Nirvana vs Foo Fighters

Keith186

Who do you think is better.

Personally I love Nirvana but Foo Fighters have some good stuff too, just wondering what the general concensus is.

Have done a search and found no polls on this so forgive me if it's been done a long time ago.

Keith186

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

Keith186 wrote: »

Who do you think is better.

Personally I love Nirvana but Foo Fighters have some good stuff too, just wondering what the general concensus is.

Have done a search and found no polls on this so forgive me if it's been done a long time ago.

No offence Keith, but this is the most f*cking retarded question\thread I have ever seen on boards. Nirvana changed an ENTIRE generation (thanks to a lot of other groups to be fair) The foos pay their mortgage by playing bland middle of the road pop. Would we have heard of the foos if Nirvana never existed is a more fair question. Definitely not imo. They are nothing more than a band crying out for a "best of" compilation as they have good singles and sh1te albums.


\angry papa smut

mise_me_fein

Atari Jaguar

The Foo Fighters stuff is a lot easier on the ear....I mean it's very poppy.
They're just another very good rock band but Nirvana had attitude.

I don't like a lot of the songs - well some - of the songs on In Utero.
Ya know that the record company made Nirvana change the way that album sounded coz they thought it was too extreme. Wonder what Nirvana wanted it to sound like.

RxQueen

foo's are good enough but nothing can top nirvana

qwertplaywert

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

Foos if they kept up the quality of their first 3 albums, but atm Nirvana ftw

PiE

Does anybody even care anymore?

0ubliette

Papa Smut wrote: »

No offence Keith, but this is the most f*cking retarded question\thread I have ever seen on boards. Nirvana changed an ENTIRE generation (thanks to a lot of other groups to be fair) The foos pay their mortgage by playing bland middle of the road pop. Would we have heard of the foos if Nirvana never existed is a more fair question. Definitely not imo. They are nothing more than a band crying out for a "best of" compilation as they have good singles and sh1te albums.


\angry papa smut

i hate QFT'ing, but....QFT!
Foos are a shadow of their former selves, and even at their best they were just a solid rock band, they werent, and never could be the revolution Nirvana were.

Bubs101

Atari Jaguar

Personally, I'm not exactly mad about Nirvana's stuff outside In Utero and I think Nevermind is the most overated album ever. As for the Foo's, they certainly do have good albums (the colour and the shape) and they make much better singles then Nirvana (one by one trumps any single of this decade so far)

mise_me_fein

Atari Jaguar

I think it's just a matter of taste. I don't really get why someone would say Nevermind is overrated.

I mean it's a great pop rock album that was released at the right time. There's nothing ground breaking on it but who cares. It sounds class.

I think the Foo Fighters first album is not great at all.

John

mise_me_fein wrote: »

I think it's just a matter of taste. I don't really get why someone would say Nevermind is overrated.

Because so many people laud it as the be all and end all of rock in the 90s when it's only an all right album with a couple of deadly songs but overall nothing special?

But really, you're right, it's all a matter of taste. Nirvana were a better band and the Foos have overstayed their welcome. They were fun when they started out, couple of good albums but then lost it. Grohl should have joined QOTSA full time.

BaZmO*

Keith186 wrote: »

just wondering what the general concensus is.

I'd say that the general consensus is that your question is bleedin retarded. :rolleyes:

What do you mean by better? Better at what?

Creamy Goodness

John wrote: »

But really, you're right, it's all a matter of taste. Nirvana were a better band and the Foos have overstayed their welcome. They were fun when they started out, couple of good albums but then lost it. Grohl should have joined QOTSA full time.

^^ that.

John

BaZmO* wrote: »

I'd say that the general consensus is that your question is bleedin retarded. :rolleyes:

What do you mean by better? Better at what?

Can we please stop calling people retarded? If you can't be civil, don't post.

BaZmO*

John wrote: »

Can we please stop calling people retarded? If you can't be civil, don't post.

Sorry, but in my defence I called the post retarded and not the actual poster. I just hate all those stupid threads where people ask stupid questions like,
"What's better The Beatles or The Stones?"

