Sooo...Dave Grohl drumming or singing are my options? I will have to go Foo on that one - while Nirvana is good, FF comes up on my iPod much more often, and that's alright by me.
I like Nirvana, but I never really understood their cultural impact (or at least, the reasons behind their cultural impact). Music historians will regard them as the more significant band, but in my personal opinion, they were the worst of the four major Seattle grunge bands (the others being Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains). An aloof Eddie Vedder, an angry Layne Staley and a semi-dorky Chris Cornell spoke to 16 year-old me much more personally than a tortured Kurt Cobain.
I'm getting off track here, but here's what I'm trying to get at: music can be an incredible avenue for expressing rage, sorrow, pain, depression...but at it's heart, isn't supposed to be about fun? Doesn't every kid who picks up a guitar or a pair of drumsticks start doing so because it's fun to make a lot of noise??
One last point: ask Dave Grohl about his time in Nirvana, and he'll sidestep every single question. One of the best stories I heard (probably more urban legend than fact) about Nirvana's last days was that after the In Utero album's sales were waning, and it was nearing time to get back in the studio, Grohl went to Cobain with a few rough cuts of some stuff he had been working on, to take Nirvana in a newer direction. Kurt hated every one of them because they weren't 'real' enough. Kurt was dead within a few weeks, and the demos Dave had given him eventually became the first Foo album.
My point is this: Even Dave Grohl hated Nirvana. Foo. Hands down.
11 comments:
Was more of a NIN girl myself.
Nirvana. and we still have the legacy of Courtney Love
color me badd is the band of the 90s
Nirvana. But Foo Fighters are still good stuff.
Sooo...Dave Grohl drumming or singing are my options? I will have to go Foo on that one - while Nirvana is good, FF comes up on my iPod much more often, and that's alright by me.
I like Nirvana, but I never really understood their cultural impact (or at least, the reasons behind their cultural impact). Music historians will regard them as the more significant band, but in my personal opinion, they were the worst of the four major Seattle grunge bands (the others being Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains). An aloof Eddie Vedder, an angry Layne Staley and a semi-dorky Chris Cornell spoke to 16 year-old me much more personally than a tortured Kurt Cobain.
I'm getting off track here, but here's what I'm trying to get at: music can be an incredible avenue for expressing rage, sorrow, pain, depression...but at it's heart, isn't supposed to be about fun? Doesn't every kid who picks up a guitar or a pair of drumsticks start doing so because it's fun to make a lot of noise??
One last point: ask Dave Grohl about his time in Nirvana, and he'll sidestep every single question. One of the best stories I heard (probably more urban legend than fact) about Nirvana's last days was that after the In Utero album's sales were waning, and it was nearing time to get back in the studio, Grohl went to Cobain with a few rough cuts of some stuff he had been working on, to take Nirvana in a newer direction. Kurt hated every one of them because they weren't 'real' enough. Kurt was dead within a few weeks, and the demos Dave had given him eventually became the first Foo album.
My point is this: Even Dave Grohl hated Nirvana. Foo. Hands down.
Rant over.
I didn't even know there was a debate about this. Nirvana in a landslide.
pearl jam.
to scott: i think the reason guys start playing music is not for fun, but for chics. am i right?!
(insert guitar solor here a la waynes world)
Dave Grohl
Kate: you're right. And in the "foxy wife" department, Grohl wins again. Dave Grohl > Kurt Cobain. QED.
Nope.
Post a Comment