David Bowie Rejected a Dave Grohl Collaboration, Saying, "I'm Not Made for These Times"http://pitchfork.com/news/63625-david-bowie-rejected-a-dave-grohl-collaboration-saying-im-not-made-for-these-times/ Excellent. Quite enjoying these stories of Bowie turning down collaborations with shit artists. |
Bowie is God
•
Page 13
-
Rhaegyr 5,499 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 10 years ago -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoGrohl is the nicest man in pop-rock though. -
Heh, yeah Dave Grohl's profile is almost as inexplicable as Coldplay's.
The Foos are so shit it's practically offensive. -
LittleSparra 7,926 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 6 years agoNot really, he was in the pop.culture monster that is Nirvana post Cobain suicide.
Edited by LittleSparra at 19:23:25 18-02-2016 -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoIt's because he's so nice. I don't actually mind the foos but recognise them for what they are... Pop-rock. Has a time and a place imo -
The worst thing about dying must be that you can't counter any claims Bono has about your friendship with him -
LittleSparra wrote:
Not really, Novoselic may as well not exist. Grohl's status has come from the Foos and their ultra bland, super inoffensive pop.
Not really, he was in the pop.culture monster that is Nirvana post Cobain suicide.
I did like his Probot project, mind. -
Novoselic looks fucking OLD nowadays.
Edited by PES_Fanboy at 19:35:03 18-02-2016 -
Cappy 14,393 posts
Seen 57 minutes ago
Registered 16 years agoFuzzyDuck wrote:
Last I heard Novaselic was playing bass in Flipper, who whilst not famous in the mainstream were prime movers in the art rock/noise punk scene back in the early 80s and were a major influence on Cobain and grunge music, so that was a pretty good gig for him.
LittleSparra wrote:
Not really, Novoselic may as well not exist. Grohl's status has come from the Foos and their ultra bland, super inoffensive pop.
Not really, he was in the pop.culture monster that is Nirvana post Cobain suicide.
I did like his Probot project, mind.
Edited by Cappy at 19:45:48 18-02-2016 -
HairyArse 1,476 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 6 years agoWhat's wrong with the Foo Fighters? They're nowhere near as offensive as Nickelback.
Are they just not quite hard enough for all you long-haired, bearded, angry headbangers? -
What's wrong with dogshit? It doesn't smell as bad as cat shit -
GhostofHairy wrote:
Check my posting history Hairy, I listen to everything from disco, jazz, Mowtown to 60s, 70s, 80s 90s, pop, electronic techno, rave, glitch to all sorts of black and death metal.
What's wrong with the Foo Fighters? They're nowhere near as offensive as Nickelback.
Are they just not quite hard enough for all you long-haired, bearded, angry headbangers?
What's wrong with the Foo Fighters? Their music is incredibly bland and inoffensive, especially when you dig through the whole history of recorded music. -
It's funny how inoffensive can actually be really offensive to some people. -
Well, zero substance or artistic merit seems like a more accurate way of describing them. It's just so utterly forgettable. -
I put em in the same category as the Willy Lepers and U2, their crime is making the same record for decades.
With the money and position of fame available, why would you do that? When is enough money enough? Did they become musicians to make identical records, or has something happened along the way? -
Well in fairness, if I had Dave Grohl's bank balance I wouldn't get out of bed, never mind push myself artistically. -
FuzzyDuck wrote:
I'm not debating your opinion, I can't say I'm a fan. I don't have a strong opinion about them either way.
Well, zero substance or artistic merit seems like a more accurate way of describing them. It's just so utterly forgettable.
I loved Colour And The Shape at the time though. -
PES_Fanboy wrote:
You have to keep on keeping on. Success brings its own issues that we all may never experience.
I put em in the same category as the Willy Lepers and U2, their crime is making the same record for decades.
With the money and position of fame available, why would you do that? When is enough money enough? Did they become musicians to make identical records, or has something happened along the way? -
JiveHound wrote:
I have that lying around somewhere, bar Everlong I can't think of a single song from it. I do really love Times Like These (more for sentimental reasons than anything else).
FuzzyDuck wrote:
I'm not debating your opinion, I can't say I'm a fan. I don't have a strong opinion about them either way.
Well, zero substance or artistic merit seems like a more accurate way of describing them. It's just so utterly forgettable.
I loved Colour And The Shape at the time though. -
FuzzyDuck wrote:
Yeah you would. You'd want to work with other artists and make a different record because music was the first reason you picked up a guitar / drum sticks, not to get rich enough to lie in bed all day.
Well in fairness, if I had Dave Grohl's bank balance I wouldn't get out of bed, never mind push myself artistically. -
DUFFMAN5 26,890 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoPES_Fanboy wrote:
I have quoted it before but listen to "Money becomes king" and "Joe" by a fellow GOD Tom Petty &THB. No one puts it better than Tom.
I put em in the same category as the Willy Lepers and U2, their crime is making the same record for decades.
With the money and position of fame available, why would you do that? When is enough money enough? Did they become musicians to make identical records, or has something happened along the way?
Some of the lyrics from Joe:
Go get me a kid with a good lookin' face
Bring me a kid can remember his place
Some hungry poet son-of-a-bitch
He gets to be famous, I get to be rich
Or bring me a girl
They're always the best
You put 'em on stage and you have 'em undress
Some angel whore who can learn a guitar lick
Hey! Now that's what I call music!
