ilovefuzz.com

Just an idle thought exercise:
Both bands formed around the same time and came out of the same underground scene, essentially. (Some might argue that Fugazi lost relevance after In on the Kill Taker in 1994 so we can say the main epoch of the two bands is the same.) Nirvana went corporate and mainstream, Fugazi retained control and stayed underground.
Nirvana obviously had more mainstream influence - but did they reach anyone who matters?
Fugazi had a smaller audience but were very important to everyone who saw them.

Who was more important to music?
Who was more important on a bigger cultural scale?

But maybe this whole thing is bullshit because nobody cares about white boys with guitars anymore and, really, 1994 was the last moment that rock music actually mattered.

dmcmahon wrote:Nirvana obviously had more mainstream influence - but did they reach anyone who matters?

A: Me and all my closest, dearest friends.





C

It depends what you mean by important.

I personally don't think either band was all that important.

Important? Fuck it. Fugazi were good. Nirvana were good only for the fact that Cobain liked the Melvins. When my friends were all about Nirvana, I had a listen, disliked it, but noticed the name of the Melvins being thrown around. Listened to them. And here I am. Over a decade later still listening to the Melvins.

So Nirvana, to me, were only important in that people with terrible taste in music got me to listen to an amazing band in a roundabout way.

Fugazi's more Important, Nirvana's more influential.

I like both bands, but seeing Fugazi live was a game changer for me. Incredible in every way possible and still the greatest gig I've ever seen for many reasons.

fugazi rules. fuck nirvana.

Important? Influencial? You'd have to be a stubborn git to say Fugazi. I don't like chubby 14 year old Nirvana wannabes (Nirvanabes?) as much as anyone, but you have to admit that Nirvana's existence reshaped the consciousness of the rock world as a whole. They embodied the "Seattle Sound" (which I personally despise) which would become the basis for contemporary alternative rock. I think they made some good music, but think they (or at least Kurt) were amazing musicians (stylistic sensibilities, creativity wise), so amazing that they made it look easy and inspired a whole new generation to fall flat on their face attempting covers of "Smells Like Teen Spirit".

I hate to use myself as anecdotal evidence, but as someone with a wide spectrum of musical interests I've heard of Fugazi, but never gotten around to listening to them. I'm sure I'd enjoy them, but they're a particular niche I have yet to explore.

Nirvana is also a standout example of importance. A lot of it was being in the right place at the right time.

I am a stubborn git.

I am also a stubborn git.

And you're wrong. I'd argue that Fugazi's ethics and commitment to the DIY ideals, retaining ownership of their music, and playing absolutely anywhere for no more than $5 a head beat the shit out of anything Nirvana ever did.

I'm a Nirvana fan, and the Seattle of the 90's was an incredibly fertile place for bands in general, but Fugazi is definitely more important for musicians, artists, and other creative types. All Nirvana and "grunge" did was make the radio a little more palatable by killing hair metal.

I think this question is yet to be answered.
We're barely around the 20 year mark...we will start to see the fruits of these two bands in the form of musicians who were impressionable kids when these bands did their thing.

Fugazi will be more important when Fred Durst gets a tattoo of Ian Mackaye's face.

OMMFG, you guys are mostly all wrong and/or delusional.

They're both equally important (in all senses). Like two sides of the same coin.

Maybe if you live in a country with a shitty currency.

I'll give you Nirvana shares a striking resemblance with Thomas Jefferson's wig, but Fugazi is pure Susan B. Anthony.