Nirvana doesn't really have a standout album for me, but the first time I listened to Foo Fighters (the S/T), I knew I loved that band.

Foo Fighters.... I know I'm going to get crucified but I was never a huge fan of Nirvana. I applaud them for what they did for music. They were ahead of their time like the Beatles, I just wasn't a fan. To me they're hit or miss

I'm a big fan of Nirvana, so...

I voted for Nirvana.

Nirvana, though, I don't listen to them much.

"Rope" is a fantastic Foo track. "My Hero" has much to recommend it too. Dave's all out respectful of music's past, present, and future. Not to mention he has no tolerance for anyone starting a fight at one of his shows. There's footage on YouTube to prove it.

Definitely Nirvana by a long shot. Foo Fighters are great, don't get me wrong, but overall Nirvana has put out better material.

foo fighters offcourse

Did,nirvina have a 2nd touring guitar player on there 3rd album cycle ...????

I thought you listened to everything?

Haha its What your name says

after a while it becomes apparent that nirvana's main song progression always involves a quiet/loud dynamic interchangeably. I personally like it, but having listened to the band extensively find the structure a little repetitive.

Never found the foo fighters music very sincere; hard to discriminate from other soft rock anthems of the same variety: nickelback, pearl jam, etc.

I voted for Foo Fighters. Don't get me wrong, I love Nirvana. It's just that Foo Fighters have a now longer back catalog, and I've been into them more as I've gotten older because they're still banging out new material which is all incredible.

I'll go for Nirvana due to their studio releases being good. But their live shows usually get lame.

Over Foo Fighters? I would think the opposite live-show wise. Foo Fighters can hardly keep my attention live, while Nirvana I thought, was always full of energy on stage.

Energy, yes. Letting the energy get in the way of the songs being played as well as their studio counterparts, also yes.

Oh, but I love how the songs always descend into noisy obliteration on the Paramount performance. The shoddy playing just sounds more real to me. Foo Fighters seems really robotic live, though I guess I can dig some of their studio stuff.

I haven't heard Foo Fghters live.

Oh. You're original comment kinda led me to think that. I know one of their performances gets a lot of play on VH1.

Well, the two in terms of studio albums are pretty close. I can;t think of a Foo Fighters song I don't like.

Nirvana are ****. I tried to get into them to see what the fuss was about. Every song on One By One destroys anything I've heard from Nirvana.

Personal opinion.

They're apples and oranges, in my opinion. Dave Grohl (other than Marigold) was not a songwriter with Nirvana. People have analogized it to be a Lennon/McCartney situation. It's largely what you prefer. Nirvana is much darker; much more cryptic lyrically and aesthetically. The Foo Fighters are more in the middle and largely have maintained the same sound. It's really hard to compare the two when you take into account Nirvana only released 3 full length albums over the course of 5 years whereas the Foo Fighters have been together for 20.

As far as preference, I tend to gravitate toward darker lyrics and music. I think Cobain had the ability to really dig deep and exorcise demons through his music. His voice had an amazing emotional quality to it. I like the Foo Fighters a lot, but I can't say I've really seen Grohl go to that point. But, again, they're different people with different experiences.

I can hear the angst in Kurt's voice, pluhhhhh you can see the pain in his eyes, which is why I feel I prefer them more.

However, Foo Fighters got some dang ol' jambos, but the music just vibes different that I never really understood why some compared or had them in a face off.

Exactly. Grohl's Foo Fighters and Nirvana are so different in music style.