Talk:Foo Fighters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hard Rock

ok im adding Hard Rock to the Genre's because they were voted best Hard Rock band of the year so im going to add it, i dont really care if you remove it but im adding it. Feel free to remove it after you object to this but i just think it should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.143 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have spent a week looking for a proper citation for this and 1. I cant find it 2. It may not be notable 3. Awards don't (usually) count So I am removing "Hard Rock" from genre list. You may add this again WITH a proper citation, but there's no argument about Alternative Rock, and Post-grunge^eww! from being there! tsunamishadow (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Rock

Does anyone else feel some of their stuff is pop rock-y? Learn to Fly, Breakout, Long Road to Ruin, etc Titan50 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC) No, those songs are alt. rock. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 09:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I think Long Road To Ruin is kinda pop rock but I really don't think you could classify Foo Fighters as pop rock generally. Bon_Ferret —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon Ferret (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

They are more light alt. rock in the those songs. Sort of indie-ish. Thanks for reading, Thundermaster^TRUC 14:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

they are more like rock or melodic rock'n roll music, but its not pop rock or alternative rock. im reffering to the three songs you mentioned. same thing applies to big me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-grunge

Who removed post-grunge???? Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I did. This band has no grunge aspect to their music, and post-grunge (according to its Wiki article) is influenced by grunge bands. This band's influences are not grunge bands. "Ric Ocasek, Robin Zander, Sonic Youth, Kiss, Black Sabbath, Flipper, The Stooges, Cheap Trick, AC/DC, The Cars, Meat Puppets, Led Zeppelin, Pixies, Hüsker Dü, The Beatles, Sunny Day Real Estate, Dinosaur Jr." If you use Dave Grohl being in Nirvana as an influence, that is weak, considering he was in Scream (hardcore punk band) before them, and almost twice and as long. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The band has been consistently labeled as post-grunge, and Dave Grohl has stated that his early sogns were heavily influenced by being in Nirvana. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats funny, because whenever he's asked in articles or interviews he never states Nirvana as an influence, or flat out says Kurt Cobain influenced him. www.fooarchive.com. You'll learn alot there. All Foo articles and interviews since 95. He was also asked recently when they were on Loveline who influences his music and he said all the bands previously mentioned. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read a few, particularly on how Cobain influenced his songwriting. I can try and find them in a bit. But the fact of the matter is post-grunge is definitely appropriate as a genre classification for the band. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grunge was a culture. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

On Loveline last week, Grohl noted Cobain's influence as solely that Cobain tended to write "simple" songs - it reminded him that songs didn't have to be complex to be good. However, if you read between the lines of his response, it didn't sound like he truly counted Cobain's work as a personal influence - it sounded more like he felt an obligation to say so since people seemed to expect him to say it (and it might sound disrespectful to say that he wasn't influenced by Cobain). That's my opinion, however. My take is that Cobain and Grohl shared some influences, and those shared influences are the reason for the similarities in their music.

Exactly. People like to resort to the simple idea that Grohl was Cobain's apprentice or something, its a nice little thought but largely untrue. One of the things they related on was their similar taste in music influences, which are the bands mentioned. During Loveline you can note he didn't flat out say Yes Cobain influenced me, he just admired his ability to write simple songs. Most of his mentioned influences were from the 60s and 70s. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, it's completely irrelevant whether we can confirm that Cobain was or wasn't an influence on Grohl's music. If the Foo Fighters' music has been popularly labelled "post-grunge", then it should be duly noted. I'm personally back-and-forth on it - I'd personally rather just stick with "alternative rock".

"Grunge was a culture." No, it wasn't. The so-called "culture" was simply a fashion trend wrapped around a particular scene's music. People saw Nirvana and Pearl Jam on MTV and wore the clothes they wore - there was never a grunge subculture. By and large, "grunge" was a marketing term perpetuated to unify similar-sounding music (in this case, from the same region) under one umbrella. Some people seem desperate to want to retroactively label it a culture or subculture, but it's completely and totally false. Wearing flannel and rocking out to Soundgarden does not a subculture make. (Just watch Hype and see for yourself. All of the principles in the scene made fun of the idea of anything being labelled "grunge".)

And, please, for crying out loud, don't state "facts" if you don't know the information. Grohl wasn't in Scream "twice as long" as he was in Nirvana. Grohl was in Scream for three and a half years. He was also in Nirvana for three and a half years. (Scream: 1987-1990, Nirvana: 1990-1994.) You keep stating things like "two and half years as a popular band", and it's complete nonsense - if "popularity" mattered as to when a person was in a band, then he must not have ever been in Scream. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying two and a half years as a popular band is just to show how little time they were popular. It has nothing to do with popularity actually meaning you're in a band. Besides, if I were to do that, the Foo Fighters would be his most famous and most popular. Think about the people that know him from the Foo Fighters first. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"All of the principles in the scene made fun of the idea of anything being labelled grunge" - No shit, I read somewhere that Soundgarden's bandmembers were mocking it. "what are we now? grunge?" Grunge was a made up culture. I wasn't accepting it as one, it was purely made up by the media. Nirvana was more or less a cultural change than musical. That music has been around for a long time.

Grohl joined Scream in early 1986 right after they recorded and Stax left so its early 86-90. He joined Nirvana I think October 90 or so. Grohl is obliged to say nice things about being in Nirvana simply out of respect. Besides, its Dave Grohl we're talking about here, the nicest most modest man in rock or maybe in the world. You honestly think hes gonna come out and say something negative? He wouldn't turn down anyone. Saying that Grohl's sole influence is Cobain is an insult to the man's musical ambition and talent. The guy was walkin on egg shells the whole time Nirvana was popular, mainly because of Kurt. These two were never buddy-buddy as people like to think. He said it was one of those things where they said he was never an official member of the band, which is weird. One or two compliments the whole tenure of being drummer. You'd be amazed at the things you find out when you research it. Friend of a Friend says it all about their relationship which was done when he first met him, and according to Dave not much changed from that. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're getting off-topic now. I haven't heard a solid rationale for removing post-grunge, so I think we should add it back. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Grohl auditioned for and joined Scream in 1987.[1] His first tour with them was in the fall of 1987.

Seriously - the answers you offer up here just don't track. First, you say "grunge is a culture", then you say it wasn't. Then you throw out this straw man about how it demeans Grohl by claiming that his sole influence is Cobain. For starters, nobody is saying that Grohl's sole influence is Cobain. That's in your head, and has nothing to do with "post-grunge".

"Post-grunge" doesn't mean "post-Cobain". Look up "post-punk" and see how it relates to "punk". "Post-" is used as a genre separation when the next step no longer fits in.

I don't really have an opinion on whether or not to include it in the article. I dislike the term "post-grunge" because it's largely used as a pejorative. (I don't personally buy it as a genre, either, but that's just my personal opinion.) But there does seem to be widespread usage of the term to describe the Foo Fighters. -- ChrisB (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is mine. [2] 131.125.115.15 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

CAYA says that Grohl's first tour with the band was in October of 1987, and that he rehearsed with the band for the six months before it. Plus, my cite is Grohl's own words - your cite is the author's summary. Grohl's statements conflict as to when he saw the ad, but your cite notes it as "months" between him seeing the ad and actually auditioning. Either way, your original statement of "early 1986" is demonstrably false. He saw the ad in either late 1986 or early 1987, finally auditioned in the spring of 1987, and went on his first tour with them that fall.

You're still conveniently ignoring the actual topic of this section. Rather than contesting the one point you think you can, how about acknowledging the ones you can't? -- ChrisB (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This band is not post-grunge. Hell, using wikipedia's post-grunge definition, even Green Day should be in included, technically. What exactly is a "sludgy" guitar anyway? quiet loud dynamic, angst filled lyrics, sounds like Green Day to me. The bands that influenced Green Day were punk bands, which were the same bands that influenced the Foos. Just because your drummer was in Nirvana for 3 years doesn't mean his next band is automatically post-grunge. The Foo Fighters sound way more upbeat than the bands listed on that page anyway. How you put them in the category of shitty bands like that, I don't know, but the band would take that as an insult considering they constantly make fun of those bands. I'm still not convinced. The concept of post-grunge IS post-Cobain, exactly when else did that "label" start anyway? When he died. Do you really consider this band post-grunge after hearing albums like TINLTL and ESPG, hell even TCATS? If anything, this band is straight up hard or alternative rock, period. Live with some gray area in your life. John Frusciante wears flanels and uses a the same chords and the quiet loud dynamic, are they post-grunge too? (im doing this purposely because the definition is not very specific). Again, i'd consider the Foo Fighters classic rock or punk any day before "post-grunge", grunge being a ripoff of punk anyway. They just keep adding stupid sub genres that ultimately confuse the shit out of everyone. "no no no Green Day is punk because they wear blue flanels not red, the Foo Fighters wear red ones so they're post-grunge." Its just silly and pretentious. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

By most definitions, "post-grunge" covers music that followed grunge (and bears some of its sound) but fell in a more mainstream, polished direction. Bands like Bush, Silverchair, Everclear, etc - and, eventually, even more pop-centered bands like Matchbox 20. Most of the Foo Fighters work (from TCATS on) bears a greater similarity to those four bands than to Nirvana and/or Pearl Jam. Nirvana never would have released a song like "See You" or "Doll". And songs like "Learn to Fly" fit perfectly between the late 90's efforts by those four bands.

