Foo Fighters or Nirvana? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Foo Fighters or Nirvana... who do you prefer?
Foo Fighters 18 35.29%
Nirvana 33 64.71%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-14-2005, 10:49 AM   #16
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 240
Local Time: 08:53 PM
for people who cant decide, just remember that Taylor, the drummer for foo fighters, played with Alanis Morrisette, so if you hate Alanis then just vote for Nirvana


im just being dumb here so relax people
__________________

__________________
flangerchorus is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 01:42 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Nirvana - No Contest!!!
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 01:52 PM   #18
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Highlands of Scotland
Posts: 360
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Foos.
__________________
smooshcat is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 02:10 PM   #19
Refugee
 
WinnieThePoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 2,232
Local Time: 04:53 PM
both awesome

but nirvana wins
__________________
WinnieThePoo is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 02:42 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Nirvana easily.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 02:53 PM   #21
Acrobat
 
Acrobat_Al's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 431
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
Nirvana easily.
Nirvana by far
__________________
Acrobat_Al is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 03:07 PM   #22
War Child
 
Nube Gris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lima Peru
Posts: 759
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Great thoughts Unforgettable foxfire...
Yes they completely ruined the music in the last 14 years, i'm with that...
But i dont even think they had brilliant lyrics imo, they were pretty good and that's it
They could never match a song like "One", which is the epitome of brilliant

Could you post your analisis on U2?
Would be fun to read your opinions
Thanks
__________________
Nube Gris is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 04:50 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Jack In The Box's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mexico
Posts: 7,697
Local Time: 02:53 PM
i hate nirvana because they're overrrated, i enjoy foo fighters... not my favorite band or something, so, i voted for the Foos
__________________
Jack In The Box is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 09:33 PM   #24
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Nube Gris
Great thoughts Unforgettable foxfire...


Could you post your analisis on U2?
Would be fun to read your opinions
Thanks

Hmm... Well, I work 6 days a week, and that would be essay-worthy and would consume a big bit of my time... I'll work on it, though. Not sure when I'll get around to posting it, but I'll work on it.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 05:40 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 07:23 AM
Nirvana

I always remember Bono's original comment about Dave Grohl's intellectual capabilities....
__________________
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 08:29 AM   #26
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ~unforgettableFOXfire~

Grohl's songs aren't supposed to delve deep into the hearts of men and evoke gut-wrenching angst, or love, or whatever. They might be superficial at best, I'm not sure if anyone is really qualified to speak on behalf of a songwriter as to what their songs mean. But for me, sometimes music needs to be detached from meaning, so you can enjoy the experience of listening, instead of condemning it based on assumptions of worth that we associate with everything...
Ugh, where do I begin. No offense, but that's describing the dullest music listening experience I can think of. I'm not saying that songs have to be associated with tons of meaning. I guess I'm saying that music is art. Music should be using it's instrumentation and arrangements to paint pictures with emotions. It's on this level that Nirvana is far superior to the Foos. The expression and definition of emotional state in Nirvana's music is on the elite level in rock music. BTW, lyrics are only a small part of this equation.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 10:09 AM   #27
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Music, conventionally, is a marriage of melody and lyric. A song can be a good song with bad lyrics, right? And a song with awesome lyrics can still be a bad song? Cannot songs be good without lyrics, though, as in classical music? What I meant to say about the Foo Fighters is that you could remove the lyrics from the song and have an incredible listening experience, you wouldn't really lose too much. With Nirvana, you need to keep the lyrics in there, otherwise the pleasure/appreciation from listening would disappear to a large extent. Musically, I would argue, the Foo Fighters are superior. Lyrically, Nirvana. When I say musically, I mean the music of their songs exclusively and not the song as a music+lyric whole. I find the interplay of tones and silence incredibly interesting, and I often rank lyrics as secondary to music in my listening experience. So, what I meant was, with the Foo Fighters, you can seperate the music from the lyrics and still have a good song, and still have a good listening experience. With Nirvana, you couldn't do that, as you say, it'd be a dull experience because so much of Nirvana's music owes to its lyrics and vocals.

What 'picture painting' Nirvana did, never changed... the song always remained the same, fundementally. The words used to express it, those changed, and the music used to express it, while it changed, it didn't change in any substantial way for me. It was all rehashing of the same message, with the same means. If the picture painting is disenfranchaised youth angst in assaultive composition, then yes, they paint it and they paint it well. That was the extent of their range, though. The Foos, while maybe they lack the lyrics to acomplish the same things as Nirvana, still write good music - what pictures they paint, musically, if you ignore their mediocre lyrics, differ greatly from one same over-arching message. The foos have diversity - and if this is dull, then sobeit; but it's less dull than listening to 4 albums with fundementally the same content... So maybe Nirvana had passion... I'm not sure that their expression and definition of emotional state is on an elite level; as I already said, I don't even consider Nirvana the best grunge band. With Sonic Youth, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, the Mevlins, Mudhoney, and arguably Pearl Jam in direct competition with them in the early 90s... its only because Nirvana was made the grunge flagship and pushed by the music industry that they were the biggest and had the most record sales... And while you can always make the argument, 'well, they sold more records and are therefore better, because record sales are the only quantitative measure of music quality', the Backstreet Boys and Brittney Spears and Hootie & the Blowfish would therefore be better than Metallica, the Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Bob Marley and the Wailers, and U2.


On the subject: Freddie Mercury and Queen, to me, blow every other contemporary musician out of the water. Their composition is amongst the greatest, if not standing alone as the greatest, of all modern Western music - and, they might suffer if they're lyrics were garbage, but they arent, their lyrics are well constructed as well. Song and silence mix together beautifully, voices and instruments are arranged to create complex harmonies, each song a masterpeice in its own right. Nobody seems to talk about Freddie anymore, but people like Cobain and Grohl could only dream of being such a great songwriter.


Thats just my opinion, though.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 04:56 PM   #28
Acrobat
 
Achtung Joshua!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Red Hill Mining Town
Posts: 357
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Nirvana over Foo's
Pearl Jam over Foo's
Soundgarden over Foo's
Alice in Chains over Foo's
Temple of the Dog over Foo's
Mad Season over Foo's

Grohl drumming over Grohl singing lead
Grohl drumming over Grohl playing guitar
Grohl drumming in Nirvana over Grohl not drumming in Nirvana

__________________
Achtung Joshua! is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 04:57 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
*BOOMCHAA!*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: may I touch you?
Posts: 9,106
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Foo Fighters
__________________
*BOOMCHAA!* is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 05:58 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Nirvana.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com