ton of copy bands (though Pearl Jam must curse their name daily) but MUCH of their impact was after his death and grunge died out soon after. There may be a ton of bands out now that have taken their style of play from them but you know Faith No More had more impact on 'loud' music than Nirvana but they didn't shoot themselves so no teenage kids that were too young to remember the actual events are walking around with their suicide notes on their backs.

Bansheelinks · 09-15-2004, 05:39 AM

c'mon..........this thread is an unbelievably dumb question to anyone who knows anything about music

SongRider · 09-15-2004, 05:40 AM

Nirvana dont even come CLOSE to what the Beatles done in the music industry..... I dont see any compairison at all between those 2.

Some dumbass reporter tried to compare Cobain to John Lennon when Cobain killed himself and THATS what started the compairison. And in reality there isnt one.....

pixieboy · 09-15-2004, 05:43 AM

I love Nirvana. Kurt was the guy that made me pick up the guitar and start playing. Though after a few months, I don't find any challenge in playing Kurt's pieces anymore. The Beatles, though, seems like every one of their piece can be studied even further and find out tons of theories and technical stuff. That's why I'm opting for The Beatles. Besides, no band in the world aside from The Beatles has ever had that impact on the world.

michel · 09-15-2004, 05:45 AM

It's too early to say...

OldJeff · 09-15-2004, 05:45 AM

Quote:

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?

I would say we need to wait another 30 years or so to see if Nirvana Albums are still selling.

As for Punk going Mainstream - I believe The Ramones were doing that when Kurt was in the 8th grade

I am not trying to Dis Nirvana, I think they produced some fabulous Music, but I think a lot of the comparisons they get to truely influential musicians are mainly due to Kurt dying young

escorpio · 09-15-2004, 05:55 AM

The Beatles. Couldn't have been a Nirvana without them.

12clicks · 09-15-2004, 06:06 AM

um, yeah. I'm guessing you're like 22 or so?

Take all of the platinum record makers of the last 30yrs and ask them all who they were influenced by and then shake off the embarrassment of having asked the question. (and I'm not even a beatles fan)

Paul Markham · 09-15-2004, 06:16 AM

You have supplied your own answer.

35 years after they broke up you are asking who made the stronger impact.

I wonder if anyone will even know who Nirvana are in the 2040.

psili · 09-15-2004, 06:25 AM

I'd say the Beatles had more of an impact, but I guess that's an opinion. Both had a strong influence on changing current trends in music.

And this is a little off topic, but am I the only one who thinks majority of both bands' music sucked ? I can't stand listening to most of the Beatles' music as well as Nirvana's (save for their unplugged album).

Buzz · 09-15-2004, 06:26 AM

Beatles, and I think there's nothing to discuss about it if we aren't talking about one-day affect.
Nirvana is associated with punk, but that does'nt means that it was them who 'd created punk as a part of culture. Their music is an average ('im not mentioning emtions the music brings, I'm only talking about MUSIC)
While Beatles became classics like Mozart, Bach or Vivaldi.
The second point is the duration of affect - beatles 'd been playing for about 20 years, while Nirvana - less than 10

Danny_C · 09-15-2004, 06:30 AM

Nirvana may have made an impact by bringing their style to the mainstream, but the grunge scene started in Seattle with The Melvins. Kurt Cobain was a roadie for them and went to school with Buzzo (Melvins' singer). He looked up to them, and was inspired to start his own band. He took the sound, gave it a pop flavor, and brought it to the mainstream.

Sarah_Jayne · 09-15-2004, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
um, yeah. I'm guessing you're like 22 or so?

Take all of the platinum record makers of the last 30yrs and ask them all who they were influenced by and then shake off the embarrassment of having asked the question. (and I'm not even a beatles fan)

Though that doesn't really matter anymore because it is simply too easy to get a platinum record these days. The same thing goes for number ones. Those can be had with next to no sales which is why stupid little crap bands have more #1's than the Beatles or any number of other classic bands.

The Truth Hurts · 09-15-2004, 07:45 AM

nirvana paved the way for an endless supply of whiny bitch four chord and no actual talent male "rock" bands to emerge from their parents basements.

FlyingIguana · 09-15-2004, 07:49 AM

how can anyone even compare the two.

ATL_Ryan · 09-15-2004, 07:57 AM

The Beatles changed the world. Nirvana changed a generation.

julioxp · 09-15-2004, 07:58 AM

I must quote this "The Beatles cannot be equalled"...