It's not meant to be specifically post-Cobain. It just happened that the major labels were ready to put out Nirvana soundalikes with an even greater pop leaning. That would have happened whether or not Cobain died in 1994. The popular alternative rock of 1994 was dark and heavy - that was much less the case with what was being played on alternative radio in 1996. The former was grunge, the latter was post-grunge. The problem (and the point where the term became derogatory) was once bands like Creed starting releasing what sounded like a cynical apeing of Pearl Jam's sound. It kinda sounded like grunge, but wasn't - it was post-grunge.

It has nothing to do with Grohl being a member of Nirvana. It has only to do with who and what the Foos were associated. And your opinion isn't really the issue, either - it's what the sources say, and whether enough of them agree.

It also has nothing to do with whether or not they are now "post-grunge". Genres in the infobox relate to the band's entire career. Jimmy Eat World is still listed as "emo" whether or not they are still "emo", since they were the preeminent band in the "emo" scene of the late 90s. -- ChrisB (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

They'd never release See You or Doll, or anything on TCATS if you ask me. Its honestly one of the greatest punk rock records ever, to me at least. There's not a hint of grunge sound to it I think, its just really simple, basic in your face arena rock. I consider the Foos just purely a rock band, and sometimes even classic rock before i'd consider them anything else. I mean, the whole point to their last two records even was to shed the one genre ordeal, and expand. Dave wants this band to be that classic rock band heard on the radio for years to come. I just don't find anything grungy about them. Dave doesn't come off as that kinda guy, the music itself even. Angst filled lyrics are something thats always been around too. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Its honestly one of the greatest punk rock records ever, to me at least. There's not a hint of grunge sound to it I think, its just really simple, basic in your face arena rock. I consider the Foos just purely a rock band, and sometimes even classic rock before i'd consider them anything else." Now you're getting into original research, and that's not acceptable. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This band can be a million different sub genres so let alternative rock be the umbrella term, thank you. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the only alternative rock subgenre that they fit under is post-grunge. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

False, considering their new musical direction they've expanded their sound. They also can be considered Indie from 95 onward. Is piano common in post-grunge??? Alternative rock is the better umbrella term for this band, especially in this day and age. Besides its only a matter of time til some new dumb genre comes along to confuse everyone some more. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now you're trying to predict the future. As it's established that the group is indeed a post-grunge band, and you have not come up with a convincing sourced rationale as to why they shouldn't be labeled as such, the genre should stay in the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting excerpt from an interview I found via www.fooarchive.com, "Completed in seven days, the fact that the Foo Fighters album recalled the punk pop spirit of Grohl's most recent past delighted many of his former group's legion of fans, while others dismissed it as The Ringo Nirvana. I remember we were doing some interviews on the last tour," Grohl says, "and this journalist said to me, Why did you write an album that sounds exactly like Nirvana? I'd had so many questions like that before, so finally I lost my temper and just said, Well I sat down one day and I thought, I'd kind of like a bigger house, I'd sort of enjoy another car or two and you know, I've never had caviar. but it's an expensive habit so I'm gonna make this one sound just like Nirvana. But what most journalists don't realize is that they've only been exposed to music like this in the last six years. When I was 12 years old, I started listening to Killing Joke or Husker Du or Bad Brains and all these bands where the music was just a distorted melodic mess with these sweet harmonies over the top, and for me it's still the kind of music that I enjoy the most. If I was to be so concerned with what the reception would be, I would've gone out and made a reggae record for the sake of having it sound entirely different to Nirvana. "131.125.115.15 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Support for the inclusion of post-grunge as a genre for this band; it is completely appropriate. - eo (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to side with the fact that this band is not post-grunge. Grunge was a sketchy name for bands that didn't sound alike back in the day, and now its supposed to culminate bands that still don't sound alike. It just doesn't make sense and neither does this. This band at most is alternative rock, and there should be no confusion about that. 38.99.101.130 (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if this band was post-grunge its still included in alternative rock, so instead of going back and forth on why they are post-grunge and why they aren't, just leave it as alternative, that way nobody will argue anymore. Its the umbrella term so just leave it as is because everything else is disputed. Besides, if you were to ask Dave Grohl if he considered the band post-grunge he'd probably laugh in your face. Its something he has always denounced. 38.99.101.133 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What Dave Grohl thinks is irrelevant, because he is not an impartial source. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, you know more about his band than he does? 131.125.114.132 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"..The grunge aesthetic is stripped-down compared to other forms of rock music, and many grunge musicians were noted for their unkempt appearances and rejection of theatrics.."

Doesn't sound like the Foo Fighters to me. 38.99.101.131 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No one can give me one good reason why this band should be considered post-grunge. Every element to their music is not solely grunge or post-grunge in any aspect. If you say distorted guitars or angst lyrics, what band doesn't do that? This band is just as much arena rock, alternative rock, hard rock, punk rock, folk rock and piano rock. Grunge is commonly associated with filthy dirty looks, and non-theatric shows, neither of which constitute this band by any means. 38.99.101.131 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reading through this talk page teaches me more than i would if i'd go to school(about post-grunge and grunge, anyway). Really guys, this banter is exciting. Keep it up. Fleurbutterfly 17:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I believe post-grunge is too secluded. When you listen to Foo they just offer so much more. Fleurbutterfly 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat Smear's return

Can anyone find anything that confirms that Pat Smear has returned to the band? Smear's article implies that he rejoined the band full time. --Raderick (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he was in all of their touring shows for E.S.P.G. (I actually got to talk to him during it). As far as him being back in the band full time, if im not mistaken Dave Grohl said that he would be back in in an interview but don't hold my word on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.99.6 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Album Genre Consistency

Every album has ten different genres listed for each one respectively, can we keep some consistency here? If people bother arguing about one thing they better keep it consistent on other things as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.125.115.65 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative is the correct umbrella genre, there is no need to go any further, considering it includes all the genres that the Foo Fighters can now be considered anyway. There is no section at the music store pertaining to "post-grunge", and there isn't one that reads "piano rock" either (Foos are now piano rock as well). 74.85.13.62 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia should be basing their musical genres on what is in record stores? There certainly are plenty of professional music critics who utilize the term "post-grunge", wouldn't you find that a little more credible than the name of a section at the local HMV? - eo (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my post assholes. What a bunch of BS by the people who run this article. Real classy. The people who run the Foo Fighters wiki article are authoritarian assholes. 74.85.13.60 (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost as classy as calling people "assholes". And isn't that your comment just above? - eo (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I pointed that out to the user :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. So this is someone whose comments should be taken seriously? Just look at this person's edit summaries. They look unsurprisingly familiar.... [3] [4] [5] -- eo (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't beat the assholes join the assholes. If i'm not mistaken post-grunge is a subgenre. You see anywhere on the front page that asks for a subgenre? Didn't think so. It asks specifically for a genre, and it is alternative rock. Furthermore, they do NOT, and I repeat, do NOT like to consider themselves anything related to the word "grunge". Dave has come out before and noted that he personally "hates that word", and it even says so on their official website. Even more, if you were to even keep post-grunge on there (which you shouldn't) then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to not include piano rock on there either. Here's the link to the website and I will try to find more regarding the bands distaste for the subgenre:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:X7GMQ7shxikJ:www.foofighters.com/dictionary+grohl+grunge+i+hate+that+word&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

when you go to this page, simply hit "S"

Your excuses and reasons are inconsistent, and not valid. You put a subgenre where it doesn't belong, and furthermore, even if you re allowed to do so, you do not include others. 74.85.13.60 (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one making this argument, against the consensus of all other editors here. Your changing of IP addresses won't help your cause, especially with your uncivil attitude and comments, both on Talk Pages and in edit summaries; nor does your constant reverting and removal of genres from all Foo Fighters-related articles. As has been explained to you before on this page, what Dave Grohl may think of his own music or however he feels about musical labels in general has no effect on how he and his band are described and referred to in credible, reliable, professional music publications. You are not Dave Grohl, you are not a part of this band, you are not associated with them personally, you are not the ultimate expert on the band and your lone opinion does not automatically trump the consensus of several established Wikipedia editors, no matter how many IP addresses you use. You do not own this article, nor any other Foo Fighters article and you will not bully people to get your way by yelling "authoritarian assholes" and reverting edits over and over. If things were authoritarian, there would be no discussion in the first place. As I've suggested on several of your IP User Talk Pages, I would suggest taking a look at WP:Civility if you really expect anyone to take you seriously. - eo (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two other oppositions posted, if you simply gave more time to a consensus you'd realize that. And about Dave and the band being impartial to their own genre? Oh right, they don't know what they're talking about, but a "well established Wikipedia editor" does? You know more about their band than they do? 131.125.114.132 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with consensus

I'd like to request help from anyone who regularly edits this article on two matters relating to the Foo Fighters. I'd like to establish some kind of consensus, and would like to hear any opinions on these issues. Any help is greatly appreciated. -- ChrisB (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-grunge

Per the discussion above, it seems that are several reliable sources that consider the Foo Fighters to be in the post-grunge genre. Several editors seem to disagree, and have persistently removed the genre from the infobox.