You might as well ask, "What's better cheese or pepsi?

It's a personal thing as to who or what you think is better when it comes to art.

John

Well it is a discussion forum and while I'd like to see a move away from threads like this, people seem to like them and you don't have to read/post if you don't like it. And cheese is much better than pepsi

BaZmO*

John wrote: »

Well it is a discussion forum and while I'd like to see a move away from threads like this, people seem to like them and you don't have to read/post if you don't like it.

I know, you're right. It's just a pet hate of mine.

John wrote: »

And cheese is much better than pepsi

Can we have a Poll?

whatawaster

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

I can't believe anyone could even ask this question.

deaddonkey

dave grohl used up the best, the best, the best, the best of his ideas up in the first 2 albums.

foos would have a respectable legacy if they'd quit after colour and the shape.
i bought NLTL, which kind sucked, and then one by one, which really heaved. haven't bought the latest ones. nor do i intend to.

deaddonkey

BaZmO* wrote: »

"What's better The Beatles or The Stones?"

stones. any day.

whatawaster

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

deaddonkey wrote: »

stones. any day.

Wrong Wrong Wrong

qwertplaywert

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

Bubs101 wrote: »

one by one trumps any single of this decade so far)

I assume you mean the single 'All My Life' from the Album One By One?

BaZmO*

deaddonkey wrote: »

dave grohl used up the best, the best, the best, the best of his ideas up in the first 2 albums.

Sinfonia

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

BaZmO* wrote: »

I just hate all those stupid threads where people ask stupid questions like,
"What's better The Beatles or The Stones?"
...
It's a personal thing as to who or what you think is better when it comes to art.

He's just asking for people's opinions on who they prefer, where's the problem? He didn't ask "Who is better?", he asked "Who do you think is better?"
Of course it's all opinion - that's what he's asking for.

My 2c:
*Please remember that "IMO" is implied after each of the following sentences*
Nirvana have a weak enough first album, followed by two good albums with nothing especially mind-blowing (although to be fair, I didn't listen to these albums until the late '90s, but I think great music should stand the test of time, and should be great regardless of social/cultural context, or how much it changed an entire generation etc.), a few good B-sides and tracks from Incesticide. Unplugged in NY, is for me, the one that can withstand the most repeated listening.

Foo Fighters start with 3 good albums, but again nothing especially mind-blowing. After that, it's really as someone else said, good singles and shoddy albums (Except In Your Honor, where Razor was the only good track)

I guess Nirvana just edge it for me, because their best songs are that bit better than FF's best songs.

John wrote: »

Grohl should have joined QOTSA full time.

Amen.

seamus

Atari Jaguar

As much as I hate to say it, if Cobain had never smoked barrel, Nirvana would be cast into the annals of bands who "Used to be good, but suck now", like Pearl Jam. The effect of Nevermind on 90's music wouldn't be as acclaimed as it is now.

FWIW, Grohl's talent far outstrips that of Cobain. Kurt produced some seriously woeful stuff while off his face (Endless, nameless anyone?). His impact was his divergence from contemporary rock - basically defining a new genre - rather than his ability to write music.

Everlong is easily one of the best songs produced in the last twenty years, and the first Foo Fighters album is nothing short of a masterpiece when you consider what it is - an entire album written and performed by one man.

A lot of the weaker stuff in the later Foo Fighters albums was actually written pre-Nirvana and during Nirvana. Either Grohl got lazy or just felt that the time was right.

BurnsCarpenter

seamus wrote: »

As much as I hate to say it, if Cobain had never smoked barrel, Nirvana would be cast into the annals of bands who "Used to be good, but suck now", like Pearl Jam. The effect of Nevermind on 90's music wouldn't be as acclaimed as it is now.

People recognised the importance of Nevermind even when Kurt was alive. I don't think that would have diminished if Nirvana had gone downhill.
IMO In Utero/Unplugged was the best stuff they ever did, so I wouldn't take it for granted that they would have started to suck.

