Foo Fighters or Nirvana?

[rezznor]

forget longevity, which band is/was better?

[Heavincent]

I find both of them to be boring radio rock. Gun to my head, I'll go with the Foo Fighters though. Dave Grohl was the most talented member of Nirvana by FAR.

[CeltsGarlic]

Nirvana cause I like them very fkin much.

[BurningHammer]

I find both of them to be boring radio rock. Gun to my head, I'll go with the Foo Fighters though. Dave Grohl was the most talented member of Nirvana by FAR.
Well, Kurt Cobain didn't have enough life time to show his. But, yeah......

[QuebecBaller]

Probot :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp3Xj1-14Kw

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/37075559/Probot++3.jpg

[macmac]

This is a non question...nirvana by far

[andgar923]

I find both of them to be boring radio rock. Gun to my head, I'll go with the Foo Fighters though. Dave Grohl was the most talented member of Nirvana by FAR.

I would love to hear why and to know who you think isn't.

Not a diss, I'm seriously interested.

Do you remember what radio music/Mtv was like 'before' they came out for the most part?

[andgar923]

forget longevity, which band is/was better?

Musically speaking, Foofighters got a chance to grow. But we did seem some glimpses from Nirvana from time to time.

There's also no doubt that Grohl was the best musician out of them all, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a better 'artist'. Not to say that Grohl was def inferior, but people usually get those mixed up.

I'm going with Nirvana on this one because their sound overall is grimier, and Kurt's voice is consistently more unique.

[rezznor]

since it's a bit unfair considering how long FF have been around and how many albums they have cranked out, lets just compare your top 5 FF songs vs your top 5 Nirvana songs and then decide which ones were better as a whole. And i agree with andgar, Nirvana had the chance to be huge if Kurt didn't kill himself. But would Grohl have been willing to stay in Cobain's shadow?

[lefthook00]

Grohl really stepped out of the shadow of Nirvana and did his thing, ultimately putting Foo Fighters on the level of Nirvana, possibly higher. That's REALLY REALLY hard to do. Even harder because Nirvana was king back then, and how Kurt died.

Foo Fighters surpassed Nirvana in the same way that Jay-Z "surpassed" 2pac.

[Loneshot]

Grohl really stepped out of the shadow of Nirvana and did his thing, ultimately putting Foo Fighters on the level of Nirvana, possibly higher. That's REALLY REALLY hard to do. Even harder because Nirvana was king back then, and how Kurt died.

Foo Fighters surpassed Nirvana in the same way that Jay-Z "surpassed" 2pac.
http://www.sectalk.com/board/public/imported_images/chan-lo.com/garycoleman-wtf.gif

Anyway, Foo Fighters by a mile. I don't even think i have five favorite Nirvana songs. I like a few, but as a whole i didn't find that that amazing. I typically like most Foo Fighters songs.

[Heavincent]

I would love to hear why and to know who you think isn't.

Not a diss, I'm seriously interested.

Do you remember what radio music/Mtv was like 'before' they came out for the most part?

Why do I find Nirvana to be boring? Well first of all, there's NOTHING that impresses me about Kurt Cobain, not even his song writing. Shitty guitarist, shitty lyricist, and shitty vocalist (all my opinion of course). Cobain influenced a lot of people. I get that. But why? There was really nothing special about him as a musician if you ask me. I find his song writing in particular to be extremely overrated.

Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and Alice in Chains just did grunge much better imo. But then again, those are pretty much the only grunge bands I actually like. Never really cared for the genre too much.

[daily]

Big Nirvana fan here but I do like the Foo Fighters too. Everyday while we post on ISH they are out there fighting foo and that can't be overlooked

[Faptastrophe]

Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concert (especially the 2nd movement) is better than any of Chopin's preludes.

[lefthook00]

http://www.sectalk.com/board/public/imported_images/chan-lo.com/garycoleman-wtf.gif

Anyway, Foo Fighters by a mile. I don't even think i have five favorite Nirvana songs. I like a few, but as a whole i didn't find that that amazing. I typically like most Foo Fighters songs.

Check the quotations.