• Support keeping genre - Foo Fighters do still have remnants of a post-grunge sound. They began in the post-grunge era and, thus, even if only for nostalgic purposes, we should keep the genre. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - as I've already stated above, "post-grunge" is completely appropriate here. - eo (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disapprove - Post-grunge is a subgenre. It asks for specifically for a genre. Its that simple. Besides, to include subgenres on there like post-grunge and not piano rock doesn't make sense. You people are all about facts and not opinions, etc. well then those are simple facts to consider.

Consider it doing the band a favor, expressing their sentiment in regards to their distaste for being associated with "grunge", seeing that simply don't like that term.

ChrisB is basing not to include Grammy information off of an opinion (Grammys widely criticized). Thats not a fact, but its okay apparently because he said so? 74.85.13.60 (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - just stopping by and felt I'd point out that a band's sub-genre is vital in so many cases, that it makes sense to list it under 'genre'. If we only put a band's "main" genre, then Motley Crue, Van Halen, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Megadeth, Poison, Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osbourne and Dio would all be "heavy metal". Anyone who thinks Poison and Motley (hair/pop/glam metal) don't need differentiating from Megadeth and Slayer (thrash/speed metal) is silly. It's best to look at extreme examples like that, then apply that to everything else.

The sub-genres to include are the ones that have dominated the band's sound for any major period in their history, provided it was not an oddity. For instance, it's fair to say AC/DC's music is blues rock, since a lot of it was at one point. But it's not ok to call Wishbone Ash trance, because their two trance albums were really unusual and took people by surprise. Early on, Foo Fighters were widely considered post-grunge among experts on the genre; the band are not the greatest music experts on earth, their opinion isn't that vital. Iron Maiden say they're not heavy metal, but that's never gonna change. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

If you only put these bands' main genre, they would be rock, not heavy metal. Again, regarding the Foo Fighters, using the umbrella terms listed under their main genre (alternative and hard rock) is non-controversial and includes all the sub genres, whether someone wants to argue punk rock or post grunge or piano rock and this band, all conflict would be put to rest just putting them under an umbrella genre. Whether popular opinion matters or if you do or don't give a damn, many people do NOT see this band as a post-grunge type, if that label was ever to rise from the dead for the sake of the question anyway. They see it as solely grunge dying in 1994. Alternative rock, hard rock and EVEN punk rock all work as umbrella terms with this band, and rightfully so. Any other sub genres people wanna debate over will be resolved just by not including any at all. One thing agreed upon is that this band is alternative and hard rock, which includes everything else in it. Got it? Besides, if you were to bother listing a sub-genre (post-grunge) where there are already two main genres, logic would see you adding piano rock as well, but I don't see anyone adding it. Leave it at alternative and hard rock. Surely you'd have people debating over piano rock and post-grunge, taking up space on discussion page, endless debate, so leaving the main genres up that include the sub genres all get resolved. 131.125.114.132 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, btw - it's an attempt to establish consensus - so there's no point in "casting" two votes. Posting under two different IP addresses doesn't give your opinion more weight - if anything, it weakens it. -- ChrisB (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in between two different locations, school and home. I also added "The" to the Foo Fighters page, because it should be there, especially if an exception can be made for something equally controversial, that being post-grunge. Show some consistency with what you do/say, and theres no point in keeping post-grunge if "The" can't be added to the name. Take into account who made up the band when the name was formed. (one person) 131.125.114.132 (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse trying to "vote" twice.

Your home and school situation is easily resolved by signing up for an account. You've done nothing but abuse the use of the anonymous IP system. Anonymous IPs are allowed so that people who otherwise have no need for account can make a few edits here and there - your edits are certainly more than occasional. When you're at the point that you're engaging in debates (and edit conflicts), it's completely inexcusable to try and hide behind a variety of IP addresses. -- ChrisB (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care, its more convenient. 131.125.114.132 (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hide behind? The only way I could continue posting was through multiple IPs. I didn't switch IPs cause I felt like it, I was forced. Spooky873 (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're lucky: WP:EVADE. Technically, your block was supposed to start over every time you tried to post again while it was active. You weren't forced to switch IPs - you were supposed to stop posting while the block was active. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Disapprove--- i dont understand the big debate because alternative rock seems to suffice. if it is debated why not just leave it out considering that it is included in alternative/hard rock anyway? if it was 1995 probably but it is 2008, the term post-grunge is largely outdated and replaced by more modern fixes. Ohreoman85 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose They're a hard rock/rock/alternative rock/folk rock group, but Post-grunge is not their music. Just because Grohl got the band off the ground when Post-grunge became prominent, doesn't mean his music is post-grunge. People slice the bread too thinly between Nirvana and the Foo Fighters and there're many distinct differences. To call them punk in any form at all is laughable also. Personally, I would classify them with the single term of "rock" and if that needs clarification, alternative rock and hard rock would suffice. It may be appropriate to mention folk rock, simply because of all the songs scattered throughout the albums, and the second half of In Your Honour, and finally Skin and Bones, which all featured folk rock, in varying modes. But "rock" is enough to make me happy. Keep the ambiguous andultimately inaccurate assessments of Post-Grunge and Punk-rock out of the picture for a broader and more acceptable term. --rm 'w avu 12:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget piano rock, which is evident on the sixth album. But no, I don't think that would fly with the hypocritical editors we have around here. 131.125.114.132 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally, someone else chimes in and says no to post-grunge as well. Thank you 131.125.114.132 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Support keeping the post-grunge label. Changing them all to a generic "alternative rock", as this very short-tempered IP user here has been doing, is counter-productive and bordering on disruptive. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it is more than bordering on disruptive, his edits already prompted an IP-range block a while back. I believe his above comment "I don't care" pretty much says it all. - eo (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't care or take into account anything anyone else opposes or proposes. This is absolute BS. The Foo Fighters article is authorized by bigots that don't take a single word from anyone else. Your consensus is made up of only a few people, and apparently thats enough? Those things take time, especially considering the recent opposition posted. Besides, post-grunge is controversial, but INCLUDED in alternative rock. The issue at hand is not removing it, but putting it there. Post-grunge whether or not its listed, is included under alternative rock anyway. Alternative rock can suggest all the subgenres this band is without having any endless debate on what should or shouldn't be listed. Anyone realize this yet? 131.125.114.132 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What people around here tend to care about is mature, rational discussion. You pretty much remove yourself from the conversation by making statements like "authorized by bigots" or calling other editors hypocrites, as you continue to get upset over others not agreeing with your own point of view. My opinion is that "alternative rock" is a bit too wide of a net, and if a band is more identifiable with a sub-genre then those subs should be listed alongside. Seeing "alternative rock" next to the Foo Fighters doesn't do much to distinguish them from a category that includes the likes of Beck, Blur, or the Gin Blossoms. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose When I think of this band, post-grunge is the last thing that comes to my mind. Like someone said above, folk rock could even be used or piano. These guys are like the age Tom Petty I suppose. ----Spooky873 (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Another repeat "vote" by our friend at 131.125.114.132 / 38.99.101.131. I'm not sure what's worse, that you make the same arguments (and can't resist making precisely the same edits) despite "starting new" with a username, or that you've had said username since the end of 2006 and just opted not to use it.

