Okay get this I have the new Nirvana Box Set....I love it, I also have a copy of Kurts journal, and every cd that they have ever made. Now the cd they came out with last year which featured the song  "You Know Your're Right" Blew my mind. It was recorded 10 years ago, and yet it someone didnt know who Nirvana was, they would be like who is that , thats original. Nirvana has been immitated, but no one has been able to capture their distinct sound.....So who in here will stand and agree that Nirvana changed music forever, and that they stand in the same league as the beatles?

Okay get this I have the new Nirvana Box Set....I love it, I also have a copy of Kurts journal, and every cd that they have ever made. Now the cd they came out with last year which featured the song  "You Know Your're Right" Blew my mind. It was recorded 10 years ago, and yet it someone didnt know who Nirvana was, they would be like who is that , thats original. Nirvana has been immitated, but no one has been able to capture their distinct sound.....So who in here will stand and agree that Nirvana changed music forever, and that they stand in the same league as the beatles?
For as much as I enjoy Nirvana and yes they were and still continue to be VERY influential...IMO, nobody has been  equally comparable to the Beatles :)

Sorry, the only thing that Nirvana did is kill off hair metal. So, they changed the party scene into angst-ridden scenes. To this day, I'm trying to figure out why they were so angry. I did like a few songs of theirs. But, honestly, they are not comparable to the Beatles.  :) It's the beginning of an interesting debate, though.

Tanya

nirvana are no means comparible to the beatles but they did have a huge influence on 90s music. they brought about the alternative music scene that was hidden in the underground since the fall of punk and changed modern music forever.

Im not sure I can say right off the bat that Nirvana is in the same catorgory as the Beatles, or hell, that the Beatles are in the catorgory youre putting them in.  I love both bands.  Nirvana changed the mainstream music scene by being the Indie band that got played on radio.  They were not as influencial to the music that followed as much as other Indie artists that came before them such as REM, U2, The Pixies, THe Jesus and Mary Chain, The Meat Puppetts, Sonic Youth, and the Replacements.  Those bands influenced the music of the 90s. Pearl Jam, a major band in the 90s, as well as Soundgarden and AIC were not influenced by Nirvana (well, Chis Cornell says he was, but soundgardens sound was already developed prior to that).  THey were influenced by Faith No More, The Pixies, Janes addiction, Mother Love Bone, Lemonheads, Meat Puppetts, and Mission of Burma.  Not Nirvana.  Grunge via Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, SMashing Pumpkins, STP, AIC, Bush, Live, etc ruled the 90s ALONG WITH Nirvana.  Further, Nirvana wasnt grunge, and I hate when everyone groups them with it.  Nirvana was punk.  Listen to their music and then listen to a grunge act like AIC or Temple of the Dog.  There is a difference. 
The bands Nirvana did influence were not grunge bands at all.  THey were Weezer, Green Day, The Futureheads and other Indie Punk bands.  Second generation grunge wasnt even influenced by Nirvana (though, they claim they were, but you point out where in their music you hear Nirvana).  The only "Grunge" band I can think of that got influenced by Nirvana was The Foo Fighters, and for obvious reasons  (paging Dave Grohl...).  Now, those bands that Nirvana influenced are amazing bands, and that alone should qualify them as major influences on music.  But unfortunatly, not in the realm of the Beatles.  Cheap Trick and Todd Rundgren  influenced pop-rock from Big Star to Weezer and Ben Folds, but their not in the same catorgory as the Beatles either (though Todd Rundgren might get slightly mad at that statement). 
The real influences of the "Music revolution" that took place in the 90s was in the 80s.  In fact, the 90s revolution took place in the 80s on College Campuses and Alternative Radio.  It just went mainstream in the 90s.  And while Nirvana was the reason it completely went mainstream, they werent the only factor, or the most important factor on dominant 90s music. 


Now the Beatles.  The Beatles were incredably influencial, and I guess I cant disagree with putting them in the highest bracket of music.  But the Beatles didnt cause a revolution in music all by themselves.  The bands of the British Invasion were all equally influencial.  The Rolling Stones, the Dave Clark Five, THe Kinks, Cream, The Moody Blues, and the Who were all equally as influencial on 60s music as the Beatles.  Also, many American bands were just as influencial, if not more.  The Velvet Underground, Mitch Ryder, The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Chuck Berry, and especially the Beach Boys were all if not more, equally influencial.  The BEatles are incredably important, but they didnt do everything themselves.         

Well said, Billy!

Tanya

So who in here will stand and agree that Nirvana changed music forever, and that they stand in the same league as the beatles?


I won't.  Sorry.  :)

So who in here will stand and agree that Nirvana changed music forever, and that they stand in the same league as the beatles?

No can do.  There is no way they can possibly be compared to The Beatles.