Earthhorse

John wrote: »

Because so many people laud it as the be all and end all of rock in the 90s when it's only an all right album with a couple of deadly songs but overall nothing special?

Now you're damning it with feint praise. On hearing Polly Dylan remarked of Cobain, "Kid's got heart". Smells Like Teen Spirit, love it or hate it, was anthemic and largely responsible for kick starting the grunge scene's acceptance in the mainstream. Litihim, Come As You Are, Lounge Act, On a Plain, all great songs. There's very little filler on the album (if you can really call songs like Something in the Way and Breed filler).

It is far, far more than an alright album with a couple of "deadly" songs on it.

seamus wrote: »

As much as I hate to say it, if Cobain had never smoked barrel, Nirvana would be cast into the annals of bands who "Used to be good, but suck now", like Pearl Jam. The effect of Nevermind on 90's music wouldn't be as acclaimed as it is now.

No one with an interest in music classifies Pearl Jam as a band who "Used to be good, but suck now". They're one of the biggest touring bands in the world and whilst their songwriting took a dip on Binaural and Riot Act their eponymous 8th album showed they still got chops.

Remember too that after Cobain's death there was a sort of withdrawal of all these acts from the mainstream. I've seen several major players say it; Cornell, Vedder, Slash and others, that all those bands at the time, the wind went out of their sails when they saw what happened to Kurt, they started to wonder was the price to high? And they began to want that level of success less. Pearl Jam refused to make videos (yet still managed to have the fastest selling album for quite a number of years with Vs.) and the whole scene kinda deflated itself.

Also, whilst Cobain's suicide meant his reputation was cemented forever in some people's heads it's pretty hard to underestimate the impact Nevermind had on the music scene. I agree that Nirvana's reputation would have dipped a bit as the quality of the songwriting was bound to, and whilst that would have tarnished Nevermind's status for some people it would still be listed as one of the greats by most.

seamus wrote: »

FWIW, Grohl's talent far outstrips that of Cobain. Kurt produced some seriously woeful stuff while off his face (Endless, nameless anyone?). His impact was his divergence from contemporary rock - basically defining a new genre - rather than his ability to write music.

Talent at what? He's a better drummer certainly. A better guitarist? Maybe, I'd rate them about the same. A better songwriter? Certainly not. Cobain at his best is light years ahead of Grohl (sorry, I love Dave's stuff, particularly Nothing Left To Lose but it's true) and at his most mediocre he was producing stuff like Pennyroyal Tea whereas Grohl gives us Next Year. They're both pretty bad songs in my opinion but at least Cobain's was interesting whereas Grohl's weakest efforts come across as bland.

I think Grohl has a tendency to misfire more than Cobain too. His judgement just lets him down sometimes though it's difficult to say that this wouldn't have happened to Cobain eventually.

seamus wrote: »

Everlong is easily one of the best songs produced in the last twenty years, and the first Foo Fighters album is nothing short of a masterpiece when you consider what it is - an entire album written and performed by one man.

I like Everlong but not that much! As for the debut, whilst I take my hat off to Grohl for his musicianship you'll find plenty other musicians that do this. Prince plays a myriad of instruments on almost all his albums but that doesn't make them all masterpieces.

BaZmO* wrote: »

What do you mean by better? Better at what?

Football.

John

Earthhorse wrote: »

Now you're damning it with feint praise. On hearing Polly Dylan remarked of Cobain, "Kid's got heart". Smells Like Teen Spirit, love it or hate it, was anthemic and largely responsible for kick starting the grunge scene's acceptance in the mainstream. Litihim, Come As You Are, Lounge Act, On a Plain, all great songs. There's very little filler on the album (if you can really call songs like Something in the Way and Breed filler).