Actually "all-knowing well-established wikipedia editor", I completely forgot I had made that name, and it wasn't until I tried making a new name recently (with that same username) that it told me there was one already in use. Spooky873 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the only person who wants to remove the last sentence of this paragraph is you. I'm curious to see how much lower you go with this. You've already done pretty much everything possible to jacknife the consensus discussion here. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pff, if I remove all the other edits i'd get blocked for "disrupting and editing other peoples edits" because technically, they're not under the same name. I have to use a name in order for a vote to count, but i'd be glad to delete all the anon BS. Every IP is a result of being blocked. If I simply wasn't blocked i'd have no use to keep switching IPs.

As for the TCATS sentence, I've written in the summaries why I am doing it. Because its already listed at the track listing. Apparently you like to fill these articles with as much oversaturated word BS as possible. Keep it simple, less is more. You don't need to essentially say the same thing 8 times in an article 8 different ways. Whats the point of having the tracklisting if you're gonna talk about who did what in Development? Keep it simple, and the tracklisting does the job. Spooky873 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a justifiable reason to remove the sentence. It is incredibly noteworthy in the development of the album that Goldsmith performed on the entire album before it was nearly entirely thrown out. That he still appears on the album is a notable statement, one that deserves more attention than a footnote at the end of the article. (And, for crying out loud, the article is essentially four paragraphs long - it's really going to be damaged by adding more content?)

But that's not the reason you want to remove it. You spent weeks removing every mention of the Bear Creek session, insisting (falsely) that they ditched them entirely. You couldn't provide a source to back up the statement, but you kept making it anyway. Most of your edits have been a concerted effort to diminish Goldsmith's involvement in the recording of the album. The edit summary you wrote on this edit pretty much says it all (and accompanies a grossly incompetent edit that implies that the band spent two minutes recording at Bear Creek and 44 minutes recording at Grand Master).

You don't see me deleting the tracklisting that shows Goldsmith do you? Spooky873 (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are not in good faith, and never have been. You make edits, and when people disagree with them and remove them, you put them back in. It's grossly disrespectful as an editor, and a FLAT OUT VIOLATION OF GUIDELINES. Read WP:DE. That's everything you've done in a nutshell: force your edits, refuse to acknowledge those who disagree, refuse to accept existing consensus.

You have to change IPs because you keep getting blocked? Okay, then: stop getting blocked. If you followed Wikipedia's guidelines, it wouldn't happen. There's not some grand cabal out to stop you from editing - there's a group of concerned editors trying to stop you from acting like a total ass. The guidelines are there for a reason.

You're disrepectful to other editors and flagrantly disrespectful of Wikipedia's guidelines. Why should anyone cut you a break? -- ChrisB (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what happens if you keep getting oppose votes in the consensus? It seems that consensus was biased by a certain few editors that decided in 5 minutes. I hope you're not a lawyer, you'd never give anyone a chance to speak. Spooky873 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus discussion doesn't end. But considering that you cast nearly all of the "Oppose" votes yourself, I somehow doubt that people will just start showing up and opposing it.

Nobody cares about this issue. People aren't going to read the article, skim the discussion, and feel so strongly about this issue that they offer their opinion. Consensus votes are nearly always predominated by the people editing the article, as those are the people who care enough about the article and are familiar enough with the material to be able to offer their opinion. That's why it was seemingly "decided" "in five minutes" - the few regular editors offered their opinion, and most of them agreed.

That doesn't mean that consensus is over. Read the guidelines: it's never officially closed for all time. We can reopen the discussion if it's later warranted - ie, if someone can come up with a compelling reason (for us to ignore the sources that support this statement, which is unlikely), we can revisit and change it.

But that doesn't make it acceptable for one overzealous editor to post four "oppose" votes in a misguided effort to torque the process. It also doesn't give him license to continue being an ass. Again, follow the stated guidelines, and you won't get blocked. If you're unable to follow the guidelines, then don't edit Wikipedia articles. -- ChrisB (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose-No such thing as Post Grunge. Who came up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickielp (talk • contribs) 04:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressing your deleted post - I'm fully aware that "rm 'w avu" isn't you. See, he has an editing history and a background. Counting him, that means two (actual) people have offered opposition. Five editors (counting myself) have offered support in this section, and two others strongly supported it in the earlier section. Again, it's not about the specific numbers - when the disparity is that wide, that establishes consensus.

BTW - before you sign up for more fake accounts to cast "votes", read this: WP:SOCK. It's part of that whole "avoiding behavior that might get you blocked" thing I mentioned earlier. I'll reiterate: establishing consensus is not about the specific vote tally. Users with no edit history will not carry the same weight as those who have a record of involvement, particularly when it's obvious that the new users aren't actually separate individuals offering separate opinions. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is actually a thread on a Foo postboard, and we are just users trying to help out their wiki article. These users you see actually aren't me at all. Just because I used different IPs just so I could post doesn't necessarily constitute me also making other user names. Again, by your accusations, you really don't have a clue. I can tell you one thing ChrisB, the consensus on the Foo postboard is NOT post-grunge buddy. Spooky873 (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A postboard or public forum has nothing to do with Wikipedia. And quite obviously, a sudden flood of new user names who come here to post "oppose" views is not going to have any real credibility. What has been written and documented about this band (i.e. by professional, credible music publications and journalists)... i.e. stuff that can be sourced... will always hold more weight than a bunch of fans who have a distaste for the term "post-grunge". - eo (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources, really? I don't see any sources on there. You keep telling me to read the Wikipedia guidelines, but is there anything that specifically mentions consensus and who holds weight over who? No, I didn't think so. Just because you're a "well-established wikipedia editor" does not mean you dictate everything that goes on around here. Seems to me you're just an online librarian who organizes books and articles without any real knowledge of any of the subjects, especially this one. Besides, these things (and a lot more) that you discuss on here are discussed into the ground on their postboard. I can pick apart every article on here that is inconsistent with guidelines, whether it be sources, consistency or organization. Practice what you preach. How in the world can you discriminate and tell us our opinions aren't credible? That is a cockamamie reason. Some discussions on there have probably been around longer than your whole "wikipedia career." We are trying to fix their wikipedia article. I can get 100 users from there if need be to really do something about it, or as you would say, "uncreditable" users. Find me one source or article that specifically says in words that this band is "post-grunge." I've seen a million bands (Incubus, The Killers, RHCP) listed under the garbage. Spooky873 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Hello, this page was brought to my attention after seeing Post-Grunge keep appearing on Foo Fighters pages. Foo Fighters should not be described as Post-Grunge. Why? Because it is a meaningless, non-discript labelling. Post in this situation, simply means "comes after", or "follows". So calling Foo Fighters post grunge is just saying that they are music that came after grunge. It doesn't describe the music at all. Foo Fighters are a Rock Band. Plain and simple. Alt-Rock if you want. But post-grunge, or post anything is a stupid title and should not be used. What would Dave's next band be labelled as? Post-Post-Grunge? Post-Alt-Rock? Thank you, SimonSkilmore (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Simon, ill see you on the board. As for everyone else, check Simon's Foo page: http://www.foofighterslive.com/about.php The subject of genre was recently brought up in a thread and so now we're putting in our two cents. But of course, you know, I am making multiple user names myself, right Chris? Spooky873 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, what does this post board have to do with Wikipedia? - eo (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a sockpuppet of these people? Now you guys are really getting hilarious. I must be everyone on this board too. http://bbs.foofighters.com/showthread.php?t=115457 You editors really are something. You can find EVERYONES name here, and where they're from, etc. (vickielp, simon kilmore, spooky873, frenchie, ohreoman85). Again, you guys really are hilarious for accusing me of sockpuppeting, HAHAHAHAHA. Spooky873 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohreoman85 joined the Foo board a few minutes before you posted this. That's not at all suspicious, especially since his first post was made exactly one minute after you posted this. I honestly wasn't sure before if he was you, but I don't think you could have confirmed it any more without actually saying the words, "I am Ohreoman85." -- ChrisB (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats because Ohreoman85 is my best friend. He's not much of a Foo fan but he helped out and chimed in on what he thinks, especially since Incubus is considered Post-Grunge on their page, and thats his favorite band. Spooky873 (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you needed confirmation on how Wikipedia feels about what you've been doing, read this: WP:MEAT. "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." The same section gives us license to ignore every one of those votes. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See exactly, this is all BS. You keep putting us under red tape because you know we can garner enough attention to override the consensus. What a bunch of BS. As for users, you gotta start somewhere don't you? When you first started out did your opinion matter any less than a "well-established editor"? (<-- what a joke) You talk of sources, what credible source material out there says anything in specific about the Foo Fighters being post-grunge other than plopping them on some list. You go by "well published journals and articles", so I guess using that creed, we're winning the war on terror, at least thats what all the sources out there tell us. Gimme a break. Spooky873 (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

