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?

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.

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?

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

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."
:1orglaugh

Evanscence.. But they just started.. lol.

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.

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

Dude you don't get it.

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

Please explain

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

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

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.

That could be the only explaination for the post.:glugglug

easy, beatles

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.

The Beatles without a doubt.

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

nirvana weren't punk.

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.

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.

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

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.....

:2 cents:

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.

It's too early to say...

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

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

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)

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. :1orglaugh

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

how can anyone even compare the two.

The Beatles changed the world. Nirvana changed a generation.

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

But I have enjoyed more Nirvana than the Beatles.

Julio

The Beatles by one million miles.

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!

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" :Graucho

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

Nirvana = punk = lol!

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.

Ditto

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.

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.

this question isn't even up for debate.

THE BEATLES

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.