Well if Dylan liked it then I must be mistaken... To be honest, at the time of this coming out I thought little of it and it's only in the last few years that I can listen to it in any way objectively (if you look at any of my older posts on boards, I have taken a firm "Nevermind is ****" stance which has softened). It's not an amazing album. Not even all the singles are that good. It's like the Arcade Fire now, both bands are just a dilution of a far stronger underground and happened to make it big. Nirvana are a poor man's Mudhoney, Pixies, Melvins, Swans, Husker Du, etc. That being said, they are not a bad band but they are overrated hugely because of a drug addiction and a suicide.

No one with an interest in music classifies Pearl Jam as a band who "Used to be good, but suck now". They're one of the biggest touring bands in the world and whilst their songwriting took a dip on Binaural and Riot Act their eponymous 8th album showed they still got chops.

Just because they're really popular doesn't make them as good as they used to be. Nirvana burned out and Pearl Jam are fading (creatively) away.

Also, whilst Cobain's suicide meant his reputation was cemented forever in some people's heads it's pretty hard to underestimate the impact Nevermind had on the music scene. I agree that Nirvana's reputation would have dipped a bit as the quality of the songwriting was bound to, and whilst that would have tarnished Nevermind's status for some people it would still be listed as one of the greats by most.

I'd have to agree with you here, I don't think Nirvana would have dropped off the face of the earth but would have been putting out albums of similar quality for a long time. Going back to Pearl Jam, I don't think the stuff they wrote in the 90s is bad because I don't like they're music now. No artist can fire on all cylinders all the time. Look at Dylan, Neil Young, Nick Cave and Leonard Cohen. All undeniably brilliant but all with a fair few dodgy songs to their names.

Earthhorse

I brought up Dylan only to reinforce my claim that you were damning the album with feint praise. You say things like, "It's not an amazing album. Not even all the singles are that good." but don't really say why you think this. Is it the lyrics? The melodies? The structure? I think the songs are all solid and the album really flows like few others I've listened to.

Whilst The Arcade Fire are big they're nothing as big as Nirvana were. I know popularity doesn't count for squat but I think the comparison's not valid. In a few years The Arcade Fire won't be referenced on a regular basis by music journalists. Nirvana, and Cobain, will. There's a reason for that and it's got everything to do with great songwriting and little to do with how he lived.

John wrote: »

Nirvana are a poor man's Mudhoney, Pixies, Melvins, Swans, Husker Du, etc.

I should probably know these bands better but from what I've heard of them I would reverse that statement. Cobain's instincts served him well when it came to songwriting and he always struck the right balance between raw and sweet for me. I love the Pixies but think too much of their stuff is throwaway ultimately. The bits of Mudhoney, Melvins and Husker Du I've heard have not made me want to investigate much further. Not heard anything by Swans.

John wrote: »

That being said, they are not a bad band but they are overrated hugely because of a drug addiction and a suicide.

I don't know anybody who does that.

SprostonGreen

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

Nirvana. They were great at the time, but I cant listen to them anymore, Nevermind has not aged well at all.

Foo Fighters are a terrible band, **** songs, despite Grohl being a nice bloke.

John

Earthhorse wrote: »

I brought up Dylan only to reinforce my claim that you were damning the album with feint praise. You say things like, "It's not an amazing album. Not even all the singles are that good." but don't really say why you think this. Is it the lyrics? The melodies? The structure? I think the songs are all solid and the album really flows like few others I've listened to.

It's not an amazing album because not all the songs are amazing. There are some tracks I really like "Lithium" and then there are tracks like "Polly" and "In Bloom" which are not great songs. "In Bloom" is all right but "Polly" is a atrocious. Considering you want specifics about the lyrics: No, I don't think they're all that brilliant. He's a good songwriter but he's a far cry from genius. His lyrics tend towards the obscure (not in terms of the words he uses but in that they don't really convey much of a meaning to me) and sacrifices poetry. Melodies are good to great (and I think this is where the success of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" comes from, the simple but brilliant riff that propels the song). Structure is straightforward, nothing good or bad about it. The songs don't suit a 20 minute epic with different movements.

Whilst The Arcade Fire are big they're nothing as big as Nirvana were. I know popularity doesn't count for squat but I think the comparison's not valid. In a few years The Arcade Fire won't be referenced on a regular basis by music journalists. Nirvana, and Cobain, will. There's a reason for that and it's got everything to do with great songwriting and little to do with how he lived.

