Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Battle of the Bands - Nirvana vs Foo Fighters

Nirvana or Foo Fighters

  • Nirvana - He'd dead but he was dead good!

    Votes: 30 68.2%
  • Foo Fighters - Not the Poo Fighters!

    Votes: 13 29.5%
  • Not sure - I'm incapable of making my own decision

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • Total voters
    44






Marc

New member
Jul 6, 2003
25,267
cant compare the two IMO unless they we're around at the same time....which they were not!

Foo Fighters early stuff resembled abit of Nirvanva but Grohls genius soon took the better path to where they are now.

Like them both, not amazingly but dont mind listening every now and again.
 


attila

1997 Club
Jul 17, 2003
2,278
South Central Southwick
Nirvana were responsible for bringing together the 'metal' and punk subcultures (always dead separate in the 70s/80s) and introducing a whole new generation to the delights of guitar music as opposed to doof-doof. 'Nevermind' is a classic album, not too bothered about the rest. Foo Fighters are OK.
Rancid piss from a great height over both!
 


Marc

New member
Jul 6, 2003
25,267
Rancid are good in their own way and style "...And out come the wolves" is a fantastic Album.

attila check out a long time running band from Boston US called The Freeze, just discovered them and they are bloody amazing :thumbsup:
 






Meade's Ball

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
13,673
Hither (sometimes Thither)
Kylies Stunt Arse said:
What weight is that then? Nirvana are eally only so deified because Cobain killed himself. Fantastic career move for the rest of the band.

They weren't bad by any means but they weren't and still aren't deserving all the plaudits that they received after KC died. They were on the verge of going tits up, their material had already become stale and if he'd stayed alive they would barely ever be mentioned these days.

Yes, Foo Fighters aren't much more than a fun rock band but they have consistantly turned out some fantastic tracks without relying on media hype to sell any records. Dave Grohl is a fantastic musician who is deserving of the praise that his band gets.


The Foo Fighters are good at what they do, but what they do is somewhat fluffy. Personally, i prefer something with greater emotional depth. Or maybe i just like things that are miserable.
They both have their place, but if asked which is the better band, i'd say Nirvana.
 


CHAPPERS

DISCO SPENG
Jul 5, 2003
45,307
Kylies Stunt Arse said:

Yes, Foo Fighters aren't much more than a fun rock band but they have consistantly turned out some fantastic tracks without relying on media hype to sell any records.

That's what I think.

:)
 


REDLAND

Active member
Jul 7, 2003
9,443
At the foot of the downs
attila said:
Rancid piss from a great height over both!

entirly agree :clap:

ps as does most punk though
 






alan partridge

Active member
Jul 7, 2003
5,256
Linton Travel Tavern
Kylies Stunt Arse said:
What weight is that then? Nirvana are eally only so deified because Cobain killed himself. Fantastic career move for the rest of the band.

They weren't bad by any means but they weren't and still aren't deserving all the plaudits that they received after KC died. They were on the verge of going tits up, their material had already become stale and if he'd stayed alive they would barely ever be mentioned these days.


This is rubbish. Nirvana received all the plaudits after Nevermind came out because it was a fantastic album. Cobain had a great voice and Nirvana churned out some great tunes. Their success was achieved all on the back of that album not cos he shot himself. Ofcourse there is all kind of rubbish mystique around him now but that doesn't cloud the fact they released some fantastic songs and a classic album.

Oasis get a lot of kudos on this board and for me they are a great band but Nirvana were more important. Whatever that means....I'm sounding like Richie now!
 


alan partridge said:
This is rubbish. Nirvana received all the plaudits after Nevermind came out because it was a fantastic album. Cobain had a great voice and Nirvana churned out some great tunes. Their success was achieved all on the back of that album not cos he shot himself. Ofcourse there is all kind of rubbish mystique around him now but that doesn't cloud the fact they released some fantastic songs and a classic album.

Oasis get a lot of kudos on this board and for me they are a great band but Nirvana were more important. Whatever that means....I'm sounding like Richie now!

I never once said that Nevermind wasn't a good album, but that was all it was. Good. Their success was started with that album but their success was dwindling when he topped himself. Then look what happened, he was held up like the messiah in some parts, still is by some. If you read what I'd written I said they didn't deserve the plaudits they gained AFTER KC died.

Nirvana's importance isn't being questioned either. Yes, they broke the grunge scene and led the way for other bands to come through, but that doesn't make them the godlike geniuses that some would have you believe. They got lucky, and they rode that wave for as long as they could, but they were in real danger of crashing and burning when Cobain ended it all.

Importance is a debatable point too. Oasis WERE a good band before they disappeared up their own arses in a cloud of coke dust. They were important to the music scene in this country and they made 2 great albums. To say that Nirvana were more important is a matter of opinion only. I'd be interested to hear why you think that's the case.
 




alan partridge

Active member
Jul 7, 2003
5,256
Linton Travel Tavern
I suppose it goes back to taste. For me Nevermind wasn't just a good album it was a f***ing good one. Oasis are great but the fact they were so retro for me puts them behind bands like Nirvana.

I don't believe they got lucky at all. What other 'grunge' bands enjoyed the across board success that Nevermind did? The problem with Cobain was after Nevermind the success of it turned him off and he seemed to go out of his way to get back to sounding 'underground'. Before Nevermind came out I remember reading interviews with him enthusing about 'pop' as he called it. Don't get me wrong there's nothing I find duller than people deifying a dead rock star but I think Nevermind was far more than another grunge album.:)
 


graz126

Well-known member
Oct 17, 2003
4,147
doncaster
the 2 cannot be compaired. the foo fighters are up to date and happening. nirvana are dead and happened.
personally i prefer foo's, and i only ever really liked the unplugged album by nirvana, and one of the best songs on that is a cover of a bowie song.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here