But I have enjoyed more Nirvana than the Beatles.

Julio

Giorgio_Xo · 09-15-2004, 08:06 AM

The Beatles by one million miles.

dailyduke · 09-15-2004, 08:08 AM

I am going to have to go with the mob mentality here and say THE BEATLES -- why, well first off, the Beatles have a collection of music as a band and as individuals that by far surpasses anything Nirvana has done. Second, The beatles were at the forefront of a new evolution in our music history.

Dont get me wrong, I am a Nirvana fan and have the belief that Kurt Cobain died far too young and we could have seen much more from him, but at best (and it is a stretch) he could be compared to Jim Morrison in that he died far to young with so much more talent yet to be revealed.

Years from now, yes the Beatles will still be selling records and perhaps Nirvan but they will never achieve what the Beatles have, its too late for them!

Tom_PMs · 09-15-2004, 08:12 AM

Well, pushing 40 I say the Beatles and it seems obvious.
They came along in an era of big "firsts", and I dont think that'll change..
Wasn't the first worldwide broadcast done by the Beatles in fact? Some big thing like that..

Nirvana was good.. but I think Bart Simpson summed it up best when he said "Making teenagers depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel"

12clicks · 09-15-2004, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
Though that doesn't really matter anymore because it is simply too easy to get a platinum record these days. The same thing goes for number ones. Those can be had with next to no sales

ok honey, by whatever means you want to gauge successful bands, 90% will say they were influenced by the beatles as opposed to nirvana

Rochard · 09-15-2004, 08:17 AM

Nirvana = punk = lol!

unconnected · 09-15-2004, 08:22 AM

This thread is a joke.. how could you possibly think that garage moderately succesful band could even lay a finger to the beatles?

The beatles were a first, nirvana was just putting a different spin on already played music, and then the lead singer got a shotgun blast to the brain and that is their biggest claim to fame..

I mean I like Nirvana, but come on, the Beatles? Lay off the fucking crack pipe man.. Go to a few countries besides the USA and ask people what they know of Nirvana and then do the same with the Beatles and you will see your impact.

Timbo · 09-15-2004, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheSmutPeddlerDOTcom
The Beatles without a doubt.

Ditto

Jamdin · 09-15-2004, 08:52 AM

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.

crockett · 09-15-2004, 09:00 AM

As much as I like Nirvana, I'd have to say the Beatles. After all it's pretty unlikly nirvana would have ever been with out the Beatles.

perverted and proud · 09-15-2004, 09:03 AM

this question isn't even up for debate.

THE BEATLES

ThunderBalls · 09-15-2004, 09:03 AM

The only thing remotely interesting about Nirvana is that a fucked up whore drove someone to the point that he shot himself.

On another note, Neil Young paved the way for the grunge movement.

09-15-2004, 03:47 AM	#8
whee Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: http://www.nightstation.com Posts: 1,375	Evanscence.. But they just started.. lol. __________________ http://www.nightstation.com

09-15-2004, 03:47 AM	#9
Joe Citizen Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4,552	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. Last edited by Joe Citizen; 09-15-2004 at 03:49 AM..

09-15-2004, 03:58 AM	#13
SpikeHeel Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Venus Posts: 1,531	both.. why not right? both make big impact in the music industry.... __________________ 100% exclusive fetish content - 60% recurring CCBill program No pop-ups – No traffic leaks – No cross sells – Hosted galleries – Promo content - Free Hosting - ICQ: 228585136

09-15-2004, 04:37 AM	#15
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	The original argument really is simply flawed on so many levels. I love Nirvana. I listen to a huge variety of music including a lot of beatles stuff but would still generally prefer to listen to Nivvana when in the mood. However to claim Nirvana has had a stronger 'impact' on music is at best very uneducated. Do a little research on the subject. Few if any bands can even come close to the Beatles 'impact' on popular music. Certainly not Nirvana. The influence of the beatles was enormous and remains so to this day. Oh - and nirvana aren't punk. There were also a lot of true punk bands pre-nirvana that had a very big influence. I'm guessing from your post that you're not very old. As I say go off and do some research and don't jump to wild conclusions based on your own tastes and maybe you'll see a much bigger picture, and in the process come to appreciate some superb bands from back in the day. __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.