[crisoner]

Foo Fighters for me.
Loved Nirvana but Foo Fighters...they just have the stronger list of material (of course Nirvana was cut short).

[LJJ]

Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concert (especially the 2nd movement) is better than any of Chopin's preludes.

But then Chopin's Polonaises >

[DuMa]

unfair comparison. i appreciate both equally for what they contributed to the rock world.

[ZeN]

Nirvana


Quality Over Quantity.

[JohnnySic]

Nirvana is legendary.

Foo Fighters is solid but nothing spectacular.

[macmac]

Every song on nevermind and in utero is a classic....insecticide and bleach were both solid and raw.....muddy banks of the wishkah and unplugged, two amazing live records....

Plus all the unreleased stuff, Nirvana has quite a catalog, and at their peak they're incomparable

[Whoah10115]

Foo Fighters surpassed Nirvana in the same way that Jay-Z "surpassed" 2pac.



As in, neither did?

[rezznor]

Nirvana is legendary.

Foo Fighters is solid but nothing spectacular.
This about sums it up for me. I like the Foo Fighters, but I love Nirvana. Although I would give FF a bit more props then just being solid.

[Crystallas]

Different style of music.

"But...but Crys, they both had the same band members for the most part."

Yeah, they sound completely different. The lyrics are completely different. Oh wait, you're going to say it again?

"But...but Crys, they both had the same band members for the most part."

So what?

[AK47DR91]

All three of Nirvana's studio albums sounded different. Two of which were classics, Nevermind and In Utero. Their Unplugged album showed they were on the verged of changing their direction but that didn't happen.

Foo Fighters had the Colour and the Shape, but the rest of their discography work pretty much sounds the same. They've never really took a chance of switching up their style or tunes.

I'm not saying Foo is bad, but they're too generic and repetitive in their sound and all you need is the Colour and the Shape.

[TheeBeast]

Grohl really stepped out of the shadow of Nirvana and did his thing, ultimately putting Foo Fighters on the level of Nirvana, possibly higher. That's REALLY REALLY hard to do. Even harder because Nirvana was king back then, and how Kurt died.

Foo Fighters surpassed Nirvana in the same way that Jay-Z "surpassed" 2pac.

I kind of agree. Foo fighters are far more commercial than Nirvana like Jay-Z is to Pac. But at the same time Nirvana's music (like 2pac) was way more deep than Foo Fighters.

[franchise#3]

Nirvana. I like FF and they have some amazing songs, but their albums just don't bring the same kind of feeling to my soul as Nirvana's does.

[insidehoops]

Nirvana were legendary and awesome

Foo Fighters are a solid, pretty standard, good group with a couple of great songs

[East_Stone_Ya]

Nirvana 4 sure

[IInvented]

off yourself Op...... Nevermind >>>> Foo Fighters existence....

[rezznor]

off yourself Op...... Nevermind >>>> Foo Fighters existence....
You are an idiot. I picked Nirvana.

[Derka]

In the realm of radio rock...I go Foo Fighters.

Nirvana was a good attempt at punk with pop hooks, but from those years I look most fondly on Alice in Chains and Soundgarden.

[bdreason]

I like Foo Fighters, but they aren't even in the same league as Nirvana. Nirvana sparked an entire genre/era of music.

[CeltsGarlic]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Kurtcobain1993.jpg

[pauk]

Foo Fighters

[Dukem]

Foo Fighters.

Never liked Nirvana personally.

[Lebron23]

I think Foo fighters officially surpasses Nirvana, but Smells like Teen Spirit is one of my favorite songs of all time.

[Nick Young]

nirvana no question. Foo Fighters are boring bland nickelback level bullshit, I like their song Monkeywrench but they are just bland bullshit.

I don't think Dave Grohl is even a particularly good drummer. He's lucky that he got to play with Cobain. Too bad he became such a sellout piece of shit.

[Angel Face]

Threads like this... would make my head explode. It's hard to choose since both are on the list of my most favorite bands ever,

I'll pick Nirvana. :cheers:

[Nick Young]

Grohl really stepped out of the shadow of Nirvana and did his thing, ultimately putting Foo Fighters on the level of Nirvana, possibly higher. That's REALLY REALLY hard to do. Even harder because Nirvana was king back then, and how Kurt died.

