|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 24, 2011 0:28:55 GMT -5
Is it heretical to suggest that Nirvana really existed only to create the Foo Fighters. Because, really...as culturally relevant and "groundbreaking" as Nirvana was, I'd much rather listen to Grohl's songs.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 24, 2011 0:41:25 GMT -5
M'eh. I could take heat for this but I always found the Fighter's kind of bush-league Nirvana. Good, but not great. Some wonderful songs, but never found a whole album I loved.
Plus I miss Kurts raw, expressive vocals. (watch Unplugged, Christ the man breathed life and soul into those song)
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Sept 24, 2011 3:01:01 GMT -5
I was listening to Nevermind again recently and it struck me that it wouldn't have been half the album it was with a different drummer. Grohl is almost melodic with his rhythms, and carries most of those songs from behind the kit. Without his phrasing and fills, I think it would have been a pretty bland punk-pop record.
They lost me after that album. Even at the time, I vastly preferred Pearl Jam. I get Cobain's attitude and his sensibilities, and he was a skilled songwriter. But he wasn't as earth-shattering as he gets credit for, and he wasn't a very good guitarist. Without Grohl, I don't think his stuff would have had nearly as much zing.
Foo Fighters are a different animal, and a much better rock and roll band. Again, Grohl's strength is how he makes his rhythm guitar so stinking musical. The old axiom is that your band is only as good as your drummer. Foo Fighters have two world-class drummers, and it gives the songwriting that extra punch. Maybe they're too mainstream compared to Cobain's iconoclastic tendencies, but I don't think that takes anything away from their quality.
They're one of those bands where you can start rattling off their great songs, only to realize there's another one you forgot, until you think, "Holy crap! I didn't think they had that many!" Also, Wasting Light is a masterpiece.
For my money, Grohl is the better musician, the better singer, the better guitarist, and a better (albeit different) songwriter. Plus, I like how he doesn't take himself too seriously. Maybe that's why he doesn't impress you, MJ-- he doesn't have that introspective tortured quality that you like so much.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 24, 2011 3:24:38 GMT -5
^Maybe - I think Cobain had a lot of passion (when he was on). It wasn't a pretty voice by any means, but it's like a great actor who can get me to me feel every pain or loss or loneliness etc, I mean really make me feel it to the bone. Cobain does that.
Grohl I agree is melodic and was a vital part of Nirvana's sound. But on his own, I find him rather bland. Grohl might be technically proficient, but his sound is almost too clean. He has a few songs where he lets loose, but mostly he's like milk (with Cobain being firewater)
So maybe your right Mr. A - I just like the dirty and introspective... even a little sloppy. I believe that's what I like about punk, it's messy, sloppy - about as far removed from clean as you can get. (and that's what hurt the Ramones with Spector for another example. Some of the songs aren't bad, but it sounds like Phil sterilized them)
I like my punk/grunge rock a little off kilter, off tune, a lot raw and broken.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 24, 2011 4:08:03 GMT -5
I’m enjoying this conversation and had another point I wanted to add.
Mr. A - I don’t feel “tortured” is the right word to use with me. “Passion” is the right word. For music to make that jump from good to great, I have to feel something powerful well up inside me. “Tomorrow Never Knows” isn’t a tortured song, “Lucy in the Sky” isn’t tortured... but each takes me to another world, they fill me with wonder or give me some kind of elevated experience.
With the Foo, they just make songs. Some are good, some are very very good, but they are just --- songs. None of them kicks me in the ass or takes me on a journey. None of them filled me with that passion or the sense of elevation. Nirvana made more than simple songs. They took it to another level.
