Who Do You Think Is Bigger In Popularity Nirvana or Foo Fighters??
- Thread starter daza152
- Start date
the_nines
Lunatic Member
Last edited:
daza152
Super Member
I think you need to get a life dude.
....
Sorry .....
Whatever!
Last edited:
I like them both but I really don't think you can compare them. Nirvana was one of a few bands that kicked "Rock" in the butt back in the 90s when it needed it.
FF do what they do very, very well.
Now FF vs U2 or Nirvana vs Pearl Jam is a better conversation.
Now lets compare Elvis with Jimi....
FF do what they do very, very well.
Now FF vs U2 or Nirvana vs Pearl Jam is a better conversation.
Now lets compare Elvis with Jimi....
marshall765
Motocross fan!!
Even though its mostly covers, Nirvana "Unplugged in New York" is one of my favorite performances of all time. Alot of good things came out of the Unplugged series. Foo Fighters? No thanks.
daza152
Super Member
No, I just mean whether it was the Replacements, Pearl Jam, Nirvana or whomever, the sound had the power chords and heavy bass of power rock like LZ or the Who with the snarl, anger, and angst of the Clash or similiar.
I never saw Nirvana as innovative so much as just a breath of fresh air. After a decade of atrocities like Culture Club topping the charts, it was cool to have a bunch of long hairs slamming their guitars. What can I say? Jack Lord likes feedback.
Yep-that's Westerberg for you. I can hear him saying "It's just leather and wood man"!! to the grunge guy. I gotta love 'em for that one! DIY vs Grunge. Westerberg was one of the best song writers (along with K Kirkwood-D Boone, G. Hart) in the 80's IMHO for sure. With all his ups and downs-still can manage to rock a good show when he wants. The Pantageous show was awesome. Hopefully his hand heals soon, and get's out some more shows.
For now, I will have to dust off 'them ol DLK 1 1/2's, cue up a copy of Let It Be, and enjoy!
Funny how Curt Kirkwood and the Meat Puppets got wrapped up in this "grunge" thing. Their music is far from Nirvana. Same with Husker Du, who supposedly were the "fathers of grunge" is some circles (or was it Mission To Burma!!).
All music like art, and other so called disciplines, is not original but builds upon what has already been done, a accepted truth. Playing a few of the same chords, or paying 'homeage' doesn't make them the same (that's really a given anyway in music and seems rather cheesy to me), or even really comparable on a number of planes, as they are unique in their own right. I'm sure that was part of the problem, among other things, Westerberg so eloquently pointed out... Men Without Ties...or Badges
SST (Records)/Twin Tone genere music, had it's own unique, wide ranging flavor, DIY for the most part, but isn't really like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, STP, etc-they were their own. IMHO Curt Cobain dealt with the DIY vs grunge/marketing and the implications, among other things.
It was the market people and some writers who liked to pigeon hole bands, mainly because it was easier for them to write about them/market them.
They became the flavor of the day- as Jello put it- " (we) hope those cute grunge bands become stars". I doubt you would have seen Westerberg, Kirkwood, D Boone, Watt smooging up to Holywood stars...
No "right" or "wrong", but a clear difference, and one you can easily hear in the music as well......
Last edited:
NavinJohnson
Professional Amateur
id say Nirvana was bigger. Dave Grohl on drums, but he is a great guitarist. Kurt Cobain just had charisma that Dave Grohl lacks slightly. not that the FF are bad. and fwiw Frank Black is still kicking ass.
silverrocket
Active Member
I think the Foo Fighters are a better group. I liked Nirvana and they definitely had a big influence but the song writing and musicianship is better with Foo Fighters.
Incidentally, I was luck enough to see the Foo Fighters in one of their first shows at the Satyricon in Portland when I was in my mid 20's in 95 I believe.... It was pretty cool.
Incidentally, I was luck enough to see the Foo Fighters in one of their first shows at the Satyricon in Portland when I was in my mid 20's in 95 I believe.... It was pretty cool.
cool9
Super Member
Well, considering that there are only 5 or 6 traditional hard rock bands that are recording these days Foo Fighters would probably be up there. If you're going to compare them to a band from 20 years ago why not go back 40 years?
(Joe Walsh said in Howard Stern interview last mth that he thinks RnR is pretty much over. Also said he was worth $164 million once and blew it all before going to rehab.)
(Joe Walsh said in Howard Stern interview last mth that he thinks RnR is pretty much over. Also said he was worth $164 million once and blew it all before going to rehab.)
Sure, I agree, no problems here. Music, like any other discipline builds on what has already been done-no new news here. Some are more 'original' then others- but's it's apples and oranges.
Foo Fighters have some nice songs that I enjoy-they are what they are.
Being in the midst of the late 70's-80's Mspl music /indie/SST-my point was I see where Westerberg was coming from. Not that he was "correct", (or I necessarily I agree with his take) but I get it. More or less something to do with putting it on the line, bandwagon etc etc......whatever.....
I would take exception to only 5-6 bands though. Perhaps more popular bands.
I have seen more then that roll through here this year.
By the way-none of these are the regular bands/songs played on the local 93X, or the like.....sorry the station is a joke IMHO, along with the Half-Assed Morning (Mourning is more like it) Show.....Nirvana was their ultimate band....as they missed, or were too stoned (or just plain stupid-more likely) the precursor bands.
Yet they seem to think of themselves as cutting edge musically, and throw backs "machismoingly".
Foo Fighters, and the ocassional Meat Puppets track are about the only thing good about it IMHO. And that's not even mentioning the terrible audio quality.
Last edited: