|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Foo Fighters or Nirvana? | |||
Nirvana | 106 | 66.25% | |
Tie | 15 | 9.38% | |
Foo Fighters | 39 | 24.38% | |
Voters: 160. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-05-2014, 04:38 AM | #103 (permalink) | |
A.B.N.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,451
|
More exciting? Both bands are literally the same
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes. Quote:
|
|
01-05-2014, 05:26 AM | #104 (permalink) |
The Aerosol in your Soul
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New South Wales, Australia
Posts: 1,546
|
Bleach was more exciting than anything Foo Fighters did, and Nirvana are a distinctive band. Foo Fighters have very little distinction compared.
__________________
last.fm |
01-05-2014, 05:33 AM | #105 (permalink) |
The Sexual Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
|
Don't worry, I got this.
__________________
Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave. |
01-05-2014, 08:48 AM | #106 (permalink) | |
A.B.N.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,451
|
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.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes. Quote:
|
|
01-05-2014, 09:32 PM | #109 (permalink) | |
The Aerosol in your Soul
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New South Wales, Australia
Posts: 1,546
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
last.fm Last edited by Rjinn; 01-05-2014 at 11:14 PM. |
|
01-05-2014, 11:30 PM | #110 (permalink) |
Trolier Than Thou
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,336
|
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.
|
|