Page 4 of 8
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:55 am
by Scruffie
I fucking hate the Who... other than the odd track.
Who the fuck are Fugazi?
Why did Nirvana have to destroy Hair Metal, shit's awesome.
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:09 am
by Mudfuzz
Scruffie wrote:I fucking hate the Who... other than the odd track.
Who the fuck are Fugazi?
Why did Nirvana have to destroy Hair Metal, shit's awesome.
Oh My God! you sound just like my manager.....
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:34 am
by fiddelerselbow
In terms of measurable influence Nirvana I think would be the most important. While Fugazi may have had more of an influence, it's difficult to quantify that without some sort of figures. So Nirvana would be more important, in terms of sales at least.
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:42 am
by mutmoo
Influence: Nirvana
Inspiration: Fugazi
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:05 am
by Deltaphoenix
1,2,3..REPEATER
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:48 pm
by CBGB
To me, Fugazi beyond a shadow of doubt.
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:28 pm
by mal paso
Nirvana all day long.. With that being said, Fugazi were clearly more talented musicians(fwiw)
And anybody who likes the Who more than Zep is a chump!
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:00 pm
by Gearmond
mal paso wrote:Nirvana all day long.. With that being said, Fugazi were clearly more talented musicians(fwiw)
And anybody who likes the Who more than Zep is a chump!
false.
Zep is for posers. The Who are where its REALLY at.
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:40 pm
by Blackened Soul
I liked both bands very first things, after that not so much. I'd say Nirvana off hand but... Both bands HAVE inspired MANY horrid bands and some terrible ones as well. I think any band/artist that actually gets it you wouldn't be able to just point at them and go Ooooo Nirvana/Fugazi! Still if I look at things from a positive example interms of dealing with the industry/playing living rooms then Fugazi wins.
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:58 am
by Ghost Hip
veteransdaypoppy wrote:Nirvana, duh. Personally I think Fugazi vs Nirvana is apples vs oranges, but clearly Nirvana's reached many, many more ears than Fugazi ever did.. or ever will. There's a reason for that, and it's got more to do with it than record labels. Nirvana wrote fantastic pop tunes. So do the Foo Fighters. Fugazi's not really into that.
Nirvana's not for everybody, but hey, neither were the (critically acclaimed most important band of all time) Beatles. :P
The Velvet Underground are a very important band, and they're fucking awesome.. but there's no doubt about it that Sgt. Pepper's is a more important record than Velvet Underground and Nico, if only because more people listened to it. Importance in music isn't just what musicians are into, it's also what the general public and critics are into... like it or not.
^This. It's not important which one is more talented or which one you like more, culturally Nirvana was more important and influential. That's not to say everyone has to like Nirvana more than Fugazi, or that Nirvana is always more important to every individual. Afterall, The Smashing Pumpkins (original line up) are the most important band to me personally as far as music, general attitude, etc. However I recognize twice as many people know about Nirvana than the Pumpkins, even though The Pumpkins are twice as influential to me than Nirvana.
GardenoftheDead wrote:I'll just say this: When has a rock star ever lead more people to exploring the underground than Kurt Cobain did through his endless plugging of all the bands he admittedly took ideas from?
Also a good point. Not that Fugazi didn't support and plug other bands, but even if you didn't like how popular Nirvana became, they still plugged a lot of other bands. The story someone mentioned about Nirvana turning them on to the Melvins is a prime example of how influential they were. You didn't even have to like their music to be impacted by Nirvana. I probably wouldn't have heard Jawbreaker, Pixies, Sonic Youth, Bikini Kill or Daniel Johnston without Nirvana promoting/working with them.
EDIT: Another fun thought is without Sonic Youth or The Pixies, Nirvana probably wouldn't have been what it became...
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:18 am
by Big Mon
I've seen both bands live. And I don't remember who said Fugazi lost relevance after In on the Killtaker, because Red Medicine is,IMO, their best album. And I own all of them.( at least all the ones from when Guy was still with them)
Nirvana live at the Omni in Atlanta: Upstaged by The Breeders. Totally. Do I like Nirvana? Of course! Did the show suck? Nope not at all. The Breeders were just better.
Fugazi live at the Masquerade: One of THE BEST shows I have ever seen. Upstaged by no one.
In terms of most people's definition of importance, I guess Nirvana would be the victor. But to bloo-gawddamn-ghost? Guy responded to my Red Medicine Fanboi letter, in ink on the back of a postcard with the whole band's photo on it. Had I thought as highly of In Utero and written Kurt, well I'm sure he would have been too busy puking and pulling needles out of his arm to even read it or give a shit
Fugazi is the winner-for me. And as a sidenote, Ian Mackaye played on "Youth Against Fascism" by Sonic Youth, was in Minor Threat, Guy Picciotto was in Rites of Spring.
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:56 am
by Chankgeez
OK, let's put it this way. Who would you rather've hung out with Kurt Cobain or Ian MacKaye?
I think I'd rather've hung out with Cobain.
It would've been more, uh, fun. (Not that MacKaye's not fun, but c'mon?)
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:42 am
by Big Mon
Chankgeez wrote:OK, let's put it this way. Who would you rather've hung out with Kurt Cobain or Ian MacKaye?
I think I'd rather've hung out with Cobain.
It would've been more, uh, fun. (Not that MacKaye's not fun, but c'mon?)
This made me lol. Ian was str8tedge, I most certainly am not. That said, I'd probably get tired of smelling cooked dope,vomit,pee,and cat shit hangin' with Kurt

So my choice for dude I'd rather hang out with goes to Gibby Hanes of the Butthole Surfers

Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:45 am
by bigchiefbc
Chankgeez wrote:OK, let's put it this way. Who would you rather've hung out with Kurt Cobain or Ian MacKaye?
I think I'd rather've hung out with Cobain.
It would've been more, uh, fun. (Not that MacKaye's not fun, but c'mon?)
I'd rather hang out with Krist than any of the others. If you read some of the fucking hilarious stories of the dumb shit they did, Krist was always shitfaced and at the center of it all.
Re: More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:54 am
by jrmy
bigchiefbc wrote:Chankgeez wrote:OK, let's put it this way. Who would you rather've hung out with Kurt Cobain or Ian MacKaye?
I think I'd rather've hung out with Cobain.
It would've been more, uh, fun. (Not that MacKaye's not fun, but c'mon?)
I'd rather hang out with Krist than any of the others. If you read some of the fucking hilarious stories of the dumb shit they did, Krist was always shitfaced and at the center of it all.
Really? I dunno - Cobain was so depressed & crap. I know that Ian gets a bad rap, but he seems like a pretty affable guy in many of the interviews I've read. Driven and dedicated to his particular "thing," but I dig those sorts of people.