Foo Fighters surpassed Nirvana in the same way that Jay-Z "surpassed" 2pac.
what the phuck, do people really believe this now? Is this a popular opinion now?

Nickelback 2.0 is not better then Nirvana.

[East_Stone_Ya]

Nirvana helped the grunge to conquer music industry.....i take them

[CeltsGarlic]

Nirvana has so many songs that are considered absolute legends while I foo fighters have some popular ones but its nothing compared to what Kurt Cobain's group has to offer.

[KevinNYC]

Big Nirvana fan here but I do like the Foo Fighters too.
Yeah, nothing against the Foo Fighters, they are simply not Nirvana.


Nirvana had the chance to be huge if Kurt didn't kill himself.
Huh?

Nirvana WAS HUGE. They were had the highest artistic and commercial success a band could ask for. I was going to say they were the most culturally important band as well, but that's not true. Hip hop, though not any single artist, has changed the culture more.

In NYC about 5 different radio stations changed their format because of Nirvana. Tons of great bands were under the radar in America until Nirvana broke through. They were the tipping point that caused an avalanche. They made punk break through like it never got anywhere close to before.

Their success was ridiculous. Their record label expected them to sell 200,000 copies total. I didn't have cable at the time and I first heard them on college radio in like September. Every week they just got bigger and bigger. Soon the pop radio station in NY, Z100 which is a terrible station started playing them. All of a sudden the Red Hot Chili Peppers were getting airplay. By January or so I heard them on Casey Kasem's Top 40 countdown show and I couldn't believe it. They were a cultural phenomenon like only a handful of musicians have ever been. They could have had even more commercial success if they chased it.

The Foo Fighters are a very good, to great band with a few killer songs.

[KevinNYC]

I don't think Dave Grohl is even a particularly good drummer. He's lucky that he got to play with Cobain.

This is just silly. One of the reasons Nirvana stepped up their game from album 1 to album to is Dave Grohl. Hard to have a truly great rock band without a great drummer.

On a side note, I met a guy who lost two drumming gigs to Dave Grohl. Including Nirvana. He hates Dave Grohl way more than you.

[Nick Young]

This is just silly. One of the reasons Nirvana stepped up their game from album 1 to album to is Dave Grohl. Hard to have a truly great rock band without a great drummer.

On a side note, I met a guy who lost two drumming gigs to Dave Grohl. Including Nirvana. He hates Dave Grohl way more than you.
He's not a good drummer he just hits really hard. Boring fills and can't do a lot of basic stuff technically. The drummer on the foo fighters is a better drummer then he is. A good rock drummer is someone like Keith Moon or Stuart Copeland.


Also Kurt Cobain would be ashamed at the bullshit nickelback music he started making since Nirvana ended.

[Akrazotile]

But then Chopin's Polonaises >


Ehhh.... The polonaises are a lil helter skelter.

Dat granda valse brillante doe :bowdown:


Anyway I take foo fighters pretty easily. I'll still listen to some of their songs. I really don't care much for any Nirvana songs anymore.

[Akrazotile]

I like Foo Fighters, but they aren't even in the same league as Nirvana. Nirvana sparked an entire genre/era of music.


Paris Hilton sparked an entire new type of celebrity.


Does that mean.... anything???

[Budadiiii]

Ehhh.... The polonaises are a lil helter skelter.

Dat granda valse brillante doe :bowdown:


Anyway I take foo fighters pretty easily. I'll still listen to some of their songs. I really don't care much for any Nirvana songs anymore.
You played teen spirit and come as you are for days on end and decided you were sick of Nirvana.

Congrats, bro.

[Budadiiii]

Paris Hilton sparked an entire new type of celebrity.


Does that mean.... anything???
To you it does.

Isn't that what sparked your interest in fame? Being able to be a talentless hack but still get attention and money?

Now you're 30 years old with no skills and no degree. :lol

[Akrazotile]

To you it does.

Isn't that what sparked your interest in fame? Being able to be a talentless hack but still get attention and money?