Fair point about popularity but that's not what I'm getting at. Both bands got ridiculously popular compared to their contemporaries despite there not being a huge difference in quality between either group and similar groups of their time. If Pearl Jam had hit the big time first would the situation be the same now? To be honest, I don't think so. Whoever the first grunge band are in any alternate reality are going to have that wow factor for the mainstream music audience much like so many people think the Arcade Fire sound like nothing else out there because they're only familiar with the tip of the iceberg.

I should probably know these bands better but from what I've heard of them I would reverse that statement. Cobain's instincts served him well when it came to songwriting and he always struck the right balance between raw and sweet for me. I love the Pixies but think too much of their stuff is throwaway ultimately. The bits of Mudhoney, Melvins and Husker Du I've heard have not made me want to investigate much further. Not heard anything by Swans.

When it comes down to it, The Pixies are no more throwaway than Nirvana. What makes Nirvana not throwaway? Both bands are just as talented, just as innovative (although I'd give more points to the Pixies in this regard), both captured the sound of times and both played similar styles of music. Nirvana have always sounded to me like a combination and in some ways a dilution of the other Seattle bands. I don't mean this in a bad way (I used to), it's like Radiohead now who sound like so many other more experimental bands but have repackaged it in a way that more people will enjoy. This doesn't make them a better band but just makes them more palatable. This works for you in Nirvana's case but not for me. That's another reason why I don't think Nevermind is amazing, I've heard it all before and heard it all played better by other bands.

I don't know anybody who does that.

So you've never heard the tired argument of Cobain being a tortured genius? Never seen a t-shirt with his birth and death dates on it? Never thought that his suicide and drug addiction never played any role in his rise to fame and people's opinions of his songwriting?

MagicMarker

Atari Jaguar

In fairness. Nirvana were shíte, they had their moments. Foo fighters are better, but they are very middle of the road with only 2 or 3 great songs per album.

So, a FF best of would be awesome and would kick Nirvana's ass.

Stompbox

I think Seamus hit the nail on the head. Would we still be talking about Nirvan had Kurt Cobain survived. I think not.

Earthhorse

John wrote: »

It's not an amazing album because not all the songs are amazing.

That's fair enough. There are plenty of albums I consider amazing that have unamazing songs on them. I guess we just have different criteria.

John wrote: »

"Polly" is a atrocious.

This isn't an attempt to change your opinion but it's a touching song about a difficult subject that most people wouldn't dare tackle. It's remarkable the effect achieved with such a simple chord sequence and amazing that it didn't come across as ham-fisted and completely inappropriate for a rock band to sing about.

John wrote: »

Considering you want specifics about the lyrics

I didn't actually want specifics about the lyrics, was just wondering where you felt the album faltered.

John wrote: »

His lyrics tend towards the obscure (not in terms of the words he uses but in that they don't really convey much of a meaning to me) and sacrifices poetry.

Actually, I consider him quite a poetic lyricist. "Sell the kids for food/Weather changes mood" is, to me, poetic and I agree obscure but here I would say he is sacrificing meaning for poetry.

You make a fair point about Nirvana being the first among equals. For my money none of the other grunge bands were quite as good as Nirvana (Stone Temple Pilots probably came closest). However, we can't really discuss what might have been, only what is. Did those bands have a Smells Like Teen Spirit in them, a real breakthrough song? Maybe Alive, maybe Jeremy, but it's impossible to say.

I'm having trouble finding a link to back me up but I remember reading something that basically showed Ten's sales were not far behind Nevermind's so I don't know that Nirvana were ridiculously more popular than Pearl Jam but they certainly felt like more of a phenomenom and I think that came out of the feeling that they were something more than just another great rock band.

John wrote: »

When it comes down to it, The Pixies are no more throwaway than Nirvana. What makes Nirvana not throwaway?