Maybe that's meaningless if we are talking about the 'mechanics' of songwriting or recording or playing. But that's kind of where I go with music. It can be dirty punk or the pretty harmonies of Simon and Garfunkel or Dylan's lyrics - what separates the men from the boys is the experience - the fire or whatever (hell yes, even the tortured nature. But not tortured in and of itself) I feel when listening.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 24, 2011 8:22:45 GMT -5
In Utero and the live stuff have always struck me as something more like "art" records. I don't mean like prog-rock, but the kind of record that I "appreciate" rather than really listen to. It's like they they're amazing specimens of a certain kind of sound, but they aren't the kind of thing that I actually enjoy on a visceral level. It's like atonal music: I want to know about it, appreciate it, etc., but the actual experience of listening to it isn't always that pleasant.
And I agree with Atari about Grohl. You're much more articulate about what makes good songwriting than I could be, so I won't even try.
And I'm not slamming your opinion, MJ. This does of course just get down to taste at a certain point.
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Sept 24, 2011 13:30:50 GMT -5
I saw the title and panicked. Thanks for the wake up, Mummi!
As a different take, I've seen both live, and the Foo Fighters were the far more superior experience.
The major problem with everyone at the Nirvana show was that they were there to "be at a Nirvana show", and it was very little enjoyment on the interactive level. And the band sounded awful. Maybe it was a bad sound night, but I think it may be because their music always sounds better lying back on the bed by yourself with the headphones on. There was also plenty of "lead singer who hates the crowd" vibe at the Nirvana show. Yes, I get where it came from, but it gets really old really fast. I don't mean from the economic ("Hey I bought a ticket! You owe me!") angle, but on an emotional level it's really hard to connect with a performance when the singer doesn't want to be there.
On the other hand, the Fighters sounded good, and the crowd was having a great time just enjoying it. The music has more of that open vibe even when it's harder, and Dave's a funny guy on the mic. He even got behind the kit at one point, and in my opinion sounded better than he did with the Nirvana show. Then again, I got the feeling he actually was having a good time being there, and I enjoy a concert more when I don't feel like I'm torturing someone into performing.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 24, 2011 15:15:15 GMT -5
^I agree with that. Kurt was not the most professional performer. Some shows were incredible, some shows were the worst because he just didn't give a damn. Part of the that was him trying to maintain the attitude of the style, you had to act a certain way, listen to certain music, not care about anything. When the truth was Kurt liked music "grunge/punk" people weren't supposed to like (My Sharona for one) and from what I read, was actually into the numbers and how well Nirvana was doing monetarily/on the charts etc. A punk no-no. But apart from maintaining the image and the inconsistent live shows, when I put on "Nevermind" - I'm gone - blasted, drained and gobsmacked that's what matters most to me. And I'm not slamming your opinion, MJ. This does of course just get down to taste at a certain point. No problem and no offense taken. I've heard/seen you play (and came away very impressed) and read Mr. A's reviews on his blog etc. And (correct me if I'm off base) you both strike me as very interested in the precision of music. That's not an insult. If we were dancers you two would be ballerinas - precise, disciplined, exact, there's a reason and purpose for every movement. Me, I'm a stripper. It's all about the sweat and sex and blood flowing through the veins. I like being the stripper, but I respect and kind of envy the ballerina and that discipline.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Oct 13, 2011 1:17:03 GMT -5
And (correct me if I'm off base) you both strike me as very interested in the precision of music. That's not an insult. If we were dancers you two would be ballerinas - precise, disciplined, exact, there's a reason and purpose for every movement. Me, I'm a stripper. It's all about the sweat and sex and blood flowing through the veins. I like being the stripper, but I respect and kind of envy the ballerina and that discipline. Just wanted to bump this thread and say that Mrs. Atari and I went to the Foo Fighters show here in Denver last Sunday, and it was everything you said you prefer, MJ. Sweat and sex and blood flowing through the veins. Plus, it was musicianship of the highest level. There were moments of sheer power and raw rock & roll straight from the loins, as well as moments of mind-blowing playing. After the opening songs, Dave came on the mic and warned all of us that we were in for a "f--in' rock show, without any computers or whiny s--t, and