• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Who Do You Think Is Bigger In Popularity Nirvana or Foo Fighters??

I loved the Foo Fighters first album and lost touch with them after their second album. I saw them in 07? with Weezer and seeing them live definitely made me appreciate their music more. Dave Grohl is a true musician and a master of performing on stage. It seriously exceeded my expectations, they were awesome and wouldnt hesitate to see them live again.

Now that Pat is back with them, nothing but good can happen.
 
Dave Grohl is an amazingly talented, genuinely friendly, humble guy. Been playing his records on the radio since he was in Scream. Like a couple of other AK'ers I have also had some wonderful personal interactions with the guy. That said, there is really only one answer to the original question: Nirvana.

20 years later it's easy to forget the impact that Nirvana (and the Nevermind album in particular) had.

Within the industry Rock Radio had been declared dead. Bad Pop ruled the airwaves (I know - for many of our tastes it still does). Go take a look at the Billboard charts from late 1990. You might throw up in your mouth just a little.

Nevermind changed the landscape. Mainstream Rock stations that never would have played anything so punk had to play Nirvana. From a competetive stand point they had absolutely no choice. There was then a seismic shift in what rock stations were willing to have on their playlists.

Stations actually changed format because of that record. It can be argued that it drove a stake into the heart of Hair Metal. Goodbye, Axl. Hello, Kurt.

And then there's The Velvet Underground Factor - you know - "The Band That Launched A Thousand Bands"? How many kids picked up guitars because of that record?
So, which band had the greatest influence? I don't think there can be any argument. If we just want to go by sales & chart positions, The Foos have never had an LP that did as well as Nevermind. Nevermind has sold 26 million copies - the entire Foo Fighters catalog about 11 million.
 
Last edited:
Nirvana approximate worldwide record sales = 62 million (from 7 years of activity)
Foo Fighters approximate worldwide record sales = 15 million (from 17 years of activity)

end of debate. ;)

Speaking of Cobain's influence, a lot of people have him to thank for not influencing but rather introducing all sorts of great music to small town kids all over the US that never would have found it without him. The Pastels, The Vaselines, The Raincoats, The Slits, Flipper, Half Japanese, Swans, pretty much all of the early K records stuff, and of course the riot grrrl associations helped that stuff get around too.
 
dumptruck said:
Nirvana approximate worldwide record sales = 62 million (from 7 years of activity)
Foo Fighters approximate worldwide record sales = 15 million (from 17 years of activity)

end of debate. ;)

Speaking of Cobain's influence, a lot of people have him to thank for not influencing but rather introducing all sorts of great music to small town kids all over the US that never would have found it without him. The Pastels, The Vaselines, The Raincoats, The Slits, Flipper, Half Japanese, Swans, pretty much all of the early K records stuff, and of course the riot grrrl associations helped that stuff get around too.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Pastels and Vaselines. For that, I'm giving Cobain the nod. Excellent bands. He really trashed Molly's Lips, though. I hated that cover.
 
Cobain admitted to be influenced by Boston when he wrote Smells like Teen Spirit .

My vote goes to the Foos . Nirvana was clearly on the way out when the drug addled Cobain ended it all . That is what insured his immortality .
 
Dave Grohl seems to be a genuinely nice guy, a hell of a musician, and has a strong work ethic to keep Foo Fighters going and commercially relevant after all these years, not to mention his various side ventures.

I almost feel bad for the guy because whatever he accomplishes, it will never be as consequential as the work he did with Nirvana. Like them or not, they radically changed the landscape of popular music in a way the Foo Fighters couldn't. The sales figures definitively answer the OP's question from a historical standpoint, though I'd be interested to see sales figures from the last five years.

That said, Nirvana's a lot harsher than I care to listen to these days, for the most part. I can still put on Foo Fighters' "The Colour and The Shape" and appreciate it as a pop-rock gem from my formative years. Have I kept up with the band? No. Would I care to, based on what I've heard? Sorry, but no.