For me, it's the lyrics. Much as I love Black's anarchic take on things I'm not sure that any of the Pixies songs are about anything. I mean obviously they're about something but it's usually just getting high at a party, or driving in his car or his crazy laundry lady. Fun, often funny, but throwaway. Even when they sing about love like in "La La Love You" they don't really have anything much to say about it.

Contrast this with Come As You Are, a song about accepting people the way they are, trying not to judge things by their appearance, gross or otherwise, On A Plain, a wry and self effacing look at the song writing process and Lounge Act, an intense song about obsessive love and you might see the difference. It wouldn't surprise me if you don't really get that from Cobain's lyrics, I mean you wouldn't be the first to tell me so, but that's what I get.

I hope you don't think I'm cherry picking either. I genuinely think the examples I've given are indicative of the respective bands catalogue. And I'd just like to point out that I love the Pixies and spent a very, very long time listening to a lot of their music.

John wrote: »

So you've never heard the tired argument of Cobain being a tortured genius? Never seen a t-shirt with his birth and death dates on it? Never thought that his suicide and drug addiction never played any role in his rise to fame and people's opinions of his songwriting?

I've heard the argument, seen the t-shirts and had that thought articulated to me by others.

Cobain was, quite clearly, a troubled man. He also had a knack, I would not shy away from using the term "genius" but it leads us into huge go-nowhere debates, for writing great songs. "Tortured genius" brings with it all sorts of connotations that are as pretentious as they are misleading.

I don't see what merchandising has to do with music. I know some people get annoyed seeing hordes of kids sporting these things but it really doesn't bother me. I have the albums not the clothes, and I've never head anyone say, "Yeah, Nirvana were a great band, they really produced some seminal clothing".

Maybe I was just naive at the time but I never remember hearing much about Kurt's drug addiction during his lifetime (when they rose to fame). I remember the overdose in Italy but had always assumed it was a bottle of pills. I don't know of anyone who got into them because of Kurt's drug problems. Perhaps subsequently and because of his suicide people are doing this but if so why aren't they similarly invested in Blind Melon or Alice in Chains?

My point is that I think people confuse cause and effect when it comes to Nirvana's popularity. The songwriting came first and is the real reason so many people, including music journalists and documentary makers, are attracted to them. I'm not saying the drama and end of the band don't make them an additionally attractive prospect but these books, movies and endless articles wouldn't be so pervasive if people hadn't been touched by the music; they just wouldn't be bothered putting in the hard work.

I can understand why non Nirvana fans get so frustrated having to hear about them all the time but I just think arguments about t-shirts, the teens that wear them and all that gossip don't hold up under scrutiny.

Fooz

Atari Jaguar

I think my user name answers the question.

Jeebus

Papa Smut wrote: »

No offence Keith, but this is the most f*cking retarded question\thread I have ever seen on boards. Nirvana changed an ENTIRE generation (thanks to a lot of other groups to be fair) The foos pay their mortgage by playing bland middle of the road pop. Would we have heard of the foos if Nirvana never existed is a more fair question. Definitely not imo. They are nothing more than a band crying out for a "best of" compilation as they have good singles and sh1te albums.


\angry papa smut

I agree I prefer Nirvana, but the Foo's are my favourite band that are still touring, so I'd definitely disagree with you calling them 'bland middle of the road pop'. I still haven't stopped listening to their new album, which in my opinion is almost as good as the colour and shape, which was amazing.

But yeah, rather a stupid thread. It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges IMO. Nirvana, musically, were a far simpler band, but their music was meaningful and changed an entire generation. They without doubt had the bigger influence.

Foo Fighters are a great band, obviously they haven't had the influence Nirvana had, but that shouldn't take anything away from the fact that they have made some fantastic songs (My Hero, Best of You, Monkey Wrench, Let it Die, Long Road to Ruin, The Pretender, Everlong, February Stars, Up in Arms, New Way Home but to name a few. Bloody hell, they've had a lot of great tracks too).