anything less than two-and-a-half hours is bulls--t, so hold on to your balls." Then the band proceeded to deliver on that promise. The songs were anthemic, the expanded "live versions" were amazing (especially "Monkey Wrench" and "Stacked Actors"), and Dave's energy was astonishing. I've been to hundreds of shows, and I've never seen a band play to an arena crowd that well before. For the first two songs of the six-song encore, Dave stood on a platform at the opposite end of the arena and played "Best of You" and "Long Road to Ruin" on his acoustic guitar to the cheap seats, with just as much intensity as when the rest of the band was playing. More than once I had the thought that this must have been what it was like to see Queen or Zeppelin in the '70s. The energy from the stage and in the crowd was overpowering. As they finished the show with a killer version of Tom Petty's "Breakdown" and then closed with "Everlong", I knew it was one of the best shows I've ever seen or will ever see. After that experience, MJ, I have to say that your criticisms that Dave doesn't have raw, expressive vocals, or that he's "milk", or that they just make songs that don't really kick ass are completely invalidated. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying you have to like them-- I know how you feel about taste being subjective. But I wonder if you haven't decided ahead of time that since nothing can be as good as Nirvana to you, the Foo Fighters can only rise to the level of cheap knock-off, and therefore you haven't given them a truly fair shake to stand on their own merits. I say that because my experience on Sunday night not only differed from your conclusions about the band, but was in fact the exact opposite of your specific criticisms.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Oct 13, 2011 1:27:59 GMT -5
It was a little something like this:
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Oct 13, 2011 1:49:50 GMT -5
Well thank you soooo much for saying that my opinion was "completely invalidated". I truuuuly appreciate that. *MJ deactivates sarcasm chip for rest of post* And to answer your question. No. Let me be very clear about this. I don't play games like that, I don't decide to dislike anyone ahead of time. I don't like or dislike things simply because they are popular or unpopular or any of the other silly things I've seen in music and movie discussions. I was very enthused about the Foo Fighters - couldn't wait to get their first CD. I played it and played it and wanted to love it soooo much it hurt. But I had to give in and admit that it was was soft, bland. lacked vibrancy to my ears. Dave's voice was expressionless. Release after release through the years I'd listen hopefully. A few times a song would grab me. I'd hear some of the guts I longed for, ala the chorus for "There Goes My Hero". I'm glad you enjoyed youself, but I stand by what I said and that video did nothing to change my mind. With music (moreso than film) I either feel it, or I don't. And I don't feel it with the Foo. Edited to add Servo
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Oct 13, 2011 2:42:56 GMT -5
Well thank you soooo much for saying that my opinion was "completely invalidated". I truuuuly appreciate that. I didn't mean that your opinion is invalid, just that those 3 specific criticisms I mentioned were proven false in person for me. Again, it's no big deal to me if you like the Foo or not. Different strokes and all that. I just thought it was notable that what I saw was so directly opposite of your earlier comments here. For example: It's one thing to say I don't like Queen. Lots of people don't like Queen for any number of valid reasons. It's another thing to say that I think Freddie Mercury was a terrible frontman who didn't have much showmanship.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Oct 13, 2011 6:19:08 GMT -5
I don't know Mr. A - it felt like my integrity was getting called out, I felt a little kick in the nuts there. But if you say that wasn't your intent I'll beleive you.
I understand the point you are trying to make. Some things aren't subjective. Freddie Mercury WAS a great showman, John Entwistle WAS a deft bass player, Bob Dylan HAS perfect pitch...
;D (yeah, I didn't think I'd sneak that by you)
I can only speak to the Foo's recordings, since I've never seen them live and felt that energy you get in actually being there. So I'll take your word for it. I remember my old GF once telling that she saw the Flaming Liips live and it was the worst show ever. I asked her if she took a 2x4 to the back of the head, because the Lips don't do bad live shows...
Some things just aren't up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Oct 13, 2011 8:34:38 GMT -5
This calls for one of those "your argument is invalid" poster memes.
It would have a picture of Mr. a rockin out to some hair band, and the text would go: Mr. Atari saw it live. Your argument is invalid.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 13, 2011 11:51:42 GMT -5
I think this entire thread is invalid.
|
|