yo Chris, listen dude, a vote is a vote and you know it. you act as if being a wikipedia editor is more reputable than anything else. i have a bachelors in public relations, thats something that is reputable. for our votes to simply not count is bogus. btw, there are more opposition votes than support votes. looks like you gotta take it out. Ohreoman85 (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A vote is a vote isn't it? Spooky873 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:I agree that they should not be under post-grunge. Their genre is rock. Plain and simple. If you're going to include subgenres such as post-grunge than you should also include alternative rock, folk rock, and even pop rock. Also, all their albums in iTunes and Amazon are categorized under alternative rock. So that would be a more widely used, and fitting subgenre. Post-grunge is too broad and is not as relevant anymore to them, esp now. Also groups like Matchbox 20 and Creed, who were considered popular post-grunge bands, sound nothing like Foo Fighters and are also no longer making music. Putting Foo Fighters under post-grunge in 1995 might have made sense, esp with their first album. But now, they are far from it, and should not be labeled that. Post-grunge is like Post-modernism (in art). It's just another word for everything that comes after grunge or modernism (in art). Also, why is their song "The Pretender" under the Grunge genre? That doesn't make any sense. You also list Alternative Rock for that song, but you don't list Alt rock under Foo Fighters genre? Not trying to be annoying or a sock puppet of Spooky, I'm just adding what I think is a valid opinion. Thanks, Frances. Frannypark (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Crossing out all the opposing opinions? Its nice to see that "democracy" working well around here. You guys are comparable to Lenin and Stalin with the way you're oppressing people's opinions. Its really comical. Spooky873 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You know exactly why the above comments are stricken. By the way, Wikipedia is not a democracy. - eo (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

William Goldsmith's drumming on TCATS

The TCATS article contains the following sentence: (Several segments from the Bear Creek sessions with Goldsmith on drums appear on the finished album, including the entirety of "Doll".) I personally think it's notable to mention that Goldsmith's drumming does actually appear on the album (as confirmed by the album's original liner notes), and I'm a little lost as to why the statement needs to be removed.

Agree - Please see the recording history section of my website, it shows in details which parts of which sessions were used. Bear Creek Session WGNS Session GrandMaster session. Thanks Skilmore (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Simon, I added that Everlong and Walking After You (per your site) were recorded during those WGNS sessions, but I forgot which one. (it was where Everlong was first done, dont get confused by where the actual track was done, which is in LA) and as for William Goldsmith, they have this listed in the article, under tracklisting. I still can't believe they think i'm Vickielp, hahahaha. Spooky873 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Singles consistency

I don't know what morons are putting power ballad, grunge and post-grunge under The Pretender for genre but it needs to stop. All singles are listed under one, Alternative rock, and it should stay that way. There needs to be genre consistency here. 131.125.114.132 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammy Awards

I understand the urge to put the Grammys in the first sentence, but doing so is predicated on the relevance of the Grammys, which is not unanimous.

This isn't the same thing as an actor winning an Academy Award. It is significantly more difficult for an actor to win an Academy Award, given how few specific acting awards are given out. By comparison, most popular bands have won Grammys, given how many they give out each year. (Granted, there are some rare and notable exceptions, but only a few.)

The Grammys are also widely criticized. There isn't a particularly good reason to jump into the POV of their relevance by placing them in the first sentence here. The band is notable with or without their Grammys (and regardless of them). -- ChrisB (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the genre labeling here extend to singles and albums?

Our favorite block-evading anon user is hell-bent on keeping post-grunge out of the articles, but as for others here, what's the prevailing opinion? I would tend to think that if it is labeled as such on the band's article, should it be the same for their music articles as well? Tarc (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that genres can be given a little leeway when it comes to individual songs or albums, as a band or artist's sound grows and changes. "Post-grunge" would certainly apply to Foo Fighters' early singles and albums moreso than their recent output. I think the band itself can be classified as "post-grunge" as this can, and has been, sourced and noted by professional music journalists.

She has nothing to do with Foo Fighters but an extreme example of genre-jumping would be, for example, Cher. Her main article credits the genres Pop, Rock, Dance, Disco, Folk, Country, and Adult Contemporary. I certainly would not put all of these on every song and album page of hers just to be "consistent". It'd be totally inaccurate to put "Folk" on the page for her Believe album, and I certainly wouldn't put the "Disco" genre on the "If I Could Turn Back Time" page. However all of those genres do apply to Cher herself. - eo (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point about changing over time, that's true. I'd just like to see something more descriptive than "alternative rock" used, as that is such a large umbrella of a genre. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true, bands material changes but many would argue the band has actually stayed the same musically, up until the last two. However, I find that alternative rock suits the albums just fine. The fact that certain sub genres are debated and the label "alternative rock" is not, puts to rest any debate. Like someone said in The Pretender discussion, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why bother going out of the way to make controversial change when its fine as is. Debated genres should not extend anywhere else. Spooky873 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I find that just "alternative rock" is rather unsuitable, and seeing how you have been sockepuppeting all around this discussion, your opinion counts for precious little at the moment as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its already been established that every person that voted is their own. Apparently you missed the part where I provided a link to the FF postboard, where every single person is seen on there contributing to a thread. I'm sockpuppeting people from all over the world apparently, thanks for the laugh. Take the time to click the link provided, and see for yourself. Spooky873 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if you'd bothered to read WP:MEAT, it doesn't make a bit of difference if they're actual people. Posting a link to an outside forum and soliciting voters is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines - they specifically say that any user that posts as a result of such a solicitation automatically counts as a sockpuppet regardless of whether they're real people or not. Your admission to posting a link on the FF postboard is basically a guilty plea.

Oh, and your gripe about Wikipedia "changing the rules on you"? All of these rules existed long before you edited a single article - you just didn't bother to learn about them beforehand. -- ChrisB (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get one thing straight?

The use of "grunge" anywhere in the Foo Fighters article is incorrect. This entire debate involves the use of "post-grunge." To the person or persons constantly listing the The Pretender under "grunge," you have no idea what you are doing. How in the world can you be "grunge" AND "post-grunge"? Its one or the other, and the Foo Fighters NEVER existed in the "grunge" era, which completely died for a number of reasons in early 1994. It is 2008. Do the math. Spooky873 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your problem here is a serious over-reliance on your own point of view. If you want to write your own opinions on this band, then hey, there's plenty of blog space out there. But when reliable sources such as allmusic use both as a classification, or when online music stores/services from Amazon to Rhapsody categorize the band, album, and single as post-grunge, then all of that kinda trumps your personal opinion, my friend. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the use of "grunge" buddy. You can't be one movement, and the movement that follows it after at the same time (aka POST). hahahaha wow. Warped. Now regarding what you're referring to, did you happen to notice that they list bands like No Doubt, Green Day, The Offspring, Reel Big Fish, Cake, blink-182, Barenaked Ladies, Alanis Morisette, etc. under post-grunge? That's reliable huh? You agree with that? Are you out of your mind? Spooky873 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Far more reliable than you at any rate, yes. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you bother going out of your way to ADD something controversial? The article ain't broke, and doesn't need any fixing. Its fine, its great, its dandy, leave it alone. You're the only one making a big deal out of it (as i'm being accused of post-grunge, although as of late, there have been a number of people joining my cause). Spooky873 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I just wanted to get a general concencous from editors on whether or not the following website could/should be added to the external links section - www.foofighterslive.com. Yes, i am the webmaster there, but i am not asking simply to promote my own website. I just think with the wealth of information that i now have available on there would be beneficial to readers. I would appreciate if editors could spend five minutes looking over the website to see what information is available, such as a substancial live chronical, and a complete as possible history of recording sessions. Thank you Skilmore (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic site, but still unofficial. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of reliability

This article is suffering from a lack of inline cites. I think it would be a bit petty to put a fact template at every instance of this so I have put the template at the top. I'm going to work to get this article cited. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu Fighting

Okay, I've looked through the discography list and cannot find any cover they did of Kung Fu Fighting. Did they do one or are those under about 35 that stupid to think they created Carl Douglas' hit song? I ask because half the YouTube entries using the music credit Foo Fighters. 24.24.211.239 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Foo Fighters, have never done a cover to the Carl Douglas and Vivian Hawke Kung Fu Fighting song released in 1974. I asked Dave Myself and his response was 'no we have never done a cover to that song'.

