Foo Fighters are a better band than Nirvana

we don't need to prove you wrong.

but you've just proved yourself an idiot

Seattleite wrote:

Prove me wrong

Certainly more positive than Nirvana.

Seattleite wrote:

Prove me wrong

No, because I agree with you.

Maybe less influential overall, but still a better band.

Foo fighters....more like poo fighters. They're buttock at its finest. Nirvana otoh were influential and made few decent songs (though many other bands in the 90s were much better than them)

Heart shaped box wrote:

Seattleite wrote:

Prove me wrong

Certainly more positive than Nirvana.

you know who was also a positve band?

the Monkees

Although slightly better than Night Ranger, FF could possibly be the worst spin-off band ever.

These two bands can't even be compared. Yeah, Grohl was in both, but the similarities stops there. Just listen to them side by side. If it wasn't for Grohl, they would never even be mentioned in the same sentence.

Yeah, well i just spent the last half hour or so listening to live Husker Du, so there.

not a huge music fan......but aren't the Foo Fighters just like a really, really good version of Nickelback?

listening to nirvana you instantly feel/sense that this is generational defining music, that it couldn't help but influence and shape the future

Foo Fighters? it's feel like what they will put on at the 20 year reunion to try to appeal to everyone, get the dads a rockin'!

Seattleite wrote:

Prove me wrong

I won’t try. Because you are absolutely correct. Nirvana was maybe the most overrated band of the 90s.

ChadBrad wrote:

Seattleite wrote:

Prove me wrong

I won’t try. Because you are absolutely correct. Nirvana was maybe the most overrated band of the 90s.

..... more evidence in Nirvana's favor

many here may not like Nirvana much (and you know, one gets the sense that their sound was calculated to elicit just such a response, but that's another discussion). But it is incontestable that Nirvana played a pivotal role in the evolution of the genre that few others band can compare to.

Were they better than the Foo Fighters? Well, by what standard? Really?! Answer that first and then we can talk, I tend to think the comparison is fruitless but knock yourself out...

you sayin' ChadBrad wasn't their target audience?

Seattleite wrote:

Prove me wrong

Why? The foo fighters are clearly more successful.

seattle prattle wrote:

many here may not like Nirvana much (and you know, one gets the sense that their sound was calculated to elicit just such a response, but that's another discussion). But it is incontestable that Nirvana played a pivotal role in the evolution of the genre that few others band can compare to.

Were they better than the Foo Fighters? Well, by what standard? Really?! Answer that first and then we can talk, I tend to think the comparison is fruitless but knock yourself out...

It's like comparing the Corvette to the minivan in American automotive history.

An argument can be made for the minivan. But who cares.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Seattleite wrote:

Prove me wrong

Why? The foo fighters are clearly more successful.

at what?

Nirvana just totally ripped off the pixies without any of the intelligence.

Theyre only highly regarded cos of cobains demise and merchandising

Tbass wrote:

Nirvana just totally ripped off the pixies without any of the intelligence.

Theyre only highly regarded cos of cobains demise and merchandising

yeah, Nevermind was barely on the radar till Kurt died.

Man, speaking of the Pixies, i heard this live cover they do of the Jesus and Mary Chain song "Head On". It is just awesome. I wish i could hear more like that.

Have to totally disagree with you, though, on ripping off the Pixies. Curt once said he was influenced by them. But he said he was influenced by a lot of bands, and all anyone has to do is listen in the least little bit and they can hear they are totally different.