Foo Fighters vs. Smashing Pumpkins

[RUSHHEAD666]

Hey, everybody poops.

[RUSHHEAD666]

It's cool that Billy like Dave and Taylor are Rush Freaks, but that cover Billy does of "Limelight" is well, poop.

[chemistry1973]

Love the Foos, but they don't have Jimmy Chamberlin in the band.

[Na na na]

I really love Adore by Pumpkins as well

[bluefox4000]

the first two smashing pumpkins albums are great. the foo fighters dont even have the raw charm of nirvana. I don't hate them, they're just bland

 

this EXACTLY foo fighters are the beige wallpaper of music.

 

Mick

[bathory]

I do hear dave puts on an excellent show

[Rutlefan]

I'd give it to Smashing Pumpkins except that I could never get past Corgan's voice. Loved the overall sound though. That said, I'll abstain as I neither like nor dislike each band equally. It's like Klobuchar v Buttigieg, in that they are both... fine. At least I can spell the bands without Google.

[Stormtron]

Pumpkins sweep it.

[Segue Myles]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

 

I should add a word, they define mainstream alt rock.

[Segue Myles]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

 

I should add a word, they define mainstream alt rock.

 

I wouldn't describe their sound as alternative at all. They are fully fledged mainstream rock. About as alternative as Mr. Roboto era Styx.

[bluefox4000]

Foos are like mom rock all my friends Mom's LOOOVED them when i was a teen.

 

 

them and nickleback. lol.

 

Mick

[ReRushed]

The Smashing Pumpkins are more interesting and take chances.

[GeddyLeeRoth]

Smashing pumpkins all the way around. Foo fighters are like the definition of boring for me.

 

I start an album. i go i am going to love this!!! 2nd track in....i'm bored, lol. shame cause i love the band as people they all seem cool.

 

SP Corgan is an acquired taste. but i just find them more musically interesting.

 

Mick

You just summed up almost exactly what I was going to say.

[Texas King]

Pumpkins by far.

Siamese Dream is a contender for my favorite album of the 90's.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

 

I should add a word, they define mainstream alt rock.

 

I wouldn't describe their sound as alternative at all. They are fully fledged mainstream rock. About as alternative as Mr. Roboto era Styx.

 

Then we have different ideas of using alternative as a genre label. I find the Foos have way more in common with Nirvana and Green day than Aerosmith and AC/DC.

[J2112YYZ]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

 

I should add a word, they define mainstream alt rock.

 

I wouldn't describe their sound as alternative at all. They are fully fledged mainstream rock. About as alternative as Mr. Roboto era Styx.

 

Then we have different ideas of using alternative as a genre label. I find the Foos have way more in common with Nirvana and Green day than Aerosmith and AC/DC.

 

Before it became cool to call the in thing "alternative" back in the early to mid 90s, the label was meant to describe those artists who didn't break into the mainstream. These bands would have their own unique sound and sometimes get a decent following because of it but they didn't have that mass appeal to them. At some point the definition changed and any rock that didn't sound like traditional rock was called alternative rock even if it was popular. I still subscribe to the original meaning of the label myself.

 

Foo Fighters are a straight up mainstream hard rock band. They have never done anything else but try to write rock songs that appeal to the masses. They've done a damn good job of that too. An alternative rock band would just write whatever the hell they want and not care if everyone likes it or not. But like so many music labels today, the meaning has really gotten muddied up over the years.

Edited March 4, 2020 by J2112YYZ

[Entre_Perpetuo]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

 

I should add a word, they define mainstream alt rock.

 

I wouldn't describe their sound as alternative at all. They are fully fledged mainstream rock. About as alternative as Mr. Roboto era Styx.

 

Then we have different ideas of using alternative as a genre label. I find the Foos have way more in common with Nirvana and Green day than Aerosmith and AC/DC.

 

Before it became cool to call the in thing "alternative" back in the early to mid 90s, the label was meant to describe those artists who didn't break into the mainstream. These bands would have their own unique sound and sometimes get a decent following because of it but they didn't have that mass appeal to them. At some point the definition changed and any rock that didn't sound like traditional rock was called alternative rock even if it was popular. I still subscribe to the original meaning of the label myself.

 

Foo Fighters are a straight up mainstream hard rock band. They have never done anything else but try to write rock songs that appeal to the masses. They've done a damn good job of that too. An alternative rock band would just write whatever the hell they want and not care if everyone likes it or not. But like so many music labels today, the meaning has really gotten muddied up over the years.

