Printable View
I was actually thinking about this today after listening to Nirvana for the first time in ages. Who do ye reckon are better, nirvana or the Foo fighters?
Alot of surveys, etc seem to put nirvana up there in the top few bands of all time. I personally prefer the Foo Fighters, who do others reckon are the best between the 2 bands?
Oooooooooooooooooooooo, thats a toughie.
Would kind of agree with Conor (but maybe less extreme). Nirvana lead a style of music, Foo Fighters made it radio frendly. Would go with Nirvana.
Nirvana, by miles. Foo don't have that edgyness that Nirvana did as a result of their toils & many troubles. Foo Fighters are great but the music reflects the fact that Grohl & the band have made it & it was going to be that way from the word go. Godda be Nirvana.
I'd pick Nirvana if had to pick from those 2.
Unplugged in New York really showed what Nirvana could do.
Depends on what you are in to. Foo Fighters had better pop songs early on but went the loud route on some of their latest CD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo
i don't know the foos' music but nirvana are perhaps somewhat underrated when you think about the time they came about, how they 'happened' and what pop music was like in those days (some bad rap/pop, lots of hair-metal). you only have to look at the number of nirvana imitators, the eventual ubiquitous copping of the 'seattle sound' and i don't mean queensryche. that vocal style, them chord changes can be heard in a lot of today's nu-metal and any other bad fratrock over here. this is relevant only if you believe imitation is the sincerest form of flattery i'd imagine. 'in utero' is their best and i think would be in a top ten of 90s albums if there were absolutes in this world ;)
That, Nevermind and Unplugged in New York are far better than any Foo Fighter albums imo. Nirvana by far.Quote:
Originally Posted by ken foree
Foo Fighters
Neither. Both are extremely over-rated in my honest opinion. How Nirvana overshadowed the far far FAR superior Soundgarden (and countless others) in their day goes beyond my musical loving head! (Seattle in those days was full of incredible bands, yet somehow that tripe came out on top?! :eek: :)). Their bland thrashed out songs do nothing for me. I dunno, I love bands that can thrash out simple songs, but Nirvana's always bored me. Black Flag are a prime example of a band that could do something simple in a way I appreciated.
I don't get the love obsession with Dave Grohl, a pedestrian mediocre drummer at best, and I'm not a fan of anything he's written as frontman for the Foo's either.
I am however willing to conceed that In Utero is present in some great memories from my childhood, but thats as far as I'll go!
What about sick puppy EndaiQuote:
Originally Posted by EnDai
Skinny Puppy? Not top of my list either ;) Just useful in trying to describe the origin of my username, as more people know of them than ya might think! :) Or so it would seem! Good band, better than Nirvana/Foo's anyways, but by no means the greatest! :D
Foo Fighters, definetely ;)
have to go with nirvana purely on the basis of their final two studio albums .
not that i dont like the foos they are a great band and dave grohl is imo a great song writer . my favourite moment of oxegen this year was semi acoustic version they did of everlong .
'but nirvana are perhaps somewhat underrated'
I think they're overrated tbh (I am a big fan of them, but just dont think they're as good as alot of people make out).
theres no need for a debate even.
Nirvava, I know it's become a bit of a cliché but Nevermind really did change my life
Not that I don't listen to the Foos, just Nirvana's music had more of an impact on me.
is this a joke question ?
nirvanna of coarse are way better the foo fighters are terrible , such a shame coz dave is a genius ,
If the Foo's are terrible anto1208, how is Dave Grohl a genius? His drumming for Nirvana was mediocre at best, and if you hate the Foo's you obviously don't rate his songwriting/guitar abilities? How is he a genius? ;) :) :D
have you actually listened to the music ?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by EnDai
i thought he just wrote the wrong thing thats why i didnt respond ,"His drumming for Nirvana was mediocre at best"Quote:
Originally Posted by gustavo
one of the best drummers in the world ,in one of the best bands then he goes and forms one of the most mainstream bands ive ever come across . im just waiting for them to do a song for one of these new comic book films .
to be fair nirvana were pretty mainstream in the sense that they had a strong sense of melody but i suppose they did balance that with more raw stuff like territorial ****ings scentless apprentice milk it and most of bleach
To be honest, as a drummer for years myself, Dave Grohl does nothing for the senses. At all. I've used the term pedestrian before in regards to him, and I stand by it.
I think because he was in a band that became insanely popular he is often branded as a drumming god, which to be fair, he's not. I'm not saying he's poor, rather mediocre. He does what he does well, but he is far from the best drummer in the world. He's far from the best rock drummer in the world as well. (Yes, there is a difference!).
Just my €0.02 anyways. He is overhyped because of the succes of Nirvana themselves, he is nothing special. He is Meg White when compared to truck loads of other drummers.
I'd have to say Nirvana.
I think Grohl is a fine drummer -and like EnDai I'm a drummer myself. He played what was appropriate for the genre of music the band (nirvana) were playing -a good heavy hitter who could still get around the kit.