It's "Foo Fighters" not "The Foo Fighters"

I have made the changes to reflect this. "Foo Fighters is" not "The Foo Fighters are"!! Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For ease of reading I would suggest that the use of "the" is required in most instances. Its use in lowercase (except at the start of sentences), as in the Foo Fighters.... makes it clear that the "the" is not part of the name. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To take an example, its not "The Opeth", it's "Opeth". Any use of the "the" in relation to Opeth would not ease reability, it would just be wrong. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking a sampling of mainstream music and commerce sites;

• Rolling Stone - A year after Kurt Cobain's suicide, Dave Grohl rebounded with Foo Fighters' self-titled debut...
• VH1, via allmusic.com - Those tapes would become the foundation of Foo Fighters, the band he formed in 1995, after the death of Kurt Cobain. Like Nirvana, Foo Fighters melded...
• amazon.com - ...is that the debut album from his new band Foo Fighters sounds...

It'd seem that the the is not used. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From the same Amazon article, at the very end:

"..The Foo Fighters prove that even if you can't go home again, it sure is comfortable hanging out next door. --Roni Sarig.." Not only does the author say it, but clearly the majority of reviewers as well.

If anyone here has passed basic elementary English, you'd realize that regardless of the name, "The" should precede pluralized words, which also alludes to "are" instead of "is." If "Foo Fighters is" to you, reads more correct than "The Foo Fighters are" you need to learn basic grammatical skills. Once again, you are fixing something that isn't broken. I don't get it folks. You're trying to make this into a science, as if everythings black and white and theres a truth, when in reality, your arguments are not concrete. You create the conflict by trying to fix something that doesn't need it to begin with, be it post-grunge under an umbrella genre that includes it anyway or the use of "the" when READING on the band.

..and I stress this again, did any of you fail to notice the only letters in bold were "Foo Fighters?" The Foo Fighters is perfectly fine when READING on this band. No one ever said they were "The Foo Fighters", which to me, seems like the accusation being made. Spooky873 (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am all for the removal of the "the". In fact, I tried to explain this a while ago but met with a lot of resistance (although now I can see I was arguing with an editor who became a much bigger problem later on with the post-grunge-genre-switching mess). If consensus is to remove the "the", then go for it. - eo (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Sorry, I was being a retard. Thought I'd read somewhere that "the" should be used in such instances, but clearly isn't and shouldn't be...Nouse4aname (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Spooky, like myself, is from England (to the best of my knowledge) which is why he changes it to "are". Some AGF may be required here as he is relatively new and started off on the wrong foot at Wikipedia. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Given this users contentious/aggressive discussion tactics on this very talk page, coupled with a variety of off-color edit summaries, e.g. People are fuckin stupid, the "...in the presence of evidence to the contrary" part of WP:AGF is applicable, IMO. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with above. And another thing, I am also from the UK, and this doesn't mean that "Foo Fighters are" is correct. Just because the name has an "s" at the end, doesn't mean that it is a plural, that is to say, each band member is not - formally - a Foo Fighter. Look at Flight of the Conchords. This is another band with an "s" on the end. Each member isn't seen as a "conchord". Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter so much right now, TDF; I was merely explaining. Anyway, I will warn Spooky about his edit summaries and civility and will block if necessary. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've notified him of the consensus and warned him for incivility concerns. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For every listing from Rolling Stone to VH1 to Amazon that you can find, I can and will find twice as many stating otherwise. If its obvious that "the" shouldn't be included, then why is this the case if it were unanimous? Spooky873 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Why would Dave Grohl create "The Foo Fighters" for a one man project at the time in 1995? The adding on of members after the name was set has unofficially changed the scope of how the band has been referred to in literature/tv, etc. Dave also refers to "Foo Fighters" when only talking about the first self-titled album.

2) Dave Grohl from my Big Day Out audio: "Ladies and gentlemen, we're the Foo Fighters, this is our first song, it's called Monkey Wrench!"

3) How can anyone assert each band member as not a "Foo Fighter?" I see them being referred to in this manner all the time, especially one on one interviews with each member. Spooky873 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You see what you want to see, to be honest. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not always plural if it has an "s" on it - that is to say the "Foo Fighters" is not plural. I don't appreciate the condescension about basic English! I would admit that some press has referred to the band using "the". Also, a google fight does reveal that ("Foo Fighters is" vs "Foo Fighters are") "Foo Fighters are" is more commonly used, but, reliable sources have repeatedly backed up my point. Here is Chris Shiflett for example (do a ctrl f "Foo Fighters is") Tenacious D Fan (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure whether this author thinks The is in the name, or it could be that its capital just because its starting the statement, but anyhow, this is just one example of something I read day in and day out regarding this band. http://bbs.foofighters.com/showpost.php?p=2621353&postcount=7122 This is actually the first time i've bothered bringing something like this here. Spooky873 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the very website where you were found in the past to have organized meatpuppets to assist with your own sockpuppettry probably isn't going to be a terribly convincing argument here. Consensus is clearly against you on this. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Spooky, If you're going to link to an official band site, you might like to note that it's entitled "Foo Fighters Postboard" NOT "The Foo Fighters Postboard. It's a name, not a plural. 125.236.182.179 (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quoted directly from Foo Fighters' Greatest Hits, "Throughout 1996, Foo Fighters supported the album[...]" Therefore, since Foo Fighters themsleves are surely the most reliable source in this matter, it is "Foo Fighters" rather than "The Foo Fighters". However, for ease of speech one can choose to use the definite article that is "The". On the other hand, "Foo Fighters" is a proper noun, and therefore there is no need for a preceding article, thus they should be addressed as Foo Fighters whether it is plural or singular.

But, honestly, does it really matter?

Each to their own is all I can say! --Gimbles1991 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hawkins overdose

This is a fairly important episode in the FF story, but little mention is made of it. Sources (not so reliable) here: [6] Reliable here: [7] Here is a bit of perspective on the incident from the band: [8] Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for HIV-Denial group

Can someone fix the article? Under "activism" this text appears: "However, no further benefits have taken place, and the band has since removed the organization from its list of supported causes." This is FALSE. On the official Foo Fighters "Causes" page (5th one down), they continue to support an AIDS-Denial organization. Here is the link to where they continue to support the denialist organization: http://www.foofighters.com/community_cause.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.135 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The link you've given is to a page on the OLD site, that has simply not been taken down. The current official site does not link to that page.125.236.182.179 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no listing of their 2006 CD: Skin and Bones in the discography... that makes me a sad panda... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.177.25 (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hard rock

I support this assertion that FF is hard rock because this is based on sound sources. They one a grammy for hard rock performance! Here is the Times calling their performance hard rock. [9] Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - "Alternative rock" is fine, it's stood the test of time. "Hard rock" is incredibly POV. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I support the use of Hard rock completely. Spooky873 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to explain your rationale? When contributors try to build a consensus, it's the strength of the argument that wins out. Not simply saying "Support" or whatever. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so skeptical of the Foo Fighters being considered Hard rock? Thats outrageous. This band wins Hard rock awards but they're not Hard rock? Wheres the logic? Its a joke that you have to actually write out why you think the Foo Fighters are hard rock to begin with. If you told someone you don't think the Foo Fighters are hard rock they'd look at you like you had six heads. Needless to say, they fit the wiki description of Hard rock easily. If Hard rock doesn't end up being included under their genre then the Foo Fighters' entire wikipedia article is truly a joke, especially with all the other BS on it. People honestly read the article and wonder where this stuff comes from. I'm sorry but this is all a huge waste of time. Spooky873 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean Foo Fighters? ;) I think alternative rock is a bit of a vague description, and perhaps other genres should be considered. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative rock is less specific than hard rock, because hard rock is often used as a mere descriptor for "loud rock music". It's not that well-defined as a genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

no, I mean the Foo Fighters, as do countless other musicians, journalists, fans, etc.

NME must mean Foo Fighters too, right? http://www.nme.com/reviews/foo-fighters/6769

and Rolling Stone too? http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/foofighters Spooky873 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is to do with Foo Fighters hard rock status, not the "the". Get over it. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Then don't mention it first. Spooky873 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to resolve this, because its gone stagnant. The use of "post-grunge" is allowed which is far more controversial than "hard rock." To be honest, I really just can't conceive how this is even being debated. The simple fact that this band wins hard rock awards alone should render them Hard rock. I think we've just pathetically run out of topics. Foo Fighters are hard rock, no question. Can we please resolve this so it can be added? Spooky873 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think writing a sweary edit summary is going to help. I think FF is hard rock, but we haven't reached a consensus through reasoned and reliably sourced debate. I realize all this sounds more bureaucratic than the UN, but this is the way a proper article is written. If we didn't have an article which was based on reasoned consensus, then we would have the Foo Fighters. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative rock and post-grunge (debated) apparently don't need references, but Hard rock does? This is absolutely mind-boggling. This band wins Hard rock awards, not alternative rock or post-grunge ones, yet we need citations for it. I simply don't understand. There are a million other things that could use attention and we're honestly debating over the Foo Fighters being Hard rock. Its unbelievable. Any average rock music fan would even tell you this band is hard rock, how do I know this? because it happens to me all the time. So again, having to actually cite and reference the Foo Fighters for being Hard rock is, well, i'm sure anyone else can find 8 more well suited adjectives here. I just don't get it. Spooky873 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And if someone wants to point at my use of "the Foo Fighters" while referencing them, just say when and I will get countless links to articles and band interview videos where they say "the Foo Fighters." Its interchangeable. Spooky873 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should cite them as Metal too then, huh? http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Foo%20Fighters&rh=n%3A67207%2Ck%3AFoo%20Fighters&page=1 I've noticed the references can only go so far around here until an editor arbitrarily decides themself what is good and what isn't. I'm presenting basic factual information here, and logic (so if you're gonna point the finger back on me, im justified) Spooky873 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You are, and have been, SOLELY presenting your own, uninformed opinion, and you continue to do so a year later. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They won a Grammy for it, what more proof do you want?! Titan50 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of Alternative Rock to get away from the bullshit sounds of hard rock?