 

I realize that’s what it originally meant, but times have changed. You subscribe to whichever version you think is best, but I unfortunately don’t have another word to describe non-traditional sounding rock, except maybe modern rock, but I don’t think The Pumpkins or any of the grunge bands really fit that label. I guess technically the Foos have been referred to as a post-grunge band before, but to me they’re way too happy and bright to fit that label. Alternative is the word most casual listeners associate with them, so that’s the word I use.

[Segue Myles]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

 

I should add a word, they define mainstream alt rock.

 

I wouldn't describe their sound as alternative at all. They are fully fledged mainstream rock. About as alternative as Mr. Roboto era Styx.

 

Then we have different ideas of using alternative as a genre label. I find the Foos have way more in common with Nirvana and Green day than Aerosmith and AC/DC.

 

Before it became cool to call the in thing "alternative" back in the early to mid 90s, the label was meant to describe those artists who didn't break into the mainstream. These bands would have their own unique sound and sometimes get a decent following because of it but they didn't have that mass appeal to them. At some point the definition changed and any rock that didn't sound like traditional rock was called alternative rock even if it was popular. I still subscribe to the original meaning of the label myself.

 

Foo Fighters are a straight up mainstream hard rock band. They have never done anything else but try to write rock songs that appeal to the masses. They've done a damn good job of that too. An alternative rock band would just write whatever the hell they want and not care if everyone likes it or not. But like so many music labels today, the meaning has really gotten muddied up over the years.

 

I realize that’s what it originally meant, but times have changed. You subscribe to whichever version you think is best, but I unfortunately don’t have another word to describe non-traditional sounding rock, except maybe modern rock, but I don’t think The Pumpkins or any of the grunge bands really fit that label. I guess technically the Foos have been referred to as a post-grunge band before, but to me they’re way too happy and bright to fit that label. Alternative is the word most casual listeners associate with them, so that’s the word I use.

 

You are so obsessed with labels and talking like a music expert, when clearly you have so much more to explore, it wears a little thin.

 

People lived through these bands heydey, and you're sitting here talking like someone who writes for a Classic Rock magazine, and should be respected because of it.

 

You picked a pretty good, straightforward pop rock band, put them in the same category as one of the most successful experimental bands of all time, and try to defend it by insinuating you know better and that times have changed.

 

Just because mainstream rock now embraces things like Imagine Dragons (eugh) doesn't change the fact that for many years, Foo Fighters were huge but not massively regarded as anything other than ridiculously commercial, formulaic hard rock. You don't need to throw labels at them and try to pass them off as something they are not. We know what they are, as do they, and they certainly aren't "alternative" in any sense of the word.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

 

I should add a word, they define mainstream alt rock.

 

I wouldn't describe their sound as alternative at all. They are fully fledged mainstream rock. About as alternative as Mr. Roboto era Styx.

 

Then we have different ideas of using alternative as a genre label. I find the Foos have way more in common with Nirvana and Green day than Aerosmith and AC/DC.

 

Before it became cool to call the in thing "alternative" back in the early to mid 90s, the label was meant to describe those artists who didn't break into the mainstream. These bands would have their own unique sound and sometimes get a decent following because of it but they didn't have that mass appeal to them. At some point the definition changed and any rock that didn't sound like traditional rock was called alternative rock even if it was popular. I still subscribe to the original meaning of the label myself.

 

Foo Fighters are a straight up mainstream hard rock band. They have never done anything else but try to write rock songs that appeal to the masses. They've done a damn good job of that too. An alternative rock band would just write whatever the hell they want and not care if everyone likes it or not. But like so many music labels today, the meaning has really gotten muddied up over the years.

 

I realize that’s what it originally meant, but times have changed. You subscribe to whichever version you think is best, but I unfortunately don’t have another word to describe non-traditional sounding rock, except maybe modern rock, but I don’t think The Pumpkins or any of the grunge bands really fit that label. I guess technically the Foos have been referred to as a post-grunge band before, but to me they’re way too happy and bright to fit that label. Alternative is the word most casual listeners associate with them, so that’s the word I use.

 

You are so obsessed with labels and talking like a music expert, when clearly you have so much more to explore, it wears a little thin.

 

People lived through these bands heydey, and you're sitting here talking like someone who writes for a Classic Rock magazine, and should be respected because of it.

 

You picked a pretty good, straightforward pop rock band, put them in the same category as one of the most successful experimental bands of all time, and try to defend it by insinuating you know better and that times have changed.

