Quote:
Originally Posted by bucksfan2
At what point would Cobain have become a diva like Rose? At what point does he say "I am the band" instead of "we are the band"
|
I'm not a complete Cobain fanboy (and there are plenty of them on the internet, please, somebody step in) but from everything I've ever read about the man that wasn't part of his personality.
Grohl was probably destined to leave since he was beginning to record his Foo Fighters demos while Nirvana was still together, but I don't think Novoselic was in a hurry to go anywhere. After releasing
In Utero, the band was clearly destined to shy away from the spotlight a bit, but I think they would have recorded several more albums as Nirvana.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucksfan2
Having a frontman who doesn't blow his brains sure does help a band. Nirvana had an album that defined a genre and a great live album. Those two albums will forever be remembered. But the Foo Fighters have been around for close to 20 years. And for those 20 years they have produced pretty damn good music.
|
Meh, their first album is an underrated indie relic, and
In Utero (there is plenty of contention amongst Nirvana fans about which album is even the best) is still better than anything the Foo Fighters have ever recorded (my opinion of course). One of their previously unknown songs was released years later and went to number one on the rock charts. The Unplugged set further proves their brilliance. Two of the covers were incredible improvements over the original recordings and still play on the radio today. Tribute cover albums are still being released. I'll be surprised if the Foo Fighters are ever held in a similar light.
I've said it before and I'll say it again--I've got nothing against the Foo Fighters. I like them. I listen to them. Grohl writes a catchy rocker and they've had a lot of hits. But their music lacks that "momentous feel" that Nirvana's music has and none of their albums have ever held my attention from start to finish...