Some lyrics from WMBK
We arrived there early
In time to see rehearsal
And John came out and lip-synched
His new lite-beer commercial
And as the crowd arrived
As far as I could see
The faces were all different
There was no one there like me
They sat in golden circles
And waiters served them wine
And talked through all the music
And to John paid little mind
And way up in the nosebleeds
We watched upon the screen
They hung between the billboards
So cheaper seats could see
Edited by DUFFMAN5 at 20:11:13 18-02-2016 -
FuzzyDuck wrote:
Monkey Wrench, Hey Johny Park (I think), My Hero, And that acoustic one were all pretty great imo.
JiveHound wrote:
I have that lying around somewhere, bar Everlong I can't think of a single song from it. I do really love Times Like These (more for sentimental reasons than anything else).
FuzzyDuck wrote:
I'm not debating your opinion, I can't say I'm a fan. I don't have a strong opinion about them either way.
Well, zero substance or artistic merit seems like a more accurate way of describing them. It's just so utterly forgettable.
I loved Colour And The Shape at the time though.
Nothing they did after that really did anything for me though I though One by One was alright. -
HairyArse 1,476 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 6 years agoFuzzyDuck wrote:
As do I (apart from black and death metal) but I quite enjoy a few of the Foo's more recent albums. Don't see what's wrong with them myself.
GhostofHairy wrote:
Check my posting history Hairy, I listen to everything from disco, jazz, Mowtown to 60s, 70s, 80s 90s, pop, electronic techno, rave, glitch to all sorts of black and death metal.
What's wrong with the Foo Fighters? They're nowhere near as offensive as Nickelback.
Are they just not quite hard enough for all you long-haired, bearded, angry headbangers?
What's wrong with the Foo Fighters? Their music is incredibly bland and inoffensive, especially when you dig through the whole history of recorded music.
Maybe it's just not cool to like them.
Edited by GhostofHairy at 20:14:26 18-02-2016 -
JiveHound wrote:
To an extent, but that surely doesn't mean making the same album. Many huge acts have kept their fan base despite going in wildly different directions, who's to say the Foos would be different?
PES_Fanboy wrote:
You have to keep on keeping on. Success brings its own issues that we all may never experience.
I put em in the same category as the Willy Lepers and U2, their crime is making the same record for decades.
With the money and position of fame available, why would you do that? When is enough money enough? Did they become musicians to make identical records, or has something happened along the way?
I'm almost convinced that there was way more pressure on the Beatles to make 'the same record as before', imagine the first time playing I Am The Walrus or Revolution or Helter Skelter to A&R men? -
You-can-call-me-kal 23,013 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 15 years agoYou are sullying God's name with this conversation. -
@DUFFMAN5
Perfect example, Tom Petty constantly evolved his sound, did it stop him from success? I think he kept artistic control despite bankruptcy in the early days - surely ex-Nirvana superGod wouldn't have had that, as well as a ready-made audience? -
PES_Fanboy wrote:
JiveHound wrote:
To an extent, but that surely doesn't mean making the same album. Many huge acts have kept their fan base despite going in wildly different directions, who's to say the Foos would be different?
PES_Fanboy wrote:
You have to keep on keeping on. Success brings its own issues that we all may never experience.
I put em in the same category as the Willy Lepers and U2, their crime is making the same record for decades.
With the money and position of fame available, why would you do that? When is enough money enough? Did they become musicians to make identical records, or has something happened along the way?
I'm almost convinced that there was way more pressure on the Beatles to make 'the same record as before', imagine the first time playing I Am The Walrus or Revolution or Helter Skelter to A&R men?
For sure but some people just don't seem to have the ability to develop their sound. When they keep selling millions of albums regardless of what they release you can see how people stall.
It's the rare few that have enough focus to see how to improve upon their art especially considering the subjectivity of the matter.
I applaud Bowie for his work up to his death but he also had a period of questionable output. -
I think the bands that don't evolve over such a long period of time are the exception rather than the rule, though. -
GhostofHairy wrote:
You're looking for some sort of subtext to it all - "angry headbangers", "it's just not cool to like them" - none of this is correct, I just don't think they're very good.
FuzzyDuck wrote:
As do I (apart from black and death metal) but I quite enjoy a few of the Foo's more recent albums. Don't see what's wrong with them myself.
GhostofHairy wrote:
Check my posting history Hairy, I listen to everything from disco, jazz, Mowtown to 60s, 70s, 80s 90s, pop, electronic techno, rave, glitch to all sorts of black and death metal.
What's wrong with the Foo Fighters? They're nowhere near as offensive as Nickelback.
Are they just not quite hard enough for all you long-haired, bearded, angry headbangers?
What's wrong with the Foo Fighters? Their music is incredibly bland and inoffensive, especially when you dig through the whole history of recorded music.
Maybe it's just not cool to like them.
I dig Scream, I love Nirvana (fuck, In Utero was the second album I ever bought and I still listen to it) I thought Probot was great too, his drumming didn't really add much to the established bands he sat in with (Queens of the Stoneage, Killing Joke). The Foos are just "meh". -
Tom
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
