Foo Fighters

~~[MERIT]~~ · 04-07-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

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.

Then "radio friendly" is a bad thing I presume? Should they litter their music with excessive profanities and sing about f*cking hoes and how George Bush is a bastard. The only thing that separates "radio friendly" music from the rest is the fact that it is popular enough to get lots of play. Even un-radio friendly music gets edited and makes it on the air if it is popular enough. Being popular has somehow become synonymous with being a sell-out or being formulaic (I realize you didn't say all this, I'm just throwing it out there).

And I agree with you that many Foo Fighters albums are full of filler, but the hits from the albums surely overshadow it. While there are some CD's where every track is a gem, they are few and far between, regardless of genre.

Spike*Spiegel · 04-07-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

And I agree with you that many Foo Fighters albums are full of filler, but the hits from the albums surely overshadow it. While there are some CD's where every track is a gem, they are few and far between, regardless of genre.

you're ok with mediocrity?? I expect more than 1 or 2 good songs out of an album before I even consider buying it. Personally, I think it's a load of bs that they think they can skate by like that... I like the Foo Fighters, but I will not be purchasing any of their music any time soon. Utorrent ftw

~~[MERIT]~~ · 04-08-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike*Spiegel

you're ok with mediocrity?? I expect more than 1 or 2 good songs out of an album before I even consider buying it. Personally, I think it's a load of bs that they think they can skate by like that... I like the Foo Fighters, but I will not be purchasing any of their music any time soon. Utorrent ftw

How can you call an album that spawns multiple #1 hits mediocre? Very few albums are chock-full of gold. I agree that the filler can be somewhat sh*tty (by definition), but it's either put out a record with multiple hits and some filler once a year, or wait 5-10 years until they can write an album bound to be full of #1 hits and then release it. Which is more economically viable? (I realize how a real music fan would answer this, me being one as well, but this is the real world we live in, people have to make a living).

Piss Me Off · 04-08-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

How can you call an album that spawns multiple #1 hits mediocre? Very few albums are chock-full of gold. I agree that the filler can be somewhat sh*tty (by definition), but it's either put out a record with multiple hits and some filler once a year, or wait 5-10 years until they can write an album bound to be full of #1 hits and then release it. Which is more economically viable? (I realize how a real music fan would answer this, me being one as well, but this is the real world we live in, people have to make a living).

Why does it have to have hits on it? I'm sure a band like Foo Fighters are at a stage where they have the freedom to write what they want, free from any constraints of having to make a hit. I mean, the acoustic side of In Your Honour was popular wasn't it?

~~[MERIT]~~ · 04-08-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piss Me Off

Why does it have to have hits on it? I'm sure a band like Foo Fighters are at a stage where they have the freedom to write what they want, free from any constraints of having to make a hit. I mean, the acoustic side of In Your Honour was popular wasn't it?

I agree, i'm just trying to stave off the contrasting opinions on the issue. It's humorous how everyone (meaning the haters) can supposedly guage how much "talent" an artist has and how they are just "wasting" it.

sleepy jack · 04-08-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

I agree, i'm just trying to stave off the contrasting opinions on the issue. It's humorous how everyone (meaning the haters) can supposedly guage how much "talent" an artist has and how they are just "wasting" it.

Yeah because it's not like Grohl's had any past work or collaborations to which we can judge this from.

Piss Me Off · 04-09-2008, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Yeah because it's not like Grohl's had any past work or collaborations to which we can judge this from.

They barely count though. He has Probot and i think he wrote one Nirvana song. His appearances with QOTSA and the rest are just him as a band member. Fronting and writing for a band are a lot different to simply just playing your instrument.