Now, excuse me while I spin The Replacements...
 
Record sales - hadn't thought of looking at it this way. :) The ratio over band lifetime makes the point even stronger.

az
 
Of course this is a thread about opinions. I really like Nirvana when they were around.

I agree that Dave (Grohl) seems like a nice guy. I like him better on drums rather than a guitar front man.

Despite one or two songs from the Foo's, they seem to lack passion or drive in their songs. Loud guitar does not equal passion. It's got to drive and elicit emotion. It just doesn't happen for me with the Foo's. Queen's of the Stone Age gets a little closer for me, but still not nailing it.
 
audiozaz said:
Record sales - hadn't thought of looking at it this way. :) The ratio over band lifetime makes the point even stronger.

az
Click to expand...

But the year in which their albums were released needs to be considered, too. Comparing Nirvana's sales to Foo Fighter's sales is kinda like comparing home run records from the steroid era to the dead ball era. If Nirvana broke big ten or so years later their sales total would be a little more modest.
 
KrisM said:
But the year in which their albums were released needs to be considered, too. Comparing Nirvana's sales to Foo Fighter's sales is kinda like comparing home run records from the steroid era to the dead ball era. If Nirvana broke big ten or so years later their sales total would be a little more modest.
Click to expand...
That's true, but their discography is WAY longer, and three of their regular albums were in the 90s before there was any significant decline in record sales.
 
dumptruck said:
That's true, but their discography is WAY longer, and three of their regular albums were in the 90s before there was any significant decline in record sales.
Click to expand...

The point I was making was that if Nevermind(the bulk of Nirvana's record sales) broke like it did ten years later, a ton of sales would not have happened. Some(the first two albums) of the Foo Fighter's sales were in the "pre-Napster" days, but all of Nirvana's were.
 
And I agree with your point. It's hard to compare sales, but I think Nirvana still wins in sales no matter how conservatively you look at them. I bet they also win in t-shirts worn. Regardless, Nirvana is iconic, and the Foo Fighters are not. I just don't see any contest in the question of the "bigger" band. I think if you wait a few more decades and ask the question, it will be like asking "who was bigger - Buddy Holly or Bobby Vee?"
 
dumptruck said:
And I agree with your point. It's hard to compare sales, but I think Nirvana still wins in sales no matter how conservatively you look at them. I bet they also win in t-shirts worn. Regardless, Nirvana is iconic, and the Foo Fighters are not. I just don't see any contest in the question of the "bigger" band. I think if you wait a few more decades and ask the question, it will be like asking "who was bigger - Buddy Holly or Bobby Vee?"
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree that Nirvana's sales would still be bigger than the Foo's, if everything else was equal.
I never thought about the t-shirt thing. To be honest I don't recall seeing many t-shirts of either band. But then again I grew up in a neighborhood where it was either a Motley Crue-Theater Of Pain, Metallica- Ride The Lightning or Iron Maiden-"eddie" t-shirt. My view of the world was a little bit skewed.:D
 
dumptruck said:
Nirvana is iconic, and the Foo Fighters are not.
Click to expand...

I might have a point about this Nirvana, yes very good band :yes: no question. However they may have been in the right place at the right time?? does this make them any better or just luckier? granted their sound was unique, as opposed to the Foo's also great band :yes: no question but playing a music genre that we have already become accustomed to. A point made earlier aboiut Kurt Cobain's suacide, making them iconic....I believe that may have some relavence. and yes Spelling is taking a hammering today. :yes:
 
I kind of gave up on Nirvana after he died and don't really know The FF. Do you remember that singles club membership that Sub Pop had back in the day? Beautiful, little, colored vinyl 45's in the mail all the time. That was really fun!
 
daza152 said:
...and yes Spelling is taking a hammering today...
Click to expand...

She takes a hammering just about every day.

everybodyhatestori.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom