Home› Other Music

Foo's vs Nirvana

yellowled24yellowled24 Posts: 3,118
edited March 2008 in Other Music
Do you think Nirvana would've been more famous than Foo Fighters if Kurt was still alive?
"....and was very surprised to see that he didnt actually have a recipe for anus-ankle soup." - Big Ed
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • markymark550markymark550 Posts: 5,141
    Wrong forum, but...

    If Kurt was still alive, I'm not so sure that the Foo's would even be in existence as a band.

    You never know how changing history would have affected the present....
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    nirvana blows
  • yellowled24yellowled24 Posts: 3,118
    markymark550 wrote:
    Wrong forum, but...

    If Kurt was still alive, I'm not so sure that the Foo's would even be in existence as a band.

    You never know how changing history would have affected the present....
    sorry man...a bottle of wine will do that to you!!! Thanks Margaret River :)
    "....and was very surprised to see that he didnt actually have a recipe for anus-ankle soup." - Big Ed
  • inmyrvminmyrvm Posts: 933
    nirvana is one of the most overrated bands ever. i much prefer the foos. all in all now though, i prefer neither. foos aren't very good anymore (haven't like the last few albums) and they always skip over pittsburgh (i remember a certain lead singer promising to come back in 03, we're still waiting............)
    "Fuck the talkin' let's start rockin" - Eddie Vedder 9-5-00 Pittsburgh
    4/26/03 Pittsburgh 5/3/03 State College 7/12/03 Hershey 10/1/04 Reading 9/28/05 Pittsburgh 5/20/06 Cleveland 6/23/06 Pittsburgh 6/22/08 DC

    friends don't let friends listen to good charlotte
  • yellowled24yellowled24 Posts: 3,118
    inmyrvm wrote:
    nirvana is one of the most overrated bands ever. i much prefer the foos. all in all now though, i prefer neither. foos aren't very good anymore (haven't like the last few albums) and they always skip over pittsburgh (i remember a certain lead singer promising to come back in 03, we're still waiting............)
    Over where I am, their songs get thrashed on the radio! Though saying that, Nirvana is on atleast once a day.
    I just wondered if Nirvana was so famous because of the fact Kurt killed himself? If Dave Grohl killed himself, would Foo's popularity rise more than if he stayed alive? Is this a shallow way to be famous??? Does it mean more, or less?
    "....and was very surprised to see that he didnt actually have a recipe for anus-ankle soup." - Big Ed
  • dirtyTdirtyT Posts: 3,620
    inmyrvm wrote:
    nirvana is one of the most overrated bands ever. i much prefer the foos. all in all now though, i prefer neither. foos aren't very good anymore (haven't like the last few albums) and they always skip over pittsburgh (i remember a certain lead singer promising to come back in 03, we're still waiting............)
    I agree in Nirvana being overrated, maybe Kurt was overrated. I think Dave Grohl is a much better musician. Despite Kurt's death, I think dave Grohl was on his way out. Kurt's death simply just sped up him creating a new band.

    Having said all that, Nirvana did open a lot of doors for many other great bands like PJ. Many bands that came through that door were better, much like what the Beatles did in the 60's, opened a door in which better bands came through. MO
    Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    dirtyT wrote:
    I agree in Nirvana being overrated, maybe Kurt was overrated. I think Dave Grohl is a much better musician. Despite Kurt's death, I think dave Grohl was on his way out. Kurt's death simply just sped up him creating a new band.

    Having said all that, Nirvana did open a lot of doors for many other great bands like PJ. Many bands that came through that door were better, much like what the Beatles did in the 60's, opened a door in which better bands came through. MO


    I agree in that I think Dave wasn't going to be in Nirvana much longer. He was already working on the material that became the first Foo album. If he'd have stayed in Nirvana, it would have really held him back as a musician.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    yellowled24 wrote:
    I just wondered if Nirvana was so famous because of the fact Kurt killed himself? If Dave Grohl killed himself, would Foo's popularity rise more than if he stayed alive?

    No to both questions.

    I'm not a big Nirvana fan, but Cobain's influence when he was alive was much greater than Grohl's has ever been. Grohl is very talented (as much, maybe more than Cobain musically speaking), but it's extremely rare for that many people to connect so personally with an artist like they connected with Cobain. That's why Nirvana was so popular...their legacy has little to do with his premature death.
  • DOSWDOSW Posts: 2,014
    Boring generic hard rock music with no personality vs edgy, raw, tortured, brutal grungey awesomeness.

    Tough call there.
    It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,853
    yellowled24 wrote:
    Do you think Nirvana would've been more famous than Foo Fighters if Kurt was still alive?

    umm.....there's a chance that Foo Fighters wouldn't even exist if Kurt was still alive
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • pjoasisrulepjoasisrule Posts: 3,412
    DOSW wrote:
    Boring generic hard rock music with no personality vs edgy, raw, tortured, brutal grungey awesomeness.

    Tough call there.

    I totally agree, too many people saying how overrated Nirvana is. Whether you like them or not, you cannot deny how important Nirvana are. I dont think I could listen to Nirvana every single day but they are a timeless band with some of the best songs and albums of our generation, I just cant understand how somebody could completely hate them. Foo Fighters are boring, seems like they release the same song over and over again. Dave Grohl was way better as the drummer for Nirvana than is the frontman of Foo Fighters.
    Alpine Valley 2000
    Summerfest 2006

    "Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    DOSW wrote:
    Boring generic hard rock music with no personality vs edgy, raw, tortured, brutal grungey awesomeness.

    Tough call there.
    This is an argument about the Foos and Nirvana, not the Foos and an edgy, raw, tortured, brutal, grungey awesome band ;)

    Seriously though. Nirvana never made anything that comes near to "brutal". Even the most harrowing of Kurt's songs had either a pop sensibility or was just insanely contrived and naive. His best songs were the ones that displayed his love for guitar pop music like the Vaselines. Nirvana's version of Son of a Gun is better than any crap like "Rape Me".
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • bubbamackdaddy69bubbamackdaddy69 Posts: 576
    I liked Nirvana alot and don't really like the Foos at all.. just don't like the style , too radio(ish) for me and plain.
    Master of Zen
  • pjoasisrulepjoasisrule Posts: 3,412
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    This is an argument about the Foos and Nirvana, not the Foos and an edgy, raw, tortured, brutal, grungey awesome band ;)

    Seriously though. Nirvana never made anything that comes near to "brutal". Even the most harrowing of Kurt's songs had either a pop sensibility or was just insanely contrived and naive. His best songs were the ones that displayed his love for guitar pop music like the Vaselines. Nirvana's version of Son of a Gun is better than any crap like "Rape Me".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0gzFbqxJ0Y
    Alpine Valley 2000
    Summerfest 2006

    "Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    pjoasisrule wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0gzFbqxJ0Y
    Oh goody. It's Nirvana doing their best Confusion is Sex-era Sonic Youth impression, only with incoherent screaming.

    As nice an idea it is to think that, because of what we know of Kurt, Endless Nameless is some exercise in primal catharsis, in reality, ANY alternative punk band from the 80s could have recorded that.

    Nirvana's truly great moments were songs like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OlxKVa7BHA

    People need to stop affording more importance to the music than it deserves. If you think the songs are great then fine. Listening to endless nameless and calling it edgy and brutal, just because it's Kurt making noise and Kurt is oh so tortured, makes it apparent that you perhaps don't listen to much lesser-known 80s punk bands. Sorry for being presumptious but this is the impression I get. As much as Kurt tried (and to be fair, he gave it a good shot), Nirvana would never be a band like Flipper or Scratch Acid. Kurt was a great song writer but much of his work just seems like a pose.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Posts: 12,223
    Who knows what direction Kurt's music might have taken, had he gone the Stipe/poppy route he was contemplating? I don't think he would have tamed his muse, though he might have matured his angst into a more perceptive creative focus. He was immensely literate and articulate, and had a lovely sense of a perversely catchy chord sequence, so I think he'd always be making music people liked, and admired for being "awake". In comparison, the Foos are a bit your-TV-with-the-sound-down and palatable, for my tastes. Even at thirty-five I like a bit of crazy nasty scary holyshitness in music, which can be there in the best pop too, but the Foos are a bit too inoffensive to keep my attention.
  • pjoasisrulepjoasisrule Posts: 3,412
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Oh goody. It's Nirvana doing their best Confusion is Sex-era Sonic Youth impression, only with incoherent screaming.

    As nice an idea it is to think that, because of what we know of Kurt, Endless Nameless is some exercise in primal catharsis, in reality, ANY alternative punk band from the 80s could have recorded that.

    Nirvana's truly great moments were songs like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OlxKVa7BHA

    People need to stop affording more importance to the music than it deserves. If you think the songs are great then fine. Listening to endless nameless and calling it edgy and brutal, just because it's Kurt making noise and Kurt is oh so tortured, makes it apparent that you perhaps don't listen to much lesser-known 80s punk bands. Sorry for being presumptious but this is the impression I get. As much as Kurt tried (and to be fair, he gave it a good shot), Nirvana would never be a band like Flipper or Scratch Acid. Kurt was a great song writer but much of his work just seems like a pose.


    You sound like a hipster. Just because Nirvana was popular does not mean that they werent edgy and brutal. Just because somebody was edgy and brutal before Nirvana doesnt take away from them being the same. I know that Nirvanas best songs were their rock songs that were full of hooks but I think basically everything they made was great.
    Alpine Valley 2000
    Summerfest 2006

    "Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
  • The Waiting Trophy ManThe Waiting Trophy Man Posts: 12,158
    dave has done alright with his band.........too bad kurt didn't recognise his talents as a songwriter while he was in Nirvana. They could have written songs together, Cobain/Grohl. They could have been the grunge version of Lennon/McCartney.......
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    People need to stop affording more importance to the music than it deserves.
    The music only deserves as much attention as it gets though. No more, no less.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    Who knows what direction Kurt's music might have taken, had he gone the Stipe/poppy route he was contemplating? I don't think he would have tamed his muse, though he might have matured his angst into a more perceptive creative focus. He was immensely literate and articulate, and had a lovely sense of a perversely catchy chord sequence, so I think he'd always be making music people liked, and admired for being "awake". In comparison, the Foos are a bit your-TV-with-the-sound-down and palatable, for my tastes. Even at thirty-five I like a bit of crazy nasty scary holyshitness in music, which can be there in the best pop too, but the Foos are a bit too inoffensive to keep my attention.

    and in 8 years youll still feel that way i imagine. just like i do. :D

    the best thing about foos are their videos. i like them well enough but i agree, they are too inoffensive to hold my attention for any longer than it takes for dave to don a wig and dress and ogle either himself or taylor hawkins in drag. :p:D

    oh anything after TCATS just doesnt cut it for me. that was the best they were ever gonna be imho.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • the wolfthe wolf Posts: 7,027
    markymark550 wrote:
    Wrong forum, but...

    If Kurt was still alive, I'm not so sure that the Foo's would even be in existence as a band.

    You never know how changing history would have affected the present....


    agreed about the Foo's being in exsistence.

    IMO, there is no way that Nirvana would not be then, and still now, the biggest band around. ( and i'm not a huge Nirvana fan, i like them a lot, i respect Kurt, but.... ) they would still be the shit, i think Kurt would have warmed up to his posistion in life, much like Eddie did, and i think the music that would have come from him/them, would have been great. i started likeing them more towards the end though, so i could be wrong.

    i didnt like their huge songs that everyone else liked, i like the more obscure shit. anyway. i think Nirvana would still be HUGE. and that means, no FOO, and even if Dave G. left the band , it wouldnt matter.
    Peace, Love.

    "To question your government is not unpatriotic --
    to not question your government is unpatriotic."
    -- Sen. Chuck Hagel
  • the wolfthe wolf Posts: 7,027
    Eddie Better wrote:
    dave has done alright with his band.........too bad kurt didn't recognise his talents as a songwriter while he was in Nirvana. They could have written songs together, Cobain/Grohl. They could have been the grunge version of Lennon/McCartney.......


    i also agree with this.
    Peace, Love.

    "To question your government is not unpatriotic --
    to not question your government is unpatriotic."
    -- Sen. Chuck Hagel
  • the wolfthe wolf Posts: 7,027
    pjoasisrule wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0gzFbqxJ0Y


    what is "this" ( above) supposed to prove? they were a good noise band, that is not brutal it thats what you were going for.

    again, i think Nirvana would be HUGE, but, i dont get this.
    Peace, Love.

    "To question your government is not unpatriotic --
    to not question your government is unpatriotic."
    -- Sen. Chuck Hagel
  • Kilgore_TroutKilgore_Trout Posts: 7,334
    without question nirvana would be bigger (in a hypothetical universe that allows both bands to coexist)

    i think dave would have eventual become more active within nirvana as a singer/songwriter and some foo material may still have surfaced in a different way... probably would end up being even better with kurts help...

    honestly tho, while i like the foos they can be a lil gimmicky at times and their songs are too straight forward in general...

    im not one to suck off kurt or anything and its unfortunate the catelogue of the band is overshadowed by his death... but they were an AMAZING band
    "Senza speme vivemo in disio"

    http://seanbriceart.com/
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    I remember being 16 and rocking nirvana tablature on an ibanez electric in my friend's garage while he banged away on his CB700 or something drumset.

    Any negative comments about Nirvana would've been fightin' words back then.
    reigning champion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
  • Them-BonesThem-Bones Posts: 518
    Anyone who shits on Cobain should really be thank full he made the music he did, because if it wasn't for Nirvana, most of us would've never heard of Pearl Jam
    "If my thoughts, dreams, could be seen, they'd probably put my head, in a guillotine, but it's alright ma, it's life and life only."
  • dirtyTdirtyT Posts: 3,620
    know1 wrote:
    I agree in that I think Dave wasn't going to be in Nirvana much longer. He was already working on the material that became the first Foo album. If he'd have stayed in Nirvana, it would have really held him back as a musician.
    agreed
    Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
  • dirtyTdirtyT Posts: 3,620
    Them-Bones wrote:
    Anyone who shits on Cobain should really be thank full he made the music he did, because if it wasn't for Nirvana, most of us would've never heard of Pearl Jam
    that was stated, he opened some doors for better bands/musicinas to come through.
    Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
  • DOSWDOSW Posts: 2,014
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    This is an argument about the Foos and Nirvana, not the Foos and an edgy, raw, tortured, brutal, grungey awesome band ;)

    Seriously though. Nirvana never made anything that comes near to "brutal". Even the most harrowing of Kurt's songs had either a pop sensibility or was just insanely contrived and naive. His best songs were the ones that displayed his love for guitar pop music like the Vaselines. Nirvana's version of Son of a Gun is better than any crap like "Rape Me".

    Songs like Scentless Apprentice and Milk It sound pretty brutal to me...
    It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
  • reeferchiefreeferchief Posts: 3,569
    DOSW wrote:
    Songs like Scentless Apprentice and Milk It sound pretty brutal to me...

    In Utero was an excellent album, infact I may stick it on now.:)
    Can not be arsed with life no more.
Sign In or Register to comment.