I like a couple of their early hits, but I literally can't name a single song they've done in the past fifteen years.

Dave has talent, but his songs are also too boring and all. Nirvana was more interesting as a band. And better.

More exciting? Both bands are literally the same

Bleach was more exciting than anything Foo Fighters did, and Nirvana are a distinctive band. Foo Fighters have very little distinction compared.

Don't worry, I got this.

http://www.channel4.com/media/images...on_buds_A0.jpg

The hero worship that Nirvana gets in comparison to Foo Fighters is so misplaced though. Sure they not may be literally the same but very similar.

Easy

Nirvana

Marshmallows and peanut butter?

What does hero worship have to do with it?

Nirvana had a heavier, more raw sound. Involved lead work and riffs. Cobain had an individual, grainy, edgy voice compared to Grohl's. Their songs are distinctive from one another, musically speaking. The only similarities I can tell this far are having alternative rock qualities, with similar time lengths, and Grohl using his voice in a similar fashion sometimes. Not really though, Grohl had more of a singing, melodic voice. Foo Fighters are pretty generic.

I thought it was popcorn at first.

Edit: Thought I'd add a bit more description.

Yeah, totally agree. I like a few Foo Fighters singles, but they're really only a singles band to me. I could never listen to a full album, whereas with Nirvana I can listen to any one of their albums all the way through. It's that hardcore influence, but honestly, Foo Fighters is probably what Nirvana would have sounded like if they sold out, though. Cleaner production, catchier melodies and we'd probably be talking about Nirvana the same way that we talk about Metallica.