Foo Fighters or Nirvana? - 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, 07:23 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Zoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the great beyond
Posts: 36,802
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Foo Fighters or Nirvana?

Foo Fighters or Nirvana?

Who do you prefer? I prefer the Foos by a long shot. Sure, Nirvana had Nevermind, one of the greatest albums of all time that totally fucked up the mainstream in 1991. But Bleach, and esp. In Utero were good but not great, in my opinion. On the other hand, Grohl and co. took the Nirvana sound, added some gorgeous melodies to it while still retaining the crunching hard rock. Songs like Headwires and Aurora are pretty but still rock your socks off, something that's become trademark Foo I think. And how many bands can you think of, that have shown such consistency thru their first 4 albums? Well, here's my to Dave Grohl and the boys.
__________________

__________________
Zoots is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 07:28 AM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Great Beyond//
Posts: 8,637
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Nirvana
__________________

__________________
Mullen4Prez is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 08:04 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
TheBrazilianFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Porto Alegre, Brasil
Posts: 8,580
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Defenitly Nirvana!
__________________
TheBrazilianFly is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 08:10 AM   #4
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 240
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Nirvana
__________________
flangerchorus is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 08:33 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
MsMofoGone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Where is not important...
Posts: 26,717
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Nirvana
__________________
MsMofoGone is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 08:42 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
Aardvark747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Obscured By Clouds...
Posts: 22,359
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Dislike both really. Tho I do enjoy Nirvana's Unplugged album, but that's all.
So Nirvana I guess.
__________________
Aardvark747 is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 08:42 AM   #7
War Child
 
TheBrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: niagara falls
Posts: 830
Local Time: 10:00 PM
foo fighters. i think grohl is even a better singer than cobain. The man is ridiculusly talented. on the foos debut album he plays every instrument on their.

the only song i like be nirvana i can barely make out

owen nolan is all we are?

lol

all and all is all we are?

not even sure about that
__________________
TheBrush is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 08:55 AM   #8
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Nirvana by about a thousand miles. Cobain had much much much more to say through his music than Grohl does. Cobain defined a generation that grew up on the boomers' rock music, among other things. Grohl is fine, but the Foos are around just because people happen to like a little rock music now and then.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 09:14 AM   #9
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Zoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the great beyond
Posts: 36,802
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Wow, I'm kinda surprised by the posts so far considering how tight the Foo Fighters are as a band. Well... are you people looking at it in a pure 'exploded into and changed the scene forever' kinda way or comparing the abilities of both bands? Nirvana was influential for sure... hell, to say that is an understatement... but as all-round songwriters and musicians, I think Grohl and the fighters are better.
__________________
Zoots is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 09:35 AM   #10
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Foo fighters.

Nirvana is overrated, I think. They ruined the past decade of music. Everyone has wanted to be the next Nirvana, or cites Nirvana as an influence, and yet the formula Nirvana had going for them was a brilliant lyricist with a decent jam band. Nirvana wasn't even the best grunge band, imho, and their popularity is only due to the industry selling them to the people (likely because of Cobain's lyrics, and the way people can relate to them; even the ones Cobain didn't want to relate to them). Nirvana never had a strategy, or a 'sound', they wrote dirty clanking rock, simple riffs with killer lyrics. The lyrics are the whole key. While I still really like Nirvana, I just can't comprehend how people can say the glorious things they do about them. They weren't exactly talented musicians in the technical sense, and if you sit around in your garage or basement riffing for 4 hours a day, every day, eventually you're going to come up with something catchy, even if you've never played an instrument before (like most of the band members).

Dave Grohl has gained an incredible technical talent in the past ten years. He does it all, now, drums, guitars, composition, lyrics. He's had the time to make that change, of course, and so that shouldn't count against Cobain... Let's face it, though, neither of them were ever going to be a Neil Peart, John Bonham, Jimi Hendrix, or Mark Knopfler. I can't say 'Foo Fighters are better cause Grohl is a better musician'. Think of all the times where people have just picked up an instrument, threw together some simple chords, and had a good time with their lyrics - The Ramones and the Clash come to mind. On the opposite side of the coin, Van Halen. All substance, no 'skill' versus all skill and no substance. I have nothing against Cobain or his accomplishments, I need to make that clear.

But, given this larger technical skill, Dave Grohl has something that Cobain never had: range. You can have a lot of fun experimenting with music. You can have a lot of fun experiencing music. In two songs that sound similar, there are subtle things going on that make them different and it's these subtleties that should be appreciated. 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... That's part of the experience of the Foo Fighters, for me, and why I like them better than Nirvana. Nirvana was musically assaultive. Foo Fighters, like them or not, are not musically assaultive, they have a very lulling quality, it draws my ears up and down, into harmony and dissonance. If I wanted to be assaulted by music, I'd listen to the Nihilist Spasm Band, or any ungodly number of high-school bands who think they're rock stars because they can turn up the gain on their amps and play 2.5 chords.

Even if the foo fighters are superficial, they write music well, which is a step in the right direction to escape the vortex of crap that has been clouding the airways for 12-15 years now. Instead of crappy songs with crappy lyrics, there's good songs with mediocre lyrics. All we need next is good songs with good lyrics, and we'll be all set.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 09:43 AM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Zoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the great beyond
Posts: 36,802
Local Time: 04:00 AM
good post, ~unforgettableFOXfire~! But it's probably unfair to blame Nirvana for the rise of nu-metal. How could they have known?
__________________
Zoots is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 10:25 AM   #12
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 08:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zootlesque
good post, ~unforgettableFOXfire~! But it's probably unfair to blame Nirvana for the rise of nu-metal. How could they have known?
because cobain is god, remember!

foo.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 10:27 AM   #13
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:00 PM
Nirvana

I find the Foo Fighters to be to repetitious at times.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 10:34 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Nirvana had Kurt Cobain who was a genius. Enough said. And Nirvana had Grohl who is the most talented Foo Fighter so...

Heart Shaped Box it is!
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 10:48 AM   #15
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 787
Local Time: 07:00 PM
Foo fighters.

"They want they're money back if you're alive at thirty-three".
__________________

__________________
jay canseco 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 09:00 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