To the person above, When was Alternative to get away from Hard Rock? And i totally think Foo Fighters should be classed as Hard Rock. I mean, winning awards for best Hard Rock band and getting called hard rock in Rolling Stone Magazine and NME?? i totally support Hard Rock being in the genre's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabar09 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Germs?

How are the Germs not an associated act? Connör ^(talk) 22:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Hopefully it gets noticed around here, and added. We're too busy debating over them being Hard rock, which is unbelievable. Spooky873 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts

I'd like QOTSA added, given that Josh Homme has played on Foo Fighters' 5th album, as well as Dave Grohl drumming on Songs for the Deaf... given also that the Foos have played with Tenacious D, shouldn't they be on there? And what of the other associated acts that particularly Dave has played with who supported the Foos at their Hyde Park gig, such as QOTSA, Motorhead, Juliette & The Licks... and what of Killing Joke? Grohl drummed on one of their albums, the Foos covered Requiem, and certainly Jaz Coleman has appeared onstage with the Foos to sing Requiem... should we perhaps just limit the associated acts to Nirvana, Scream, SDRE and a link to a page with a full list of just which Foo(s) has/have played with which other acts, and whether live or in the studio or both, and if in the studio, which album, and if live, on which tour?--Vox Humana 8' 16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think Chris and Taylor's bands should be added, such as Chevy Metal, Taylor Hawkins and the Coattail riders, and Jackson UnitedGill1ma (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Gill1ma

Hard Rock

They won a Grammy for it, what more proof do you want?! Titan50 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was started above. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolled

Looks like someone trolled this article ("Avril Lavigne..."). I don't have permissions to fix this, but it would be nice if someone did. EndTwist (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2008

Nirvana's technique of shifting between quiet verses and loud chorus?

Face it, the quiet/loud dynamic that's dominated alternative radio
for the last 14 years can be attributed to one and only one band, the Pixies. 

-Dave Grohl, NYT

Whoever found this, Thank you. I've been changing it from Nirvana to the Pixies for awhile. Leave it to wikipedia to continue to mislead information. I thought this was supposed to be accurate? Spooky873 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

first two albums

The first too foo albums are post grunge not alternative rock, it even says post grunge in the post grunge article. i have now corrected the genre

loveyourfaithLoveyourfaith (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Alternative rock suffices and has done just fine. Don't destroy articles that have nothing wrong with them. Leave alternative rock (since I have re-added them). Spooky873 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Error

The article refers to "the title 'Foo Fighters,' taken from the World War II term 'foo fighter,' used to refer to unidentified flying objects." UFO is the name for unidentified flying objects. The name Foo Fighters is taken from the comic strip Smokey Stover. The comic strip is about fire fighters. "Feu" (pronounced Foo) is the French word for "fire."Lestrade (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

That maybe the case, but the band name is taken from the WWII term, not the comic strip. Dave has said this on many, many occasions. It stems back to his love of all things UFO's. No error. Skilmore (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really UFOs so much as sci-fi in general, but yeah, it was a slang term used by American WWII pilots to refer to UFOs, just like "flying saucer" has become another term. It was probably inspired by the comic strip, but it doesn't seem to be definite. The sentence you quote includes a link to the "foo fighter" page which has all this info anyway, so there's no errors or shortcomings here. Km9000 (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative?

I beg to differ about the genre used in the article. The band's music and popularity is definitely mainstream and they are one of the world's most popular bands. There are many views surrounding what an artist's genre is, but I suggest simply using the term 'rock' instead of 'alternative rock'. --125.237.79.204 (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We tend to prefer established reality rather than fanboy interpretations, though. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The word 'alternative' also has too limited a scope for an encyclopedia. Remember that this is not some kind of a rock music facts book. --222.155.137.156 (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Current situation: hiatus

As stated on multiple websites (http://www.nme.com/news/foo-fighters/39761, http://www.dose.ca/music/story.html?id=70a49030-85ec-450b-ab7d-17714b228672, http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/music/newsid_7620000/7620564.stm), FF have taken a break. Now, if we revise the definition of a "hiatus": "A period of time where one is on a break" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus), one can realize that the term fits the actually situation of the band. Being the band not active (no music, no tours), the term "hiatus" and the current year (2008) fit perfectly. --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. As it has been pointed out, they have taken several breaks like this over the years. Displaying the active years as "1995-1997. 1997-1999", etc...is patently ridiculous. If it becomes a long period of time, such as a Jane's Addiction or The Pixies, then putting an end date would be appropriate. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

They have clearly stated it will be a long break and asked fans not to expect any new music during such period. --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 03:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The band is going on a hiatus, that should be reflected in the "years active" field. If they come back sooner than expected, then it can be changed then, but as of now, the band is on hiatus and thus, by definition, not active. Whoever went straight to WP:3RR with this here, why did you not engage in discussion? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, the reason it doesn't state 1995-1997. 1997-1999. 1999-2002. 2002-2005-. 2005-2008 in the years active field is because 1995-2008 covers all of those years. There is no year where the band was not active. At the moment, the band is on hiatus, and thus are not currently active. In 2009 the band may or may not be active, however what we do know now is that they are on hiatus, so it looks unlikely. To suggest that they may be active again soon, just because they have done so in the past, is crystal ballery. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's generally held that the field is used for when a band breaks up. A hiatus doesn't mean they're no longer active, it's the same with taking a "break". Utan Vax (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course a hiatus means they are no longer active - it's the very definition of the word. It wouldn't be a hiatus if they were still active. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A hiatus, by definition, means they're eventually going to return, it doesn't mean they've retired. If they took a permanent hiatus (i.e. broke up), then we'd put 1995-2008. As such, seeing as it's temporary, they're still together, ergo, 1995-present. Utan Vax (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You can’t say they definitely will return. That would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. A hiatus means they are on a break, which by definition means that they aren’t currently active, hence tin the years active 1995-2008 (hiatus). What happens if they don’t do anything during the whole of 2009, but return in 2010? Do we keep it as 1995-present? No. It would be 1995-2008; 2010-present. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of other bands that are on hiatus, but are still marked as active in the infobox? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

^---Yes, the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

This band is not broken up, therefore it should read 1995-present. The closest this band has ever come to breaking up was in between TINLTL and OBO, and if you have followed the band long enough, you'd also realize that Dave says this after almost every album. Spooky873 (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nouse4aname, what would be the point in "1995-2008; 2010-present", wouldn't that fill up the infobox a little too much? Foo Fighters have not broken up, therefore, we do not say that they have stopped performing, because, no doubt, they will return. Also, in reply to WP:CRYSTAL: It has no place in this argument. We're not guessing when they're going to return, we're just stating, until we have more definitive proof, that they're still active. Hiatus doesn't mean that the band has broken up. The years active field is not for stating they're on hiatus. Utan Vax (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a permanent hiatus: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hiatus

Please refer to a dictionary. --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that they have broken up. However, by being on hiatus, they are not active. Thus, by stating that they are currently active in the "years active" field is false and misleading. You cannot say "no doubt they will return" where is your proof? You are predicting what will happen in the future, which is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. You cannot definitively say they will return, all you can say is that they have returned in the past when on hiatus. As for 1995-2008; 2010-present filling the infobox up too much, no, if it is correct and accurate then it should be recorded as such. Stating 1995-2010 when they were inactive during 2009 would be inaccurate. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Dexter prog needs to refer to WP:3RR. Anyway, I have removed the 'years active field' to stop the edit warring, I don't want to see anyone blocked, I submitted a 3RR report yesterday on Dexter with the hope of soliciting admin support. No more reverts please as there is no consensus here and filling up the infobox with sources just to be WP:POINTY really isn't logical. Let's just leave writing about the hiatus to the prose. Utan Vax (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this all depends on whether the band have officially stated that they are on this 'hiatus'. --222.155.216.132 (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They have officially stated that they are on hiatus. But the issue rests on if the "Years active" field is for permanent break ups or breaks. See below for the compromise suggest by Nouse4aname. Utan Vax (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like they are active again, not recording, but working together at least and moving towards the studio: [10] --Terrillja _talk 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Years active: Compromise?