09-15-2004, 04:50 AM	#19
Shoehorn! Die With Your Boots On Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hawaii Posts: 22,872	The Beatles without a doubt. __________________

09-15-2004, 03:28 AM	#1
pimplink Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Closer than you think Posts: 9,535	The Beatles vs. Nirvana : which made a stronger impact on music? 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? __________________ Need Mainstream Content and SEO? SEO * Website Copy * Blogs Blogging - PR Work - Forum Marketing - Social Marketing - Link building - Articles 100% Guaranteed Content!

09-15-2004, 03:36 AM	#4
uchase/webpry So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Do you use sex.com's XML feed, try ours and make double the money. Posts: 2,085	beatles, but ask the same question again in 50 years and the answer may be different.

09-15-2004, 04:41 AM	#17
Kristian Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 3,733	easy, beatles

09-15-2004, 05:14 AM	#20
Rebel D Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Ontario Posts: 3,916	The Beatles By Far. They Were more then Just a Band, They Shaped Music. Nirvana i don;t think Made that much of a staying impact. Sure they May have made grunge cool for a while but where is Grunge Now. With Kurt Dead! I have had Bowel Movements longer then the grunge Movement. Why Not Just ask WHo was the better guitarist Eddie Van Halen or Kurt cobain. just no Comparison Thats my 2 cents

09-15-2004, 05:21 AM	#21
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	nirvana weren't punk.

09-15-2004, 05:25 AM	#22
Sarah_Jayne Now with more Jayne Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 40,077	two things: #1 No Beatles = No Nirvana so hence by extension either way they had a stronger impact. #2 Nirvana were in no way punk and even if they WERE punk (which they weren't) giving them credit for making punk popular makes me want to gob and shows that you might just be a bit young.

09-15-2004, 05:30 AM	#23
Sarah_Jayne Now with more Jayne Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 40,077	btw that isn't to say that Nirvana didn't have an impact but they didn't have as massive an impact over the global music scene as people that were too young to honestly remember them emerge tend to think. They certainly ruled their genre and spawned a ton of copy bands (though Pearl Jam must curse their name daily) but MUCH of their impact was after his death and grunge died out soon after. There may be a ton of bands out now that have taken their style of play from them but you know Faith No More had more impact on 'loud' music than Nirvana but they didn't shoot themselves so no teenage kids that were too young to remember the actual events are walking around with their suicide notes on their backs.

09-15-2004, 05:39 AM	#24
Bansheelinks Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,023	c'mon..........this thread is an unbelievably dumb question to anyone who knows anything about music

09-15-2004, 05:40 AM	#25
SongRider Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: KY- The state not the jelly Posts: 649	Nirvana dont even come CLOSE to what the Beatles done in the music industry..... I dont see any compairison at all between those 2. Some dumbass reporter tried to compare Cobain to John Lennon when Cobain killed himself and THATS what started the compairison. And in reality there isnt one.....

09-15-2004, 05:43 AM	#26
pixieboy Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 202	I love Nirvana. Kurt was the guy that made me pick up the guitar and start playing. Though after a few months, I don't find any challenge in playing Kurt's pieces anymore. The Beatles, though, seems like every one of their piece can be studied even further and find out tons of theories and technical stuff. That's why I'm opting for The Beatles. Besides, no band in the world aside from The Beatles has ever had that impact on the world.

09-15-2004, 05:45 AM	#27
michel TheHun's Yellow Pages! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,420	It's too early to say...

09-15-2004, 05:55 AM	#29
escorpio I love to racism, bro! Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA! USA! USA! Posts: 23,344	The Beatles. Couldn't have been a Nirvana without them. __________________ Unvaxxed, still alive.

09-15-2004, 06:06 AM	#30
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,801	um, yeah. I'm guessing you're like 22 or so? Take all of the platinum record makers of the last 30yrs and ask them all who they were influenced by and then shake off the embarrassment of having asked the question. (and I'm not even a beatles fan) __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

09-15-2004, 06:16 AM	#31
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	You have supplied your own answer. 35 years after they broke up you are asking who made the stronger impact. I wonder if anyone will even know who Nirvana are in the 2040. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

09-15-2004, 06:25 AM	#32
psili Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 5,526	I'd say the Beatles had more of an impact, but I guess that's an opinion. Both had a strong influence on changing current trends in music. And this is a little off topic, but am I the only one who thinks majority of both bands' music sucked ? I can't stand listening to most of the Beatles' music as well as Nirvana's (save for their unplugged album). __________________ Your post count means nothing.

