• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Foo Fighters vs. RHCP

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
To the best of my knowledge, Foo Fighters didn't decide to start putting out crappy album in the late 90s. That means they win.
Click to expand...

:Q:Q:Q:Q

Californication and By the Way were fing excellent
Click to expand...

No, no they weren't. Pretty much any song from BSSM or OHM is far better.
Click to expand...

yes OHM and BSSM were MORE excellent but that doesnt change the fact that the last 3 RCHP albums were also excellent
 
The first three RHCP albums were great - I particularly like the George Clinton-produced Freaky Styley, which had the support of the Parliament horn section (actually I met them at an in-store appearance in support of that record in about 1987, when I was in high school, and they snuck some friends and me into their over-21 show). As far as I'm concerned, though, the band has sucked since about 1991, and at their worst (One Hot Minute stands out in particular) they are just unlistenable. Anthony Kiedis can't sing on key at all - he is one of the least-talented lead singers in any commercially successful band, ever.

Foo Fighters are generally kind of an unambitious band IMO, but they have many many good songs, and the worst of their music is inoffensive and worlds better than the worst RHCP stuff. I vote for FF as the better band.
 
Can't stand the foo fighters. They are too generic guitar mashy for me. RHCP has ups and downs, but their overall body of work is still quite impressive. And Stadium Arcadium was a great album.
 
Having worked with both, I can sat that, IMO, RHCP's are hacks & the FF are one of the best bands in the last 25 years .
Dave Grohl is probably the best lyricist in recent history.
Any band that plays as well as they do, does not have to resort to hopping around the stage with socks on their wieners to try and distract from the fact that no one can play a god damned thing.

Foo Fighters strafe RHCP.
 
I went to a RHCP concert where the Foo Fighters toured with them and were the second opening band. If you ask me, the Foo Fighters stole the show.

I'm going to simply say that David Grohl is a musical genius and has great stage presence.

RHCP prefers to be a punk band. They have a lot of talent and have had quite a few great songs, but their stage presence isn't at the same level... Of course, Flea did jump across the stage naked, but that was expected. They're definitely close, but Foo Fighters are superior.



Edit: One more point about Grohl. It's been said that he's the reason Nirvana hit it big and that Kurt may have been the front-man, but the band would be no where without Grohl. It goes to show that you don't have to be the lead singer to contribute to music. For him, he got used to being on stage and eased into music. By the time Nirvana was done, he was comfortable with the spotlight being on him.
 
I love Foo Fighters and don't like RHCP that much. RHCP is not bad but I got tired of their music style after the mid 90s.
 
I have all Foo albums on my MP3 player, and only a few songs from Stadium Arcadium. Both bands rock, but I think FF are the best ...
 
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: meltdown75
I don't see the point in pitting these two bands against one another.
Click to expand...

Two bands enter, one band leaves! These are the rules of Thunderdome!
Click to expand...
Master Blaster runs Barter Town, and methane comes from pigshit. this thread gets the GULAG mask.
 
Of the two, RHCP every day of the week. In fact, if I could go without hearing a Foo song for the rest of my life, I feel I would be better off.
 
FF opened for RHCP about 6-ish years ago.

FF put on a better show. Dave Grohl took off running around the arena.
Pretty cool. RHCP seemed to phone it in.
 
Both have written excellent music, both have written crappy music. Both are worthy of R&R Hall of Fame or any other supreme award out there. RHCP has probably had more influence over the years but they have had more years to influence. FF has the potential to do the same. Neither is "better" than the other. Both are great.
 
If we only look at old RHCP, they're the better band. However for continually good music, Foo Fighters take it.

Every RHCP album that comes out gets continually worse. Their peak was Mother's Milk.
 
Why are all RHCP about California?

I heard there next single is called "I live in california so here is a song about that"
 
RHCP, individually they are so much more l33t than foo fighters

Although dave grohl > anthony keidis

JAMFF/Flea/Chad Smith > their foo fighters counterparts

I've seen them both more than a few times. They both throw down ridiculous live shows. But RHCP's improv > foo fighters


btw, BSSM is the pinnacle of RHCP l33tness
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If we only look at old RHCP, they're the better band. However for continually good music, Foo Fighters take it.

Every RHCP album that comes out gets continually worse. Their peak was Mother's Milk.
Click to expand...

No, their peak was Blood Sugar Sex Magik, easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top