I'm sorry I joined musicbanter to debate and discuss music.

Damn me for never making constructive criticisms in this thread :rolleyes:

Don't be offended (ok be offended) but that quote is awfully out of character.

For you its usually "compare this bands music to something physically painful and continue to do so without ever leaving this thread"

:laughing:

I've not done that for years certainly not since i've become a mod.
I might make one comment like that every few weeks but that's it. No more than anyone else here.

I really like the Foo Fighters. Their songs are catchy, the music gets me pumped up, and the lyrics are fairly well written. I think all around they are pretty good.

I can see why someone would disagree that they are the best (I'm not saying they are THE best), but I don't understand why people think they suck so bad.

Because is mindless radio power chord rock that every band and their mothers can make and do make. It's such banal music I don't see why someone would have trouble comprehending someone saying it sucks.

When you say every band and there mothers can make, i think hmmm, why arnt they then? Simple many bands can physically recreate or play other bands music, but not come up with the ideas for catchy pop songs like Dave Grohl does.

You judge his work completely wrong. he is not in it to make a deep, meaningful album like many artists you enjoy. <-(take Elliot Smith for example) He simply has fun making the catchy fun pop songs and enjoys playing them, and having many people listen to them.

And before responding to that saying but its mindless radio power chord rock, i don't see to many others making as catchy, as fun songs as him. There is a reason he is on top right now.

his music is not my favorite, but i also do not believe it has to be meaningful, completely different and inventive to be good either. he is simply very good at making (as iv said multiple times now) catchy fun pop songs.

Another band i would put in the same place as him would be The Offspring, they are by no means skillful and inventive musicians, but have the same goal as grohl. Making there music almost a joke, so that people listening and the band themselves will have fun with it.

It's not that hard to write a catchy pop song, just turn on the radio its full of them. I wouldn't really consider the Foo Fighters fun and catchy because when I think fun and catchy I think of something like the All Girl Summer Fun Band or Best Friends Forever, something that's actually fun and catchy. Maybe his music videos are fun but I think fun generally implies there's something, well really fun about the music itself. Like a bouncy or joyous quality to it like the Beach Boys or Ramones. Catchy I suppose they have the right hooks and choruses but to me catchy is always something slightly twinkly and poppy. I think the Foo Fighters are too rooted in modern rock for that. I'd more say Grohl and co. aim to make radio rock anthems then fun and catchy songs.

I don't see how his music is different from any other modern rock artists that have come and gone. Maybe there's something I'm missing but every time I hear a Foo Fighters song I don't get "Wow this is unique" I'm surprised anyone would make that claim to be honest. In fact I don't get how you say music doesn't have to be different or inventive to be good than say there's no artists doing something like them...maybe you should get your own opinions straight before trying to argue against others?

Frankly I think your argument kind shows how much substance the Foo Fighters lack. I mean for a band that cites Husker Du, Big Star, Pixies, Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, The Stooges and the Beatles as influences its pretty sad when your argument to defend them is the same one I use to explain why I like Kate Nash or Rihanna.

I'm also getting sick of people bringing up Elliott Smith everytime they argue with me, I listen to a wide variety of artists from Mogwai to The Rapture to Daniel Johnston to Big Black to Primal Scream to Man Man to Robyn. I mean fuck I'm a McLusky fan do you think music being intimate and "meaningful" is all I look for? No it's not.

To the first part: That is where i disagree, in thinking that yes, it is hard to wright that "catchy of a pop song". There are many on the radio, rather TONS on the radio, but i feel only a very small amount of those are actually catchy and clever, with the Foo Fighters music being one of the few.

To the second part: In no way am i contradicting myself and mixing up my own opinions. My favorite music is yes, inventive, new, and inspiring. But music that is not that is not necessarily bad, or out of my taste. In fact more bands i listen to are not that inventive music changing breed because of the simple fact that there are far more bands out there that do not bring anything new to the table.

>And do not question my opinions because they have remained steady throughout every thread on this forum.

I don't understand why something being "popular" is bad? Anywho, people like what they like, it's all a matter of opinion and I don't feel like anyone should be able to argue with an opinion. Crowquill thinks it's bad, RezZ thinks they're alright, and I think they're good. So be it. None of us are saying they are the best band ever, so who cares?