Now you're 30 years old with no skills and no degree. :lol



http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/131424/lebron_james_check_my_stats_main_medium.jpg

[-p.tiddy-]

This is a non question...nirvana by far
yep

[Kungfro]

This is just silly. One of the reasons Nirvana stepped up their game from album 1 to album to is Dave Grohl. Hard to have a truly great rock band without a great drummer.

On a side note, I met a guy who lost two drumming gigs to Dave Grohl. Including Nirvana. He hates Dave Grohl way more than you.

I was just thinking about that, pretty crazy story. Also I think he got to showcase his drumming ability a bit more in Queens of the stone age.

[Akrazotile]

In NYC about 5 different radio stations changed their format because of Nirvana. Tons of great bands were under the radar in America until Nirvana broke through. They were the tipping point that caused an avalanche. They made punk break through like it never got anywhere close to before.

Their success was ridiculous. Their record label expected them to sell 200,000 copies total. I didn't have cable at the time and I first heard them on college radio in like September. Every week they just got bigger and bigger. Soon the pop radio station in NY, Z100 which is a terrible station started playing them. All of a sudden the Red Hot Chili Peppers were getting airplay. By January or so I heard them on Casey Kasem's Top 40 countdown show and I couldn't believe it. They were a cultural phenomenon like only a handful of musicians have ever been. They could have had even more commercial success if they chased it.


Limp Bizkit was "HUGE" as well. It means nothing in terms of quality of music.

Nirvana's music wasn't as good as Foo Fighters. Neither of them made remotely "complex" music but Foo Fighters just sounded better.

In fact there were a lot of accounts of Cobain reportedly telling people before he killed himself that he was a hack and a phony and couldn't take the pressure to live up to the reputation he suddenly had.


The masses leaching onto something because of surface appearance is nothing new, nor confined to music. Look at Carmelo's contract and shoe endorsements compared to Iguodala. There's not one scrap of evidence Carmelo is the better player. Except to idiots who see "ppg and teh all star teamm!"!!


So, yes, they had a large impact on the zeitgeist. But, no, they were not very good.

[andgar923]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ii3bIwCp8

Im sayin'

[Akrazotile]

I know you ain't hatin on the Bizkit, bro


Oh hell naw. I do it all for the nookie son.

:rockon:

[KevinNYC]

Limp Bizkit was "HUGE" as well. It means nothing in terms of quality of music.

Nirvana's music wasn't as good as Foo Fighters. Neither of them made remotely "complex" music but Foo Fighters just sounded better.

In fact there were a lot of accounts of Cobain reportedly telling people before he killed himself that he was a hack and a phony and couldn't take the pressure to live up to the reputation he suddenly had.


The masses leaching onto something because of surface appearance is nothing new, nor confined to music. Look at Carmelo's contract and shoe endorsements compared to Iguodala. There's not one scrap of evidence Carmelo is the better player. Except to idiots who see "ppg and teh all star teamm!"!!


So, yes, they had a large impact on the zeitgeist. But, no, they were not very good.

You missed the point where I said they had artistic success at the highest level. But you're a Limp Bizkit fan, so why am I even typing.

[KevinNYC]

I was just thinking about that, pretty crazy story. Also I think he got to showcase his drumming ability a bit more in Queens of the stone age.
That was actually the other gig he lost. It was like Dave Grohl was created by the gods to torment him.

[KevinNYC]

He's not a good drummer he just hits really hard. Boring fills and can't do a lot of basic stuff technically. The drummer on the foo fighters is a better drummer then he is. A good rock drummer is someone like Keith Moon or Stuart Copeland.
Nirvana with Stuart Copeland would suck. Punk rock was invented to cut down on the *********ory drummer fills. The chorus of Smells like Teen Spirit owes a great deal to Dave Grohl.

[Lebron23]

My favorite Foo Fighter Songs


Generator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYyw0Zv1iw4

Learn to Fly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQ_3sBZEm0

[Lebron23]

Oh hell naw. I do it all for the nookie son.

:rockon:


Limp Bizkit was actually my favorite band when I was 13 back in 2000. I became a Linkin Park fan one year later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztqjxBBau-U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y_VMe6wTRo

Good Times.

