Grohl the most accomplished musician of the last 25yrs?

[Reality Check]

The fact that the Foo Fighters are one of the better mainstream rock acts says more that division of music than anything else.

Grohl is a cool guy who can churn out a good to passable song here and there. But as a whole, the Foo Fighters haven't released a good album in nearly 20 years....I was still in high school, folks

Hell, Grohl doing silly covers the past 15+ years has been more enjoyable than the Foo Fighters.

 

[Terry Yake]

Yep. Nevermind and In Utero are great albums, but to me, Bleach is just so earnest in comparison. Pure, unadulterated heavy grunge.

Doesn't hurt that Dale Crover plays drums on a few tracks.

100% agree about bleach, extremely underrated album

as for grohl, his talent and success speaks for itself but i honestly never got into FF. they have one or two songs that i actually like but the rest is pretty boring to me

 

[kook10]

as for grohl, his talent and success speaks for itself but i honestly never got into FF. they have one or two songs that i actually like but the rest is pretty boring to me

You would think between their 9 guitarists they could muster up a solo every now and then.

 

[Hivemind]

For me, the most musically successful bands of the last 25 have been Dream Theater and Radiohead.

This is the most stereotypical response for a 19-21 year old white college kid I can imagine.

 

[Shareefruck]

To be fair, Foo Fighters might be the most stereotypical response for a 30-50 year old white guy that I can imagine. We can play that game all day and it serves nobody.

I would go with Richard D. James personally. For my money, his output in the mid-nineties matched the greats of the 60s, he more or less invented/mastered worthwhile new genres that have had massive influence on virtually everything considered innovative/fresh these days, reinvented himself each album, is responsible for every aspect of the music (and it's such dense stuff, too), and doesn't really have a stinker in the bunch (one of those guys where different troupes of people could consider any one of his peak albums his magum opus). And his two 2000s+ albums are both very solid as well. I have no knowledge of technical ability (and I imagine he doesn't fair well in terms of sales), but I couldn't really care less about that. I think he's accomplished the most musically.

He's the only modern-ish guy I can think of whose albums consistently hold their own against the greats of the 60s, his understanding of music theory is immaculate, and may be the single most important influence on boundary-pushing modern music (especially electronic-ish stuff). Things like Death Grips, Radiohead, Boards of Canada, and Flying Lotus owe everything to him. And, just purely on an aural level, the work/sound is completely worthy of that and flat out BETTER than anything these guys do, IMO.

Would rate them like this:

Selected Ambient Works 85-92 - 3.5 (Great)
Selected Ambient Works II - 5.0+ (Untouchable Masterpiece)
I Care Because You Do - 4.5 (Brilliant)
Richard D. James Album - 4.0 (Flawless)
Drukqs - 2.5 (Good)
Syro - 2.5 (Good)
+ a crapload of side projects with varying degrees of success

For the sake of comparison, prime Beatles would be something like

Please Please Me - 2.0 (Positive)
...
(bunch of albums I'm not too into)
...
A Hard Days's Night - 1.5 (Neutral)
Help! - 2.5 (Good)
Rubber Soul - 4.5 (Brilliant)
Revolver - 5.0 (Masterpiece)
Sgt. Pepper's - 4.5 (Brilliant)
The Beatles - 4.5 (Brilliant)
Abbey Road - 3.5 (Great)
Let it Be - 2.0 (Positive)

Not very far off for me at all.

 

[beowulf]

Still think the answer is Trent Reznor though some interesting choices by others in the thread.

 

[Shareefruck]

Grohl seems like a nice guy, good spokesperson for rock, and a consummate professional who seems to knows his stuff, I don't feel inclined to call him a hack or anything, but his music's really never done anything for me, personally. I've always found Nirvana massively overrated/not a fraction as good as its influences (probably feel the same way about Reznor), and Foo Fighters just completely bland/forgettable.

 

[K Fleur]

This is the most stereotypical response for a 19-21 year old white college kid I can imagine.

There are plenty of people over the age of 21 that think Radiohead is one of the best bands of the last 25 years.

Because they are.

 

[Terry Yake]

reznor is a good answer

radiohead has one or two good songs (karma police, high and dry) the rest of their stuff that i've listened to is just as bland and boring as foo fighters. never get all the praise they get

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

If we were restricting it to rock, I'd still take Homme over Grohl handily.

Kyuss > Nirvana
Queens > Foo

 

[Know Your Enemy]

There are plenty of people over the age of 21 that think Radiohead is one of the best bands of the last 25 years.

Because they are.

Saying that is a crime around here.

 

[kook10]

Saying that is a crime around here.

They lead the league in intangibles.

 

[K Fleur]

reznor is a good answer

radiohead has one or two good songs (karma police, high and dry) the rest of their stuff that i've listened to is just as bland and boring as foo fighters. never get all the praise they get

If that's one of two songs you felt were "good" from Radiohead then yeah, they probably just aren't a band you'll like.

If we were restricting it to rock, I'd still take Homme over Grohl handily.

Kyuss > Nirvana
Queens > Foo

I second all of this.

 

[Shareefruck]

Why is it that everytime Radiohead is criticized, it's always followed up by "their only good song is <insert one of their weaker songs here>"? Creep, or No Surprises, or High and Dry....

 

[Eisen]

Why is it that everytime Radiohead is criticized, it's always followed up by "their only good song is <insert one of their weaker songs here>"? Creep, or No Surprises, or High and Dry....

Creep was frigging awesome.

 

[Knarf9o5o1o4o9]

Fake Plastic Trees and Just are fantastic tunes

 

[Shareefruck]

Creep was frigging awesome.

I hate it so much. "I'm a creeeeeppp, I'm succhhh aa lloooooossserrrr..... I want a perfecttt booodddyyyyy.....I wiiisshh I was speeccciiiaaalll.... why am I such a loosseerrrrr......" *slits wrists*

.... Christ! *shudders*

 

[Eisen]

I hate it so much. "I'm a creeeeeppp, I'm succhhh aa lloooooossserrrr..... I want a perfecttt booodddyyyyy.....I wiiisshh I was speeccciiiaaalll.... why am I such a loosseerrrrr......" *slits wrists*

.... Christ! *shudders*

The way the guitar set in with those stuttering, cracking sounds, though. I admit the lyrics were emo. Teenage me didn't mind, though.
And you're a Beefheart fan. You can't complain about bad lyrics.

 

[Shareefruck]

The way the guitar set in with those stuttering, cracking sounds, though. I admit the lyrics were emo. Teenage me didn't mind, though.
And you're a Beefheart fan. You can't complain about bad lyrics.

Musically, it's harmless and instantly catchy, the way certain lame pop songs can be, but in my opinion, nothing interesting or noteworthy or genuinely satisfying. That half a second before it launches into the main riff is pretty much the only good thing about it, IMO. But it all just sounds so unbearably schlocky and corny as hell to me. Lyrically it's a complete deal-breaker for me-- just completely gross and actively terrible.

But anyways, my point is that those are their bad, childish songs, at the very least relative to the rest of their work. They have entire albums and entire eras of albums that are far superior to that crap, IMO. I don't think they're top-shelf geniuses like some people do, but they've done some damn good, cohesive, stuff since 2000. It's crazy to highlight their unfortunate schlock as their only good songs.

Beefheart lyrics are beautifully and flawlessly confounding and nonsensical in the best way possible. I love the way that the words crackle and pop and they're also very humerous on that level.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

And you're a Beefheart fan. You can't complain about bad lyrics.

Does not compute.

 

[member 51464]

I have never listened to a Beefheart song.

 

[Shareefruck]

I have never listened to a Beefheart song.

Doesn't really seem like the type of thing you'd normally accept, to be honest. But here's something anyways. Approach it with an open mind.



Keep in mind that Beefheart is a guy that by definition tends to give a bad first impression and generally takes a bunch of tries to warm up to. I'm not sure how anyone can deny the instinctive infectiousness of that off-kilter bit in the second half, though.

On the short-list for my favorite artist of all time, together with Coltrane and Velvet Underground.

 

[Eisen]

Musically, it's harmless and instantly catchy, the way certain lame pop songs can be, but in my opinion, nothing interesting or noteworthy or genuinely satisfying. That half a second before it launches into the main riff is pretty much the only good thing about it, IMO. But it all just sounds so unbearably schlocky and corny as hell to me. Lyrically it's a complete deal-breaker for me-- just completely gross and actively terrible.

But anyways, my point is that those are their bad, childish songs, at the very least relative to the rest of their work. They have entire albums and entire eras of albums that are far superior to that crap, IMO. I don't think they're top-shelf geniuses like some people do, but they've done some damn good, cohesive, stuff since 2000. It's crazy to highlight their unfortunate schlock as their only good songs.

Beefheart lyrics are beautifully and flawlessly confounding and nonsensical in the best way possible. I love the way that the words crackle and pop and they're also very humerous on that level-- I would honestly take it over something like even Neil Young's lyrics, personally.

For some people, it hit a spot. And Thom Yorke made it very believable.

 

[Hivemind]

On the short-list for my favorite artist of all time, together with Coltrane and Velvet Underground.

Well I can see you read Pitchfork.

 

[Shareefruck]

For some people, it hit a spot. And Thom Yorke made it very believable.

Won't argue with that.