Not enough zeros.top 10?
easily #1
Their 2nd and last albums are both really good, in particular, but in general, they are a good, not great, band. I wouldn't put them near the top of the decade for either the 90s or the 00s.Enjoyable, but not revolutionary.
You just "goodposted" safariplanet.Their 2nd and last albums are both really good, in particular, but in general, they are a good, not great, band. I wouldn't put them near the top of the decade for either the 90s or the 00s.Enjoyable, but not revolutionary.
I don't know. Not every band can be "revolutionary". Some bands just go out and rock. The Foo Fighters consistently produce really, really, really solid albums and perform the heck out of them live. I think "good" is a little bit of a slight. With all the one hit wonder, flash in the pan bands in our single mp3 downloading era, they have a ton of great material. I'd definitely rank them at the top of the 00's.Ghost Rider said:Their 2nd and last albums are both really good, in particular, but in general, they are a good, not great, band. I wouldn't put them near the top of the decade for either the 90s or the 00s.safariplanet said:Enjoyable, but not revolutionary.
I think if you switch the decades you're right. Their 00s music was just watered down 90s stuff IMO. That Wheels song or whatever it's called is just horrible. Grohl should stick with the drums.ETA: I'm digging Them Crooked Vultures though. Good stuff.I'd say easily Top Ten band of the 00's, and arguably a Top Ten band of the 90s.
For greatest hits I am number 19 of 19 holds on 0 copies. Must be a new one they are waiting on.I never really listened to them but I am ordering the following from the library.In your honorThe colour and shapeGreatest Hits
Don't get me wrong, I prefer their 90s music. But they only had half a decade's worth of music in the 90s, and they had a lot more competition in the 90s for a Top Ten list.I think if you switch the decades you're right. Their 00s music was just watered down 90s stuff IMO. That Wheels song or whatever it's called is just horrible. Grohl should stick with the drums.ETA: I'm digging Them Crooked Vultures though. Good stuff.I'd say easily Top Ten band of the 00's, and arguably a Top Ten band of the 90s.
It just released a month or so ago.For greatest hits I am number 19 of 19 holds on 0 copies. Must be a new one they are waiting on.I never really listened to them but I am ordering the following from the library.In your honorThe colour and shapeGreatest Hits
So true, but most of their material ranges from good to very good; in other words, rarely truly great, which is why I wouldn't call them among the best of anything. They do what they do well, yes, but that is about it.I don't know. Not every band can be "revolutionary". Some bands just go out and rock. The Foo Fighters consistently produce really, really, really solid albums and perform the heck out of them live. I think "good" is a little bit of a slight. With all the one hit wonder, flash in the pan bands in our single mp3 downloading era, they have a ton of great material. I'd definitely rank them at the top of the 00's.Their 2nd and last albums are both really good, in particular, but in general, they are a good, not great, band. I wouldn't put them near the top of the decade for either the 90s or the 00s.Enjoyable, but not revolutionary.
Pretender is truly great in my opinion.So true, but most of their material ranges from good to very good; in other words, rarely truly great, which is why I wouldn't call them among the best of anything. They do what they do well, yes, but that is about it.I don't know. Not every band can be "revolutionary". Some bands just go out and rock. The Foo Fighters consistently produce really, really, really solid albums and perform the heck out of them live. I think "good" is a little bit of a slight. With all the one hit wonder, flash in the pan bands in our single mp3 downloading era, they have a ton of great material. I'd definitely rank them at the top of the 00's.Their 2nd and last albums are both really good, in particular, but in general, they are a good, not great, band. I wouldn't put them near the top of the decade for either the 90s or the 00s.Enjoyable, but not revolutionary.
I think if you switch the decades you're right. Their 00s music was just watered down 90s stuff IMO. That Wheels song or whatever it's called is just horrible. Grohl should stick with the drums.I'd say easily Top Ten band of the 00's, and arguably a Top Ten band of the 90s.
Maybe I'm off base here but, Without Cobain and Nirvana, do the Foo Fighters make it to be anything if they just popped up on their own?I get the feeling like a lot of musicians could have been successful given the backing, and instant popularity the Foos got.Not sure where they rank but probably the one big positive out of Cobain's death.
Agreed. Everlong is truly great too.Pretender is truly great in my opinion.So true, but most of their material ranges from good to very good; in other words, rarely truly great, which is why I wouldn't call them among the best of anything. They do what they do well, yes, but that is about it.I don't know. Not every band can be "revolutionary". Some bands just go out and rock. The Foo Fighters consistently produce really, really, really solid albums and perform the heck out of them live. I think "good" is a little bit of a slight. With all the one hit wonder, flash in the pan bands in our single mp3 downloading era, they have a ton of great material. I'd definitely rank them at the top of the 00's.Their 2nd and last albums are both really good, in particular, but in general, they are a good, not great, band. I wouldn't put them near the top of the decade for either the 90s or the 00s.Enjoyable, but not revolutionary.