[Milbuck]

Unfair comparison considering Grohl is a genius and still going, while Nirvana was cut short and will never come back.

Nirvana was more influential, Foo Fighters were more advanced technically. It really depends on what mood you're in.

[Jackass18]

what the phuck, do people really believe this now? Is this a popular opinion now?

Nickelback 2.0 is not better then Nirvana.

They're nothing like Nickelback. The hell are you smoking? But then again, you think it's cool to hate everything.

[BasedTom]

Nirvana was better.

As far as "radio rock" goes, the Foo Fighters are pretty good. I prefer their earliest stuff, but that's just me.

IMO, the Foo Fighters would be the perfect band to play a Super Band halftime show.

[Overdrive]

I don't like either. Never understood why Nirvana where that big. Their stuff was basic and opposite to punk their catalogue never featured any true political or social statement. Mostly the same clich

[andgar923]

[QUOTE=Overdrive]I don't like either. Never understood why Nirvana where that big. Their stuff was basic and opposite to punk their catalogue never featured any true political or social statement. Mostly the same clich

[Nick Young]

[QUOTE=Overdrive]I don't like either. Never understood why Nirvana where that big. Their stuff was basic and opposite to punk their catalogue never featured any true political or social statement. Mostly the same clich

[BasedTom]

you a wannabe writer for pitchfork or something? Music doesn't need to be "political" or a "social statement" to be great.
haha I hate when Pitchfork does this. :roll:

Every review seems to go on a tangent on how a track on an album reminds the writer about his childhood in North Dakota or something equally as bullshit and unrelated to the quality of the album itself.

[KevinNYC]

Their stuff was basic and opposite to punk their catalogue never featured any true political or social statement.

This is not true of punk and not true of nirvana.

[Overdrive]

You fail to miss one big part tho...

When Nirvana came out they bridged the gap between underground (hard) and mainstream for their era.

Hard was there, always has been. You had Hard Rock per se, you had Hair Metal and right before Nirvana got big Metallica hit the mainstream and made Metal basically a household genre, Faith No More was already doing their thing paving the way for crossover acts. I won't dispute that Nirvana was huge even here, but it's not like it was something totally unprecedented.



Where they the most underground (hard)/ talented artists of their era? perhaps not (although they do have an argument if we're talking about the mainstream)

But there wasn't another 'mainstream' artist at the time that was like them.

I'll give you that, they were kinda unique.



Bands like Alice in Chains, PJ, Soundgarden and some of the other 'grunge' or 'alternative' bands weren't as raw and hard.

And they also need to be given props for making music that appealed to the masses. I don't remember them catching anywhere the amount of hate that they've received after Kurt's death while they were a band. Yes not everybody loved them, but nowhere near this sort of revisionist history.

I never liked them, but infact I was very young when Cobain died and totally into different music. I still simply can't enjoy them.


Can they not get props for exposing an a harder alternative to the 'media'? if it wasn't for them chance are history takes a different course and we're never exposed to other great artists. Their influence spawned a new trend that transferred over to other forms of social/media platforms. You're highly underrating them as a band, and their impact. If you were around at that time then you'd know how much of a big deal they were.

I'll surely give them credit, but I don't think they're irreplacable. I think media was striving to find something new and I really think they would've found another band. What seperated Nirvana from the rest of the pack was Cobain. I think he's in a mold of Jim Morrison, where the bandleader basically makes the band larger than their music are(I know in both cases the bandmembers were vital to the band, but I hope you get what I mean).



I'd like to know who 'you' think was the better artists of their era.


Define era for me, please. Do you mean, from the day Nirvana broke through 'till they ended, the "grunge era" basically or something like Nirvana +/- x years?



Who in the 'punk' or underground scene deserved to be as big or bigger than them. Who was more talented as musicians but more importantly as 'artists'. I mean I 'get it'. I sit here and listen to music and I think "Why is Drake, Ye so popular? they suck!! 'X' rapper or 'Y' rapper are easily better than them." So Im not attacking you per se.