I don't like his voice at all though -ACME generic rock songer. Foos seem to have a lot of fun and Grohl seems like a genuinely nice down to earth guy -but without MTV, the funny videos, the budgets to make funny vidoes for rather bland songs (learning to fly?) and his having the ear of the media from having been in Nirvana -they'd be nowhere.
Hope that doesn't sound cruel because they are I acknowledge a band coming up on ten years who deserve to be evaluated in their own right but I never really "got" them.
You're right in the whats appropriate for the music style of drumming, he does do that. Evident on his QOTSA and NIN work too. Then again, I guess not liking the music he's drumming to has be biased towards whats right for the music. ;) Just not a fan. [edit: love QOTSA's early work, and Trent is a god, but neither of his works there changed my opinion on him :)].
Meg White plays whats right for the music, and she's abysmal! (So are the WS, but still!). :D
Well I used to be a drummer too, and I agree with both of you, especially what you've had to say about Meg abd the WS chris!!
According to that Modern Drummer rag (sorry, don't take music mags seriously!) she's the second worst (paid?) drummer, in the world, only behind Jamie Oliver (!! :eek: ) for two years running! :D Whats funnier is she seems to appear like she's struggling to keep that in time during live shows, which amuses me, greatly! ;)
Oops, back on topic: If I had to choose, Nirvana, but realistically, neither! :D
i think the drumming discussion here sorta proves my point about nirvana - it wasn't their technical prowess, if anything, they were about the absolute opposite and played with a seething emotion that their playing could barely contain.
i mean there were plenty of hard metal riffers around at the time... remember slash standing on a piano for the over-blown november rain video, lombardo's drumming from slayer, sheer precision and pummeling propulsion. but nirvana were a reaction against ALL THAT - they dwelt in a grim here and now vs. the fantasies projected by both those other bands i just mentioned (gnr's hollywood decadence, slayer's apocalypse metal).
plenty of harder, grimier bands around at the time and soundgarden might've indeed gotten the short shrift somewhat when that scene played out but there's no denying the band nirvana were something of a phenomenon.
But Boyzone and Westlife, not to mention the Spice Girls were also a phenomenon ;)
touche! though maybe we'll have to disagree on the definition of 'phemonenon' :D
Nirvana influenced a generation, Foo fighters are good but will never have that type of influence.
Yes but -just by way of dampening the flames of the myth a bit - there are a confluence of factors beyond Nirvanas undoubted fine songs and energy at play there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neish
The fact is that rock'n'roll -much like most other facets of the entertainment industry -is youth obsessed and increasingly so.
Records that end up being called "seminal" by Q magazine are rarely made by the over 29's.
For that reason alone before needing to go near actual musical comparisons -the chunky 36 year old Grohl and co are hobbled when asked to compete with the wirey 24 year old Cobain. The "spokesman for a generation" tag just doesn't sit well when your actual generation are onto their second mortgage, third kid and first ride on lawnmower.
And it's not a new phenomenon. Bill Hailey didn't attract the same attention Elvis did despite being at this r'n'r lark several years earlier -because Bill Hailey was in lis 30's, married with kids and looked like a headmaster.
Nirvana for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo
Just the right band at the right time for me.
Nevermind holds some great memories for me.
Pearl Jam, Ten runs a very close second.
Agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
When you get to that vintage, you realise it's just r'n'r records, and they're not a "spokesman for a generation". Also holds true if you're in a band (Bono excluded) You're just making music. It's your job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
A big help for the Nirvana camp is that they're frozen in time somewhere back in the mid '90's, probably coinciding with the teenage years of alot of people on this site.
Despite the obvious Grohl link, it's a strange choice between two different bands. It's not even like a Stone Roses/Ian Brown, or Jam/Style Council debate. He was only the drummer originally.
I'd have to go with nirvana
'Despite the obvious Grohl link, it's a strange choice between two different bands.'
I know I know, I was just putting it out there because of the Grohl link
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo
Don't get me wrong, I understand your reason. But I couldn't choose 'the best' between, say, Jesus and Mary Chain and Primal Scream, as they are so different.
In saying all that, I got bleach and nevermind way back when, and dig them out every so often (in the same way there's a leap year every so often), but I don't have, or feel the urge to have, any foo fighters in my collection. So by default, I vote for Nirvana.
...the Foo Fighters cos their music is easier on the ears and more chilled out. Also cos their music is just really good and song like Monkey Wrench and All my Life are hard to beat.. ;)
Foo Fighters are better in my opinion. I think Nirvana are overrated... Damn Pixies ripoff band.
At least Kurt came out and said they were ripping off the Pixies, not like a ton of other bands who were doing the same thing and never admitted it!!Quote:
Originally Posted by holidaysong
Don't like either, but I'd probably have to say Nirvana for their stuff on Bleach.