Does Lenon ever do anything w/out McCartney...or vice versa? Your statement IMO is more a testament to HOW GOOD Nirvana was going to be. Grohl is uber talented.Maybe I'm off base here but, Without Cobain and Nirvana, do the Foo Fighters make it to be anything if they just popped up on their own?I get the feeling like a lot of musicians could have been successful given the backing, and instant popularity the Foos got.Not sure where they rank but probably the one big positive out of Cobain's death.
It's an interesting question. First of all, Dave Grohl is the Foo Fighters, so the question is whether Grohl would have broken out had he not played drums in Nirvana. I happen to think that Grohl is an exceptional talent, both as a songwriter and as a musician (he performed nearly every track on the Foo Fighters' first album), and he was plugged into the music industry. As such, I tend to believe he would have made it, even without Nirvana.Maybe I'm off base here but, Without Cobain and Nirvana, do the Foo Fighters make it to be anything if they just popped up on their own?I get the feeling like a lot of musicians could have been successful given the backing, and instant popularity the Foos got.Not sure where they rank but probably the one big positive out of Cobain's death.
It's not too confusing. He's not an exceptional singer, guitarist, or songwriter IMO. His drumming is what he excels at. I think the Foo is terribly overrated. They are pretty much rock music for 30+ year olds who are stuck in grunge mode and mourning the falling out of traditional alt rock. They are just spinning their Wheels until no one wants to hear them anymore.Grohl on the drums though...that's all I wanna hear. He's incredible on the skins. SFTD by Queens might be the best rock album of the past decade, largely due to his outstanding drum work.I think if you switch the decades you're right. Their 00s music was just watered down 90s stuff IMO. That Wheels song or whatever it's called is just horrible. Grohl should stick with the drums.I'd say easily Top Ten band of the 00's, and arguably a Top Ten band of the 90s.
Yes, they do have a handful of great songs, but that is why I said MOST of their material ranges from good to very good. Sematics perhaps, but that is how I see it. Good band, and damn good live!Pretender is truly great in my opinion.So true, but most of their material ranges from good to very good; in other words, rarely truly great, which is why I wouldn't call them among the best of anything. They do what they do well, yes, but that is about it.I don't know. Not every band can be "revolutionary". Some bands just go out and rock. The Foo Fighters consistently produce really, really, really solid albums and perform the heck out of them live. I think "good" is a little bit of a slight. With all the one hit wonder, flash in the pan bands in our single mp3 downloading era, they have a ton of great material. I'd definitely rank them at the top of the 00's.Their 2nd and last albums are both really good, in particular, but in general, they are a good, not great, band. I wouldn't put them near the top of the decade for either the 90s or the 00s.Enjoyable, but not revolutionary.
What is confusing is that you agree that Foo Fighters is easily a Top Ten band of the 90s, yet say Grohl should stick to drums.It's not too confusing. He's not an exceptional singer, guitarist, or songwriter IMO. His drumming is what he excels at. I think the Foo is terribly overrated. They are pretty much rock music for 30+ year olds who are stuck in grunge mode and mourning the falling out of traditional alt rock. They are just spinning their Wheels until no one wants to hear them anymore.I think if you switch the decades you're right. Their 00s music was just watered down 90s stuff IMO. That Wheels song or whatever it's called is just horrible. Grohl should stick with the drums.I'd say easily Top Ten band of the 00's, and arguably a Top Ten band of the 90s.
Grohl and Nirvana found each other. Grohl had ties to guys like The Melvins and some other bands.In an alternate universe, he would have found his way onto some band or started his own early.It's an interesting question. First of all, Dave Grohl is the Foo Fighters, so the question is whether Grohl would have broken out had he not played drums in Nirvana. I happen to think that Grohl is an exceptional talent, both as a songwriter and as a musician (he performed nearly every track on the Foo Fighters' first album), and he was plugged into the music industry. As such, I tend to believe he would have made it, even without Nirvana.Maybe I'm off base here but, Without Cobain and Nirvana, do the Foo Fighters make it to be anything if they just popped up on their own?I get the feeling like a lot of musicians could have been successful given the backing, and instant popularity the Foos got.Not sure where they rank but probably the one big positive out of Cobain's death.