I can't tell you those, since I didn't live in the US in the early 90s and the acts that made it are well known themselves. I personally just don't think that their level of musicianship and artistry equals their level of fame. Doesn't mean that I don't get why they're one of if not the most famous band of their time. I get why people like them. It's not like I'm ignorant, I just don't dig them personally and when talking about music I make bold statements most of the time since it is my passion.



And who cares if they did or didn't make any true political/social statements (actually many of Kurt's songs were social).



[QUOTE=Nick Young]you a wannabe writer for pitchfork or something? Music doesn't need to be "political" or a "social statement" to be great.

I don't even know that, I guess, magazine. I don't dismiss a band for their lack of political content, but somebody here wrote that they continued punk and brought it to mainstream. I simply don't share that sentiment.
Most of my favourite bands are mostly non political.

Of course he wrote social lyrics, but not of the magnitude of social critic songwriters, whose focal point was just that.


This is not true of punk and not true of nirvana.

I know that punk isn't political per se, but if someone says Nirvana continued it, that's the first think that came to my mind. If it was just ment attitude whise I'll agree.

[KevinNYC]

I know that punk isn't political per se, but if someone says Nirvana continued it, that's the first think that came to my mind. If it was just ment attitude whise I'll agree.

Nirvana did continue it and it's not just posters here saying that. There's even a documentary named after that idea.

http://images.moviepostershop.com/1991-the-year-punk-broke-movie-poster-1992-1020235213.jpg

This is mainly a Sonic Youth tour documentary, but the only band that truly broke big out of that group was Nirvana.

[Overdrive]

Nirvana did continue it and it's not just posters here saying that. There's even a documentary named after that idea.

http://images.moviepostershop.com/1991-the-year-punk-broke-movie-poster-1992-1020235213.jpg

This is mainly a Sonic Youth tour documentary, but the only band that truly broke big out of that group was Nirvana.

Maybe it's a european thing, but the Clash were huge here before Nirvana and brought alot of people into punk. German punk bands - inspired by english bands - broke into the german speaking countries' charts before Nirvana's music came over here.

[KevinNYC]

Yes, I was mainly talking about America. Punk remained a self-contained and fairly small phenomenon in the US. Nothing off that first Clash record got played on mainstream rock radio in the states. When the Ramones first broke out, they couldn't get gigs outside of New York City. They played a couple of sold out shows in London and then found out they couldn't get a gig across the river in New Jersey.

The 80's punk scene in America scene was characterized by a couple of cities on the coasts, and then small little D-I-Y outposts scattered between them and long trips in a van.

[andgar923]

Hard was there, always has been. You had Hard Rock per se, you had Hair Metal and right before Nirvana got big Metallica hit the mainstream and made Metal basically a household genre, Faith No More was already doing their thing paving the way for crossover acts. I won't dispute that Nirvana was huge even here, but it's not like it was something totally unprecedented.



I'll give you that, they were kinda unique.



I never liked them, but infact I was very young when Cobain died and totally into different music. I still simply can't enjoy them.



I'll surely give them credit, but I don't think they're irreplacable. I think media was striving to find something new and I really think they would've found another band. What seperated Nirvana from the rest of the pack was Cobain. I think he's in a mold of Jim Morrison, where the bandleader basically makes the band larger than their music are(I know in both cases the bandmembers were vital to the band, but I hope you get what I mean).



Define era for me, please. Do you mean, from the day Nirvana broke through 'till they ended, the "grunge era" basically or something like Nirvana +/- x years?




I can't tell you those, since I didn't live in the US in the early 90s and the acts that made it are well known themselves. I personally just don't think that their level of musicianship and artistry equals their level of fame. Doesn't mean that I don't get why they're one of if not the most famous band of their time. I get why people like them. It's not like I'm ignorant, I just don't dig them personally and when talking about music I make bold statements most of the time since it is my passion.


[quote]



I don't even know that, I guess, magazine. I don't dismiss a band for their lack of political content, but somebody here wrote that they continued punk and brought it to mainstream. I simply don't share that sentiment.
Most of my favourite bands are mostly non political.

Of course he wrote social lyrics, but not of the magnitude of social critic songwriters, whose focal point was just that.