Would Foo Fighters be known if Nirvana weren't ? Yeah they would. I mean they are one of the top-selling modern day rock artists, obviously people like them, so someone would have picked up on them eventually anyway, especially given how all of them had moderate success with smaller bands prior to joining Nirvana/Foo Fighters.

Oh look, they just got nominated for best live band on MTV...;). Bah, Muse won though. The foo's were far better than Muse live the times I saw them.

Jeebus

Wait, are you guys arguing on whether an album is amazing or not now ?

Thats a bit stupid, innit ? I mean, if you don't mind me saying.Saying stuff like "Its not an amazing album because not every song is amazing" is down to perception, so it doesn't bear arguing about. Its completely based on what you like yourself, so you know, does it really make a difference if Mick down the road doesn't think Led Zeppelin were 'amazing', but does think Britney Spears was ? Bit like trying to argue someone away from their religion !!

Sinfonia

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

Jeebus wrote: »

Wait, are you guys arguing on whether an album is amazing or not now ?

It's more about whether or not Nirvana are overrated; whether or not they deserve the amount of attention they get; and whether or not Cobain's life and death had more to do with their popularity and notoriety than the music itself.
I think.

Earthhorse

Jeebus wrote: »

Wait, are you guys arguing on whether an album is amazing or not now ?

Ah, 'tis all in good fun.

jtsuited

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

IMO I don't think Foo Fighters have done anything as significant as what Nirvana did.

Foo Fighters are a great band and all, but Nirvana's albums were really groundbreaking when you consider the sh1te that was around at the time.

btw., pixies are the most over-rated band of all time.

John

Earthhorse wrote: »

Ah, 'tis all in good fun.

Agreed, the internet was invented for pointless and semi-pointless discussions.

deaddonkey

whatawaster wrote: »

Wrong Wrong Wrong

no. you're wrong.

jtsuited wrote: »

btw., pixies are the most over-rated band of all time.

wanna take this outside, pal?


the pixies are the be all and end all of 'alternative' rock in the past 20 years.
LOVE.

Driver 8

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

the pixies are the be all and end all of 'alternative' rock in the past 20 years.

I'll call Michael Stipe and Thom Yorke, alert them to the news

deaddonkey

Driver 8 wrote: »

I'll call Michael Stipe and Thom Yorke, alert them to the news

i still honestly can't believe radiohead get rated at all.

REM have been very hit and miss since monster. mostly miss.
they're still one of my favourites though

i'd pay money to see michael stipe and thom yorke having a fight, and then seeing black francis come in and KICK SOME BUTT

jtsuited

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

deaddonkey wrote: »

i still honestly can't believe radiohead get rated at all.

really?
Considering the amount of records they've sold and the size of their following?
You can't believe it?
honestly?

Attractive Nun

Ah, I remember being totally obsessed with Nirvana some years ago. Good times. For that alone, I must consider them better than the Foo Fighters. In reality, they are - at best - a very good band. They are also frequently a very mediocre band. The Foo Fighters are almost always a very mediocre band.

Still, I'll always have a fondness for both bands - Nirvana being the first band I really got into, the Foo Fighters being the first band I ever saw live. A bad start.

deaddonkey wrote:

i still honestly can't believe radiohead get rated at all.

This angers me.

Kold

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

Foo Fighters are too bland for elevator music imo.

Earthhorse

ferdi

hmmm

well if i ask myself

"who would you rather see live at their best? nirvana or foo fighters"

i'd definitly have to go with nirvana.

there is something about a three piece that will get me every time.

qwertplaywert

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

Agree with the poster who said Foos greatest hits album- if 20 of the Foos best songs were chosen over 20 of Nirvana, there is no doubt in my mind the Foos one would be more memorable.

deaddonkey

jtsuited wrote: »

really?
Considering the amount of records they've sold and the size of their following?
You can't believe it?
honestly?

lets rephrase it

i think they're dreadful

Driver 8

Foo Fighters (Don't give up!)

Why?

A statement that shocking requires explanation.
Oh, and to avoid being stereotypical, please avoid the words "depressing" or "student", alright?