Foo Fighters or Nirvana?

[The OOTS]

Nirvana!
No contest.

 

[Bono's shades]

Nirvana. The Foos are OK, but Nirvana was unforgettable.

 

[pepokiss]

FOO FIGHTERS

because Nirvana is SO overrated...

and because I've always thought this... people treat Cobain in a God-like manner because he died... that's when the legend began... not before, like with U2 or the Stones or Pink Floyd or The Beatles.
Nirvana's songs aren't THAT great... EVERY DAMN TIME MTV DOES A TOP SOMETHING "SMELL LIKE TEEN SPIRITS" IS ALWAYS A TOP 5... a really "nothing" song. Their only song I like is that David Bowie one... it's not even theirs
The FOO's songs aren't that great too, but at least they try to make something, I can see something there... I see a band too

"Death is a carrer move"

 

[Zoots]

Okay.... looks like Nirvana is the clear winner on this site.

I like them but only for the driving rhythm section and the catchy hooks. NOT for Cobain's voice or the crappy lyrics.

every wet nurse refused to feed him
electrolytes smell like semen

A travel through a tube and end up in your infection
Chew your meat for you, pass it back and forth
In a passionate kiss from my mouth to yours
Because I like you

I'm on my time with everyone
I have very bad posture

WTF are these lyrics???

 

[Bono's shades]

Nirvana were huge long before Kurt died.

 

[Jack In The Box]

Cobain's death served to build the myth, it's easy to predict that if he was still alive would be retired or if he continued doing music would be a predecible and boring musician, it was the fire of his youth what made him huge (and what killed him), not the fact that he was a good guitar player or a good song writer, because he wasn't

I wrote it in other thread

 

[nick_u2]

Can't decide, Dave Grohl is just too awesome

Two of my absolute favorite bands, if I had to choose, I would choose the Foo

 

[Saracene]

I'd go with Nirvana, although I do think that they're a teensy bit overexposed (not overrated though).

I like a few Foo Fighters songs, but their music overall is too meat-and-potatoes to hold my interest.

 

[Layton]

Musically, I would argue, the Foo Fighters are superior. 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.

This is a cool conversation. I agree that the Foos are probably superior on a pure musical level, it's just that I think Nirvana far exceeds them on an artistic level. Nirvana paints a picture through the use of instrumentation, arrangements and textures ( yes vocals are a big part of this; lyrics are secondary to me, but don't hurt) of an emotional state characterized by raw testosterone fueled anger, serious self image issues and soft boy wounded feelings merging together. This theme alone was novel in rock, let alone actually capturing it. I challenge anybody to find a Foos theme that is any bit comparable to this. I don't mean to dog the Foos, but their music just doesn't have a great artistic vision to it IMO. On a side note, I agree with your takes on Sonic Youth, Soundgarden and Mudhoney. They are all near Nirvana's level. Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains? Sorry, can't go there with you----lol.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Nirvana Nirvana Nirvana

 

[pepokiss]

wankers...

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

I agree that the Foos are probably superior on a pure musical level, it's just that I think Nirvana far exceeds them on an artistic level. Nirvana paints a picture through the use of instrumentation, arrangements and textures ( yes vocals are a big part of this; lyrics are secondary to me, but don't hurt) of an emotional state characterized by raw testosterone fueled anger, serious self image issues and soft boy wounded feelings merging together. This theme alone was novel in rock, let alone actually capturing it. I challenge anybody to find a Foos theme that is any bit comparable to this. I don't mean to dog the Foos, but their music just doesn't have a great artistic vision to it IMO. On a side note, I agree with your takes on Sonic Youth, Soundgarden and Mudhoney. They are all near Nirvana's level. Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains? Sorry, can't go there with you----lol.

I see where you're coming from with the vocal textures - yes, this was an oversight on my part, because it does add to the sound of the music (and yet I referenced queen's six or seven part harmonies without cluing into the vocal part? lol) ... I agree with you also that the raw power of Cobain's anger and weakness being mixed together was powerful in the sense that it was undeniably genuine.

Whether the theme is novel, I'm not sure, but the treatment was irrefutably novel; I think anger with authority and anger with opposition and powerlessness are themes throughout most of rock, and likewise that emotional damage, weakness, powerlessness, being downtrodden, etc, that all these things are traditional themes of rock as well - and yes, it is uncommon that they are mixed, and more uncommon still are they mixed effectively. So you're right, there definitely is something to this - but whether through sheer exasperation with his own life, or whether through 'artistic vision' this was accomplished... well, it was still accomplished either way, so that's not really up for discussion. I don't know if I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was doing it because he saw the value that others would see in this. I suspect that because it was the only real outlet he had and he probably thought something like 'damned if someone take this away from me too, just like everything else'. In that sense it could just be that he was creating unintentional masterpeices just to stave off insanity or find balance/peace, not that it was through any channeled artistic vision.

Like I said (I hope I did, anyway) I don't mean to discredit him, because he has had a huge influence, and what he did was worth exploring, but I still don't really believe it's been worth the attention it was given... I think it was the mystique and heroization of his life that made everyone grasp at it all the more. By it, I don't so much mean his music, but the way he lived... strangely enough... although most people latch onto his music as a boon for that. People like heroes, and people want to be like heroes in a lot of ways... but from a literary standpoint, most heroes suffer some sort of tragic/crippling loss, or die in the face of their oppressor. People love this idea of 'fighting the man', because they hate some aspects of the systems they live in - yet at the same time, they also have comfort and security in the sameness of their systems, and to uproot the system completely would be to open the door for something worse to take its place. People don't like suffering tragic losses themselves, nor facing permanent impairment, nor being worse off than when they started in any sense... they love those who try, because they desire the same changes, but few are willing to make the sacrifices necessary, and when it comes down to it, their self-interest is more important to them in the end. It seems kindof like a matter of principle; people attach themselves to these figures, regardless what they're fighting, just because they have the courage to fight it instead of sit back complacently - but in the end, everyone is glad to have seen nothing more than the most minimal change take place; it reassures them that individuals can have a difference, and that there's hope for the future... but still they're happy even if things are effectively the same as they were before, as long as the effort was made and they didn't suffer. At its heart, people love selflessness in others even when they don't themselves act in that manner and maybe wish they would. But maybe not... I'm not sure what to think of the heroism phenomenon, nor how to explain it... But anyway... I'm not so sure it was his music, as JITB said, but rather his lifestyle... People just take his music to mean more than it might, as a symbol for his life now that he's gone... Definitely worth more thought and exploration.

This is a cool conversation.

Indeed it is

 

[-macphisto-]

I dont think the Foo Fighters music is much more then a few power chords and some palm muting. I like there music, but they are not great songwriters

 

[flangerchorus]

Soundgarden is the answer to all of this

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Nirvana for sure. The Foo's are far better/tighter musicians, but they're also 13 years older now. Practice makes perfect and all that. The Nirvana lads were 20/21/22 when Nevermind hit.

Artisticaly Nirvana. While I love the first two Foo albums, they've been stuck on repeat in every way ever since. They found a Foo-Formula and stuck to it. We will never know if/how Nirvana would have developed, but you can't deny what they did, like it or loathe it.

Having said all that, Nirvana are generally overated, and the Foo's played a gig in a small club here in Sydney on Wednesday night and I'm seriously pissed that I missed it.