I know that punk isn't political per se, but if someone says Nirvana continued it, that's the first think that came to my mind. If it was just ment attitude whise I'll agree.

Heave metal was there, but was still considered more of an underground genre and didn't have the same impact that Nirvana did. GNR and a few hair metal/hard rock bands were popular but weren't as raw.

The popular culture was influenced by hair metal and pop culture, it was Nirvana's sound that changed and influenced the culture in a way that no metal or punk band had done before. Their impact was huge and everywhere surpassing that of GNR and equaling that of Michael Jackson and Madonna... YES they were that BIG. That's what I meant by being hard and from the underground, at least at their level. They then opened the doors for other groups. True some of those groups may have been better 'musically' in the same way 'Yes' is better than 'Pink Floyd' but when it's all said and done, Pink Floyd simply made better music aka better 'artists'.

I think there's also a difference between being good musicians and being good artists. Beatles are below average musicians when compared to their era's counterparts. But they were the better musicians for the most part.

As to who you consider better artists, I really am interested in knowing who you listen to. You can name artists from their era (early 90s), past and/or present.

I always like to see where a poster's POV is coming from and perhaps learn (or discover new artists).

[MightyWhitey]

This is just my opinion but Kurt Cobain's voice is distinct, original, and raw. His guitar playing was raw, not at all complicated, and full of discord. I can appreciate this about nirvana. But Dave Grohl and Foo Fighters were better, cleaner, much more linear sound. Their songs varied also while Nirvanas songs drudged on basket case.

[Overdrive]

Yes, I was mainly talking about America. Punk remained a self-contained and fairly small phenomenon in the US. Nothing off that first Clash record got played on mainstream rock radio in the states. When the Ramones first broke out, they couldn't get gigs outside of New York City. They played a couple of sold out shows in London and then found out they couldn't get a gig across the river in New Jersey.

The 80's punk scene in America scene was characterized by a couple of cities on the coasts, and then small little D-I-Y outposts scattered between them and long trips in a van.

That explains alot I guess. They hit the mainstream harder than punk here aswell, because little girls were wearing their shirts. But I guess the social and music cultural settings didn't make them that important of an act here, which they seemed to be in the US.



Heave metal was there, but was still considered more of an underground genre and didn't have the same impact that Nirvana did. GNR and a few hair metal/hard rock bands were popular but weren't as raw.

The metal scene grew independent from the mainstream here and got huge. Pretty certain bigger than in the US and more diverse.



The popular culture was influenced by hair metal and pop culture, it was Nirvana's sound that changed and influenced the culture in a way that no metal or punk band had done before. Their impact was huge and everywhere surpassing that of GNR and equaling that of Michael Jackson and Madonna... YES they were that BIG. That's what I meant by being hard and from the underground, at least at their level. They then opened the doors for other groups.

The underground was dwelling at that time, all those Seattle bands were set to make it, if not Nirvana maybe the Melvins would've been "it". Maybe I really just don't see the irreplacability of Nirvana that alot of people see.


True some of those groups may have been better 'musically' in the same way 'Yes' is better than 'Pink Floyd' but when it's all said and done, Pink Floyd simply made better music aka better 'artists'.

That's totally true, that's why I called Grohl a good artist. Of course Cobain is a good one too, because he reached out to alot of people. Just not me, and technically they are just not impressive.



I think there's also a difference between being good musicians and being good artists. Beatles are below average musicians when compared to their era's counterparts. But they were the better musicians for the most part.


I agree again(although McCartney was a pioneer on the bass).



As to who you consider better artists, I really am interested in knowing who you listen to. You can name artists from their era (early 90s), past and/or present.

I always like to see where a poster's POV is coming from and perhaps learn (or discover new artists).

Nothing new to see here, I'm pretty sure.

Artist makes it tricky, because I enjoy some bands more, but I wouldn't rate them as artists. As musician sure, but artistry is very subjective. I definitely enjoy Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Faith No More, Rage Against the Machine and R.E.M.(although they were well known in the 80s already, but they broke out in '91 iirc) more than Nirvana.

All-time I love blues & hardrock, Motown and some other soul, funk and classic R&B acts.

I don't really like any modern acts. The Black Keys are decent.