Fair doos... but you need to vote!! Which do you prefer, both side has pros and cons but there can only be one winner!!
Btw can you take off the 'Multiple votes allowed' thing? I have no idea why I clicked that lulz.
Nirvana or Foo Fighters?
- Thread starter HobbeBrain
- Start date
Fair doos... but you need to vote!! Which do you prefer, both side has pros and cons but there can only be one winner!!
Btw can you take off the 'Multiple votes allowed' thing? I have no idea why I clicked that lulz.
Never listened to Foo Fighters and didn't like Nirvana way back then, I was still too busy listening to my 80s hair & thrash metal when Nirvana took the world by storm. As of today I've given Nirvana a chance and some of their songs have grown on me, including the ones that only play on the radio.
Couldn't you give a Foo Fighters song a listen and then make a decision....? Come on, that's fair. >.>
I like them both, can't really ask me to choose between the two.
Always liked this nirvana song personally, I think it sounds pretty different from the others.
Always liked this nirvana song personally, I think it sounds pretty different from the others.
Amazing thing is that after all the years of listening to Nirvana there are tracks I dont recognise or remember hearing before surfacing now including B-Sides and previously unreleased stuff too.
Hobbe, you're trying to settle an argument with your friend, no? You're both right, you know. Musical taste is not objective.
What you're missing Hobbe is the 1990's. Nirvana needs some time period incorporation in the sense that you need to have been in the mindset of the era to appreciate what they were to the full extent.
Stairway loses some sheen from all of the influences you probably listened to first. Same goes for The Beatles. Imagine a world of Chuck Berry, Elvis, and Bill Haley & The Comets when, out of nowhere, Please, Please Me comes out.
Failing that perspective, I'd still argue they're a fantastic band.
A lot of people these days hear about Nirvana for obvious reasons and get turned off by them. They aren't the most listenable group ever but there's gold to be found.
Fact is that Nirvana changed music on a massive scale and became disgustingly popular for their music and image. I'm not a Foo Fighters fan so my choice is obvious. Personally I think David Grohl's best independent work was Songs for the Deaf with Queens of the Stone Age.
For anyone in this thread who doesn't like Nirvana and thinks they can just write them off, I've got a Pitchfork Media quote for you.
"Sure, there will always be those who insist that Nevermind was more of cultural import than musical, but they will also be full of ****: Nirvana are, a decade later, still regarded as the greatest and most legendary band of the 1990s. This band proved to a whole new generation that technical prowess has no bearing on quality, inspired their fans to seek out the music that slipped beneath the commercial radar, and then had the balls to be ridiculously, unthinkably ****ing brilliant. Anyone who hates this record today is just trying to be cool, and needs to be trying harder."
Stairway loses some sheen from all of the influences you probably listened to first. Same goes for The Beatles. Imagine a world of Chuck Berry, Elvis, and Bill Haley & The Comets when, out of nowhere, Please, Please Me comes out.
Failing that perspective, I'd still argue they're a fantastic band.
A lot of people these days hear about Nirvana for obvious reasons and get turned off by them. They aren't the most listenable group ever but there's gold to be found.
Fact is that Nirvana changed music on a massive scale and became disgustingly popular for their music and image. I'm not a Foo Fighters fan so my choice is obvious. Personally I think David Grohl's best independent work was Songs for the Deaf with Queens of the Stone Age.
For anyone in this thread who doesn't like Nirvana and thinks they can just write them off, I've got a Pitchfork Media quote for you.
"Sure, there will always be those who insist that Nevermind was more of cultural import than musical, but they will also be full of ****: Nirvana are, a decade later, still regarded as the greatest and most legendary band of the 1990s. This band proved to a whole new generation that technical prowess has no bearing on quality, inspired their fans to seek out the music that slipped beneath the commercial radar, and then had the balls to be ridiculously, unthinkably ****ing brilliant. Anyone who hates this record today is just trying to be cool, and needs to be trying harder."
Now I've just got a question, not trying to take the **** or whatever... but didn't Nirvana start getting REALLY popular after Kurt committed suicide?
It's very possible, I couldn't tell you if they did or didn't. Even if it's true they still became insanely popular before his death, evidenced by the media frenzy. My parents only know his name because it was all over every newspaper, news program... everything. What is that for Nirvana as a band if not exposure to people who otherwise wouldn't have heard of them or paid them any mind?
Well it's publicity, but not exactly something to be proud of...
JUST. SAYING.
I'm not hatin' on Nirvana. They have quite a few songs I like but I genuinely I don't see how they were better than the Foo Fighters - I mean, the Foos have so much more variety and to my ears their sound is just better (but that's just my opinion).
And yet better than Foo Fighters and Nirvana...
Anyway, can't really compare Nirvana with bands like Foo Fighters for reasons cheez mentioned.
PLEASE NOT A MUSIC BASED ARGUMENT WHERE NO ONE CAN WIN (you're also wrong sorry I couldn't resist saying that but anyway)
The reasons I ask is because Dave Grohl and all that, you know how he was in both bands and formed the Foo after Nirvana split up.
They weren't proud of their fame. They didn't ask anybody to publicize Cobain's death.
It's just cause and effect.
Not like they could take it and turn it into cash, really. If anyone profited it was the media and subsequently the record label.
The label's still making a fortune off of their stuff.
The surviving members are benefiting, but each has found success in their own right so it's not like they hyped up his death to start raking it in because it was their last chance to make a quick buck off of the band's name.
Nirvana would have taken off at many other time periods, but when they did it was at the right moment and they just became huge. That lead to mass popularity, which leads to many fans. Some would say that made them overrated, but I personally don't think it's the case. Hobbe it's one of those things where you can like an influence better than the creator, but in the eyes of history the first people who came up with it are the true innovators. They get more credit.
Happens to most people who have died too young in music to be honest, they normally get more well known after they die.
Tsuyu
is wearing Queen's lace panties.
He also plays (and provides the singing voice for)Satan in Tenacious D's song Tribute and their movie The Pick of Destiny.
Does that call for a Tenacious D vs. Foo Fighters vs. Nirvana discussion, too? As a matter of fact, Grohl has been in over thirty different bands. So yeah.
Indeed just scratching the surface with Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Scream, Dain Bramage, Them Crooked Vultures, Probot, Queens of the Stone Age, Tenacious D...