Re: Is the the Foo Fighters- Everlong
[QUOTE=Scottd;2613384]Let's face it: Both Nirvana and Foo Fighters have/had limitations.
Nirvana was a grunge band, which consisted of punk-like simple chord structures and some Sabbath-like power riffs thrown in for good measure, with a ton of lyrics about personal pain, etc. That can only go so far before it gets repetitive, which is why grunge flamed out in a ball of glory.
Nirvana showed a few signs of stepping away from that grunge cycle, with tunes like "All Apologies" on "In Utero" and the MTV Unplugged performance. Who knows what musical styles the band may have attempted or shifted toward if Cobain hadn't taken the chicken-sh*t way out? Would Nirvana have stuck to grunge or harder rock or have gravitated toward the more middle-of-the-road, Neil Young-influenced path where fellow grungemeisters Pearl Jam now strut?
As I said in a previous post, Foo Fighters has thrived for 11 years on the same, basic formula: Crunch rockers filled with power chords and Grohl screaming repeated chorus lines, with a few melodic strummers thrown in. It's good listening, but it's not very daring and teeters on the edge of boredom.
The truly great bands, like Wilco, The Beatles, The Stones, Radiohead, U2, etc., etc., are willing to experiment with different styles and sounds in an effort to push their music forward. If you listen to any of those bands' entire catalogs, the stylings are all over the board as the band grew restless with its "sound" and tried something else.
Neither Nirvana or the Foo Fighters ever did/done that. It's hard to rip Nirvana for that since Cobain's death prevented any possible musical growth over time. But it's pretty easy to point the finger at Grohl as a poster boy for cash-and-carry power pop-grunge.
Take care,
PK
[QUOTE=Scottd;2613384]Let's face it: Both Nirvana and Foo Fighters have/had limitations.
Nirvana was a grunge band, which consisted of punk-like simple chord structures and some Sabbath-like power riffs thrown in for good measure, with a ton of lyrics about personal pain, etc. That can only go so far before it gets repetitive, which is why grunge flamed out in a ball of glory.
Nirvana showed a few signs of stepping away from that grunge cycle, with tunes like "All Apologies" on "In Utero" and the MTV Unplugged performance. Who knows what musical styles the band may have attempted or shifted toward if Cobain hadn't taken the chicken-sh*t way out? Would Nirvana have stuck to grunge or harder rock or have gravitated toward the more middle-of-the-road, Neil Young-influenced path where fellow grungemeisters Pearl Jam now strut?
As I said in a previous post, Foo Fighters has thrived for 11 years on the same, basic formula: Crunch rockers filled with power chords and Grohl screaming repeated chorus lines, with a few melodic strummers thrown in. It's good listening, but it's not very daring and teeters on the edge of boredom.
The truly great bands, like Wilco, The Beatles, The Stones, Radiohead, U2, etc., etc., are willing to experiment with different styles and sounds in an effort to push their music forward. If you listen to any of those bands' entire catalogs, the stylings are all over the board as the band grew restless with its "sound" and tried something else.
Neither Nirvana or the Foo Fighters ever did/done that. It's hard to rip Nirvana for that since Cobain's death prevented any possible musical growth over time. But it's pretty easy to point the finger at Grohl as a poster boy for cash-and-carry power pop-grunge.
Take care,
PK
Comment