 

Just because mainstream rock now embraces things like Imagine Dragons (eugh) doesn't change the fact that for many years, Foo Fighters were huge but not massively regarded as anything other than ridiculously commercial, formulaic hard rock. You don't need to throw labels at them and try to pass them off as something they are not. We know what they are, as do they, and they certainly aren't "alternative" in any sense of the word.

 

I call them alt, you call them mainstream, I don’t really care. I explained my point of view, you explained yours, and both I think are valid. Please understand that I never mean to come off like I know better than anyone else. I most certainly don’t, and if I thought I did, I wouldn’t come to a forum asking others to share their opinions. I only wish to express my own perspective and learn what others’ are, and if mine doesn’t suit anyone else that’s perfectly reasonable. Thank you for the insult. Obsessing over labels is not a favorite pastime of mine. However, when I come to a music forum to discuss bands from a variety of different styles and traditions, it’s only natural that discussion about genre labels (like alt or emo) will occur. If you’re going to pick apart this post too, feel free, but please don’t get so accusatory, I’m not some troll.

[J2112YYZ]

Labels in general suck these days. So many bands dip in and out of certain styles. It can make the discussions both interesting and frustrating at the same time.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Labels in general suck these days. So many bands dip in and out of certain styles. It can make the discussions both interesting and frustrating at the same time.

 

Totally! For goodness sakes a ton of modern rappers do more singing than rapping! Now I understand there’s a certain rap cadence to the singing, but I think it’s a good example of how the words we use to describe music have really started fraying at the seems. Is Hotline Bling a rap song? Is Imagine Dragons a rock band? Is Dream Theater really progressive? It’s all gotten very confusing.

[bluefox4000]

Let's all calm down, lol

 

i'll make it simple......both bands......consist of people.........who make music.

 

TA-DA!!!!

 

Mick

[Rutlefan]

A really bizarre comparison.

 

Why not rate King Crimson versus Bay City Rollers?

Uh, I disagree. The Foos and the Pumpkins basically define alt rock.

 

Foo Fighters are highly successful but don't do anything new. They don't define anything except soccer mom rock n roll magic.

 

I should add a word, they define mainstream alt rock.

 

I wouldn't describe their sound as alternative at all. They are fully fledged mainstream rock. About as alternative as Mr. Roboto era Styx.

 

Then we have different ideas of using alternative as a genre label. I find the Foos have way more in common with Nirvana and Green day than Aerosmith and AC/DC.

 

Before it became cool to call the in thing "alternative" back in the early to mid 90s, the label was meant to describe those artists who didn't break into the mainstream. These bands would have their own unique sound and sometimes get a decent following because of it but they didn't have that mass appeal to them. At some point the definition changed and any rock that didn't sound like traditional rock was called alternative rock even if it was popular. I still subscribe to the original meaning of the label myself.

 

Foo Fighters are a straight up mainstream hard rock band. They have never done anything else but try to write rock songs that appeal to the masses. They've done a damn good job of that too. An alternative rock band would just write whatever the hell they want and not care if everyone likes it or not. But like so many music labels today, the meaning has really gotten muddied up over the years.

 

There was a really good article written in the mid-'90s titled "Alternative to What?" criticizing how the "Alternative" label now applied to everything that remotely sounded like Nirvana, yet didn't represent anything that was remotely alternative to mainstream, commercial music. I was in violent agreement I recall. Hearing Counting Crows called alternative used to make me wretch.

 

I couldn't find that article but this one looks at the same phenomenon, more or less, with less condescension maybe: https://diffuser.fm/...ive-mainstream/

 

An excerpt:

 

What followed was a little confusing for some of us. Suddenly, the most prominent music in popular culture was being called "alternative," a moniker that made no sense to those of us who escaped the treachery of the mall record stores. On the list of all-time best selling albums in the U.S., Nevermind rests between records from N'Sync and the Dixie Chicks. It's hard to be an alternative to the mainstream when you are the mainstream, the thinking went. There was no crime worse to the non-mall crowd than selling out, whatever that means. It's something that Cobain struggled with himself.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Rutlefan

[bluefox4000]

I do have to admit. i played The color And the Shape last night.

 

Still not a fan but that's not the point.

 

it was pretty alt. sounding to me. like when i think of Alt. SOUND WISE (Fukk labels for a sec) it was very alt. to my ears.

 

if i'm "wrong" cause i don't "get" the history. go hug a landmine, lol

 

Mick