09-15-2004, 06:26 AM	#33
Buzz Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,908	Beatles, and I think there's nothing to discuss about it if we aren't talking about one-day affect. Nirvana is associated with punk, but that does'nt means that it was them who 'd created punk as a part of culture. Their music is an average ('im not mentioning emtions the music brings, I'm only talking about MUSIC) While Beatles became classics like Mozart, Bach or Vivaldi. The second point is the duration of affect - beatles 'd been playing for about 20 years, while Nirvana - less than 10

09-15-2004, 06:30 AM	#34
Danny_C Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,160	Nirvana may have made an impact by bringing their style to the mainstream, but the grunge scene started in Seattle with The Melvins. Kurt Cobain was a roadie for them and went to school with Buzzo (Melvins' singer). He looked up to them, and was inspired to start his own band. He took the sound, gave it a pop flavor, and brought it to the mainstream.

09-15-2004, 07:45 AM	#36
The Truth Hurts Zph7YXfjMhg Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: In Your Skull Posts: 15,521	nirvana paved the way for an endless supply of whiny bitch four chord and no actual talent male "rock" bands to emerge from their parents basements.

09-15-2004, 07:49 AM	#37
FlyingIguana aspiring banker Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 10,870	how can anyone even compare the two.

09-15-2004, 07:57 AM	#38
ATL_Ryan Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,519	The Beatles changed the world. Nirvana changed a generation.

09-15-2004, 07:58 AM	#39
julioxp Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: wake me up, before you go go.. Posts: 160	I must quote this "The Beatles cannot be equalled"... But I have enjoyed more Nirvana than the Beatles. Julio __________________ 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, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

09-15-2004, 08:06 AM	#40
Giorgio_Xo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 4,263	The Beatles by one million miles. __________________ Make Levees, Not War

09-15-2004, 08:08 AM	#41
dailyduke Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: City of Angels & Sin... Posts: 286	I am going to have to go with the mob mentality here and say THE BEATLES -- why, well first off, the Beatles have a collection of music as a band and as individuals that by far surpasses anything Nirvana has done. Second, The beatles were at the forefront of a new evolution in our music history. Dont get me wrong, I am a Nirvana fan and have the belief that Kurt Cobain died far too young and we could have seen much more from him, but at best (and it is a stretch) he could be compared to Jim Morrison in that he died far to young with so much more talent yet to be revealed. Years from now, yes the Beatles will still be selling records and perhaps Nirvan but they will never achieve what the Beatles have, its too late for them! __________________ WE BUILD WEBSITES

09-15-2004, 08:12 AM	#42
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	Well, pushing 40 I say the Beatles and it seems obvious. They came along in an era of big "firsts", and I dont think that'll change.. Wasn't the first worldwide broadcast done by the Beatles in fact? Some big thing like that.. Nirvana was good.. but I think Bart Simpson summed it up best when he said "Making teenagers depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel" __________________ You've read it, you can't unread it.

09-15-2004, 08:17 AM	#44
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 75,074	Nirvana = punk = lol! __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders

09-15-2004, 08:22 AM	#45
unconnected Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,025	This thread is a joke.. how could you possibly think that garage moderately succesful band could even lay a finger to the beatles? The beatles were a first, nirvana was just putting a different spin on already played music, and then the lead singer got a shotgun blast to the brain and that is their biggest claim to fame.. I mean I like Nirvana, but come on, the Beatles? Lay off the fucking crack pipe man.. Go to a few countries besides the USA and ask people what they know of Nirvana and then do the same with the Beatles and you will see your impact. __________________ "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

09-15-2004, 08:52 AM	#47
Jamdin Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 3,560	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.

09-15-2004, 09:00 AM	#48
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,818	As much as I like Nirvana, I'd have to say the Beatles. After all it's pretty unlikly nirvana would have ever been with out the Beatles. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

09-15-2004, 09:03 AM	#49
perverted and proud Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: pornonto, canada Posts: 124	this question isn't even up for debate. THE BEATLES

09-15-2004, 09:03 AM	#50
ThunderBalls So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mesosphere Posts: 2,926	The only thing remotely interesting about Nirvana is that a fucked up whore drove someone to the point that he shot himself. On another note, Neil Young paved the way for the grunge movement.