Well they certainly wouldn't make my list, but I think it would be ignorant to ignore the effect they've had on the general music listening public. The whole "top10 of the decade" idea is silly since bands that usually show up on those lists are well-known for the most part and are rarely the best bands. I was just using that mindset, I guess. I get lost in my thoughts, sorry.I did like their first couple albums when they came out, but since then they have not done anything noteworthy. They might be a top20 on my list for the 90s.What is confusing is that you agree that Foo Fighters is easily a Top Ten band of the 90s, yet say Grohl should stick to drums.It's not too confusing. He's not an exceptional singer, guitarist, or songwriter IMO. His drumming is what he excels at. I think the Foo is terribly overrated. They are pretty much rock music for 30+ year olds who are stuck in grunge mode and mourning the falling out of traditional alt rock. They are just spinning their Wheels until no one wants to hear them anymore.I think if you switch the decades you're right. Their 00s music was just watered down 90s stuff IMO. That Wheels song or whatever it's called is just horrible. Grohl should stick with the drums.I'd say easily Top Ten band of the 00's, and arguably a Top Ten band of the 90s.
I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.Well they certainly wouldn't make my list, but I think it would be ignorant to ignore the effect they've had on the general music listening public. The whole "top10 of the decade" idea is silly since bands that usually show up on those lists are well-known for the most part and are rarely the best bands. I was just using that mindset, I guess. I get lost in my thoughts, sorry.I did like their first couple albums when they came out, but since then they have not done anything noteworthy. They might be a top20 on my list for the 90s.
Top 5 easily. Personally theyre my favorite band (if you see them live, they will climb your list quickly).
For anyone interested, heres something I found last night on the Pirate Bay torrent site: 2 discs of their B-Sides. 36 songs...I downloaded and theyre all legit and great quality...listening to it now on my phone....
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3617988/Fo..._%28Complete%29
Disc 1:
01. Winnebago
02. Podunk
03. How I Miss You
04. Ozone
05. Gas Chamber (BBC Evening Session Recording)
06. The Colour And The Shape
07. Down In The Park
08. Drive Me Wild
09. Requiem
10. Baker Street
11. Dear Lover
12. Walking After You (New Version)
13. A320
14. Iron And Stone
15. Have A Cigar
16. Make A Bet
17. Fraternity
Disc 2:
01. The One
02. Walking A Line
03. Sister Europe
04. Danny Says
05. Life of Illusion
06. Win Or Lose
07. Planet Claire (Live NYC)
08. Normal
09. Never Talking To You Again (Live in Hamburg on December 1, 2002)
10. Darling Nikki
11. I'm In Love With A German Film Star
12. FFL
13. Kiss The Bottle
14. Spill
15. I Feel Free
16. Skin And Bones
17. World (Demo)
18. Born On The Bayou
19. The Sign
And just for kicks (from PirateBay):
Their entire Discography (7 studio CDs, minus the greatest hits)
And Greatest Hits
I have been listening to these two albums and I like them. One of these albums was a double and disc two from the library is fubar so I only have half of it. Still waiting on Greatest hits to arrive. It is fun to find a band I like that has so many years of material that I never really listened to. It is nice running music.I never really listened to them but I am ordering the following from the library.In your honorThe colour and shapeGreatest Hits
Can't wait to get me some more Foo.
Learn To FlyMy HeroThese two are easily recognizeable and still popular after over 10 years.I like some of the Foo Fighters stuff.They kind of remind me of Aerosmith. When they came out in the early 70s, they were pretty good. Had some solid songs, but in an era with Led Zeppelin, the Stones, and the Who, they were really just a band you might like because they were on the radio, but nothing earth shattering. In the 80s, Aerosmith comes back and all of a sudden people love them. Because they were earth shattering?? No, mostly because with hair metal and Brit pop dominating the air waves, they at least sounded like real rock and roll.The Foo Fighters are the same. When they came out, they were kind of in an era with some good bands all pretty much in their prime, plus they had the ghost of Nirvana to compete with. Fast forward 10 years and they are still around and there are almost no really good popular rock bands anymore played on the radio, so people think of them as standing the test of time, and therefore, really good.Other than Everlong, I don't know if there is a song they'll be remembered for in 50 years. They come across better in concert than they do on the records, IMO.
What a great freaking video. Loved the Journey Separate Ways reference.New video for "White Limo".....with Lemmy!
This song has grown on me FAST....keeping an eye out for an internet leak of the new CD....New video for "White Limo".....with Lemmy!
I was going to post this over at the other place. Heard it and figure "Worm will dig this one".Over the past few years I've turned into a big Foo fan. Can't wait for the new CD.eta - I like both White Limo and the teasers on the website... good stuff