Foo Fighters

Dr_Rez · 04-05-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsubmissivewife

I don't understand why something being "popular" is bad? Anywho, people like what they like, it's all a matter of opinion and I don't feel like anyone should be able to argue with an opinion. Crowquill thinks it's bad, RezZ thinks they're alright, and I think they're good. So be it. None of us are saying they are the best band ever, so who cares?

You are correct, but what we are arguing about is the point he made that anyone could make this simple radio rock. Which i completely disagree with.

boo boo · 04-05-2008, 01:51 PM

Ethan. Please stop.

sleepy jack · 04-05-2008, 02:05 PM

I'm allowed to discuss music. Why don't you fuck off and try it for once? I don't think RezZ has a problem discussing this with me.

sleepy jack · 04-05-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RezZ

To the first part: That is where i disagree, in thinking that yes, it is hard to wright that "catchy of a pop song". There are many on the radio, rather TONS on the radio, but i feel only a very small amount of those are actually catchy and clever, with the Foo Fighters music being one of the few.

See I don't really think of the Foo Fighters music as catchy. When I think catchy I tend to think off stuff like Back in Your Head by Tegan and Sara that has a more poppy bouncy element with a kind of shout along feel to it that very easily gets stuck in your head. I tend to place the Foo Fighers in more of a category where they aim to write the big rock anthems which can be catchy but I think it's too big? to be catchy. I can't really explain it anyway that's irrelevant digressing. I think there are bands on the mainstream doing it finer than them. No Cars Go by the Arcade Fire is a good example of this as well Dashboard by Modest Mouse. I don't think what they do has any real value to it or that they even do it better than their current contemporaries.

boo boo · 04-05-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

I'm allowed to discuss music. Why don't you fuck off and try it for once? I don't think RezZ has a problem discussing this with me.

I love discussing music.

But too many people here discuss what they hate and not what they like.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 04-05-2008, 02:24 PM

I don't have a problem with the Foo Fighters wanting to write radio friendly rock songs. What my problem with them is thats ALL they do.
A band will only release maybe 3 or 4 songs on an album for radio play as singles. This leaves at least another 8 or 9 songs on the album that an artist can do more or less anything they choose to with.What do the Foo Fighters do with these songs? They just use it for bland filler tracks that are just as formulaic as the stuff they put out on the radio.
In my opinion and also several other people's opinion that I know of who have followed Grohl's career over the years & who actually think he is talented and have a lot of time for him think that this is a huge waste of his obvious talent.

sleepy jack · 04-05-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I love discussing music.

Really? Cause from what I've seen you just love bitching when people don't praise your favorite bands.

boo boo · 04-05-2008, 02:32 PM

Well, I don't really care for their new stuff because it HAS gotten repetitive. But I really liked their album The Colour And The Shape. Everlong is one song I really love and I don't mind that it gets played on the radio a lot.

Most stuff since then has been hit or miss with me however, Learn to Fly is certainly one song I'd never care to listen to ever again, which sadly won't stop radio stations from playing it until the f*cking end of time. And I actually do agree that the best post Nirvana thing Grohl has been involved in would be QOTSA.

I'm glad you at least recognise that Grohl is talented, and yes I would like to see him put that talent to more good use.

sleepy jack · 04-05-2008, 02:48 PM

I should really get back to my original point. I don't think Dave Grohl keeps proving who the most talented member of Nirvana was because his songwriting leaves so much to be desired compared to Kurt's. Even RezZ a fan has admitted they don't make inventive music and while Nirvana didn't either at least they were doing something different from what was making money at the time and Kurt Cobain really didn't care so much about pleasing the masses with Nirvana as Grohl does with the Foo Fighters. I mean he could've easily made Nevermind part 2 but instead he delivered In Utero and even fought his record company (though sadly lost) for the mixing to stay the way Albini had had it which probably wouldn't have pleased all the hair metal fans gone grunge.

I also think In Utero is a far superior album to anything Grohl's written and I'm mad hungry right now so if someone wants me to expand on this too I will.

boo boo · 04-05-2008, 03:03 PM

Theres more to talent than just songwriting.

04-05-2008, 02:24 PM	#126 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I don't have a problem with the Foo Fighters wanting to write radio friendly rock songs. What my problem with them is thats ALL they do. A band will only release maybe 3 or 4 songs on an album for radio play as singles. This leaves at least another 8 or 9 songs on the album that an artist can do more or less anything they choose to with.What do the Foo Fighters do with these songs? They just use it for bland filler tracks that are just as formulaic as the stuff they put out on the radio. In my opinion and also several other people's opinion that I know of who have followed Grohl's career over the years & who actually think he is talented and have a lot of time for him think that this is a huge waste of his obvious talent. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.