|
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 |
06-24-2013, 04:49 PM | #21 (permalink) |
Boozy Lad
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Newport, South Wales
Posts: 482
|
Bit of a strange comparison but Nirvana for me I guess... I think there's probably three or four songs of both I hear from time to time, nights out or what have you but i've not sat down and listened to either in yonks. I'm not too ashamed to say I requested Everlong the other night, always liked that one.
|
06-25-2013, 11:40 AM | #22 (permalink) |
Engorged Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,536
|
I think one thing that separates the two for me is that Nirvana was relevant in their day, whereas Foo Fighters were at first but continue to produce this post-grunge "alternative rock" that, at least to me, has been irrelevant for over a decade.
Now that's not to say we can't enjoy music that isn't relevant to today's trends, don't get me wrong. I don't exactly follow trends when choosing music to listen to. I just feel Foo Fighters and practically all post-grunge bands are just boring radio rock at this point. Nirvana went out on a high note.
__________________
last.fm | my collection on RYM | vinyl instagram @allthatyouseeandhear I'd love to see your signature/links too, but the huge and obnoxious ones have caused me to block all signatures. |
06-27-2013, 11:16 AM | #25 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 9
|
I liked Nirvana cause it was new, they changed the view on that style of music to make it popular, so i chose Nirvana..
Foos are class at what they do, There is nothing left to lose is still one of my albums i play frequently :-) |
06-30-2013, 09:57 AM | #26 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: freely swimmin thru the waters of glory much like a majestic bald eagle soars thru the skies
Posts: 1,463
|
Nirvana was awesome in a groundbreaking sort of way. I say that not to be some pseudo-edgy 'tard with a nostalgia hard-on, but because they really were. I just really liked that grunge sounds, moreso than I liked the grunge from Pearl Jam or Alice in Chains which I see as much darker and less energetic.
Foo Fighters first 2 CDs were good. After that, I think they kinda turned into background music for me. Nothing they do really sounds all that interesting or new to me anymore, though I think Grohl seems like a cool dude. |
07-01-2013, 06:19 PM | #28 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 7
|
If it wasn't for the death of Kurt Cobain I'm sure Nirvana would have pumped out a few more albums. With that being said Mr. Grohl still produces a somewhat Nirvana-esque style to his music, although it is more up to date than its predecessor
|
07-01-2013, 10:16 PM | #29 (permalink) |
Registered Jimmy Rustler
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,360
|
Nirvana had a far more raw sound. He even admits he is nowhere near the song writer Kurt was.
__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew* *Always Checks Credentials Crew* *nba > nfl crew* *Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew* |
07-02-2013, 12:05 AM | #30 (permalink) |
Divination
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
|
Nirvana will always overshadow Dave Grohl's career with the Foo Fighters. I liked Grohl better playing the drums and supporting Cobain on harmony vocals.
That doesn't in anyway suggest that the Foo Fighters aren't a good band though. |
|