Please see User_talk:Utan_Vax#Foo_Fighters and User_talk:Nouse4aname#Re:_FF regarding a possible compromise for the years active field. What are everyone's opinions on putting "1995 - present (hiatus)" in this field in the infobox? Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To be openly specific, I find that the above compromise is very acceptable; appeases everyone hopefully. Utan Vax (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the year when they entered their hiatus status. As the years go by the word "present" won't represent the actual date of hiatus. And again, being the band NOT ACTIVE is a sufficient reason for adding 2008 as a part of the years they were ACTIVE --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need that excess information in there. It's unnecessary and makes the box look cluttered. It's already mentioned in the prose. Infoboxes should represent the bare minimum facts; if people want to learn more about the hiatus they'll read the prose. Utan Vax (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Then lets go xxxx - yyyy (hiatus) (being x and y years) like every other article where a band entered a hiatus status --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 16:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the “hiatus since 2008” is superfluous. 1995 – present (hiatus) says all it needs to say - they formed in 1995, are still together, but are currently on hiatus. When they announce their return, we can just delete the “(hiatus)” bit. I think a bit of give and take is required here, you can’t just keep pushing for your preferred option each time…Nouse4aname (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "present" will be ambiguous when we are in 2009. It is just pointless. And I am not "pushing" anything, it's just the way it is across the whole wikipedia. If you believe "hiatus since 2008", then we can go "1995 - 2008 (hiatus)" like, again, every other article on wikipedia --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 17:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're taking this too seriously: Go have some WP:TEA, friend. Utan Vax (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Present will not be ambiguous in 2009, as the band will still “presently” be together, just on hiatus. When the hiatus began is irrelevant in the context of the infobox, it’s just too much. Details are provided in the main article text. All the infobox needs to do is portray the important information, which is that the band formed in 1995, have not split up, but are on a break. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

how am I taking this too serious and you not? Clearly an ad hominem fallacy, I believe this is a place for discussions (hence the name "discussion"). The hiatus year is important, it is on every other article in the info box --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 18:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Such as...? Also, take a read of WP:OSE. Just because other articles do it, doesn't mean this one has to....Nouse4aname (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

that is more applicable when talking about deletion, plus you can't claim this article does not need to be like the others when we are talking about the exact same thing. There is no sense in saying "every other article can have the YEAR (hiatus) format, but this not" , it is illogical.

"When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

Examples: System Of a Down, Red Hot Chili Peppers (where the same discussion is taking place), Burzum, Decapitated (I edited the later to fit the same format, but it expressed the year the hiatus went on before my edit)

Someone else reverted your change from "present" to "1999" on the Barzum article previously [11], and the same change of "present" to "2008" was reverted on the Decapitated article[12]. SOAD are effectively split up, stating there are no plans to get back together. FF intend to continue after a break. Whereas RHCP are “"disbanded for the moment”. Not really comparable examples. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Decapitated article says the year they went into the hiatus status, SOAD are on a hiatus. How come they are no comparable examples?

Anyway, is it such a big deal to leave it they way it is now with the words "present", "hiatus" and the corresponding year of such hiatus (2008)? --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the principles of this type of situation is not to enforce conformity or consistency if users have a problem with it. None of us have changed it back since your addition, ergo, none of us are taking this as seriously as you. Utan Vax (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see... --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1995 - present, simple. I don't understand the need to fix something that isn't broken. Theres no such need to say a band is on hiatus, especially in the "years active" box. How many bands out there are taking breaks/in between records that aren't accounted for? This is ridiculous to propose such a debate.

PS - A band on hiatus with concert dates? http://www.last.fm/music/Foo+Fighters Spooky873 (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.foofighters.com/tour/?s=tour

Yes there is a need, because the band is not active --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 04:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If we look at the edit and discussion histories of this article, one will see that I disagree quite a bit with Spooky873 on a variety of issues. But in this, he is 100% right. It is just flat-out ridiculous to put an end date on a bad that takes a break. Not a break-UP; a break. This is not an ex-band, and until the day it becomes so, the end date on thid field can and should be listed as "present". Tarc (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well seriously, using this logic, there should be five other hiatuses listed on there. I'm guessing the day of the concert on October 26th we take it off, only to put it up the next day? Unreal. This is actually being debated/proposed?

PS - Anyone thats followed this band long enough would also realize that Dave Grohl has been known to say this after almost every album. Spooky873 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ACTIVISM RELIABILITY OF SOURCE---FOOIES HIV DENIAL IS IT A LIE?

I find it hard to believe that the Foo Fighters have played with the members of Queen still active (Brian May and Roger Taylor) and that the basssist denies the link between HIV/AIDs

As you all probably know Freddie Mercury died of aids in 1991, why would Brian May and Roger Taylor choose to play with a band that basically says "No you are wrong your best friend and lead singer never had HIV, he should have got natural treatment for AIDS and he would still be alive today".

Can anyone establish the reliability of this source, which is the only source an unknown news source funded by donations:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/02/foo.html

It doesn't add up to me I have seen at least 5 videos where Foo Fighters play with Brian May and Roger Taylor, Dave Grohl inducted Queen into the rock and roll hall of fame and gave Freddie a dedication.

I am calling into question the reliability of this source. I will try to add the appropriate tag but if I am unable to do this i ask whover reads this to add a reliability tag to the Activism section

124.187.151.234 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I have submitted my concern to the rs noticeboard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FOO_FIGHTERS_HIV.2FAIDS_denialism

124.187.151.234 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the source trumps your original research and synthesis. Let's wait and see what the RSN have to say. Did you try finding any further sources? Verbal chat 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah mate I looked around, there is a link on the Foo Fighters page to the organisation, I could not find anything in IMDB about the movie they supposedly wrote songs for and I could find no information regarding the concert held in benefit of the organisation. There is already a tag for expansion of that section, I put in reliability of source tag so we will wait for the board to answer us.

BTW I'm making an account m f l 1 9 9 2 without spaces

124.187.151.234 (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to have the rs tags back where I placed them. I have submitted my concerns to the reliability board and they will come to a decision on whether the source is accurate, fair and should be included.

Until then I would appreciate if you leave the tags in place.

Mfl1992 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not tag the article excessively. You've submitted something to the reliability board and that is enough. It looks terrible if you've tagged all of those sources and it's not really best for the article. Just leave it for someone else to sort out. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unoffical Greatest Hits link

In the External links section someone has linked a page selling an unofficial greatest hits album.(http://www.ultramusicstore.com/foo-fighters-greatest-hits-2cd-set-digipack-p-1182.html) So I am removing it. 193.195.197.124 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the "AIDS denialism" category?

Is it really reasonable to place this band under the "AIDS denialism" category, simply because they played only one benefit gig, ten years ago, for the Alive and Well organisation?

The band have not actively campaigned for this cause since then, and implicitly listing them as "AIDS denialists" at the bottom of the page might encourage people who don't know the context to be biased against them.

I wouldn't have said anything, but there are a few individuals on the internet who seem to be intent on dragging this issue up and using it against the band, mainly prompted by a couple of sniffy pseudo-academic articles from around the time of the benefit gig. Considering that the incident is explained perfectly thoroughly in the main body of this article, I can't see any need to categorise them in such a judgemental way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfista1986 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

- Sorry about not signing that comment, I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't get that bit at first! --Alfista1986 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Removing now. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, don't know the correct format to post on the discussion forums not a regular user. I have edited this section to state that 'Alive and well' is still listed as a supported cause, as this is the case. In addition, I think that it is worthy of mention on the page - as it would be if they held any other radical (and/or stupid) opinions and raised money to support groups that are, in fairness, probably genuinely causing people to die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.196.202 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at [13] and it isn't listed there. Not sure what you are looking at, but I'm not seeing it. Please provide a link to where you saw that they still support this organization.--Terrillja _talk 17:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrillja's right, it's not listed. Please provide a source to support your assertion. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please check the footnote on the actual page, reference 17, which leads to a page entitled "Official Foo Fighters Causes". About halfway down that page (which is housed on the official Foo Fighters site) is a link to "Alive & Well". When I noticed this and edited the article with a new retrieve date, and I was accused of vandalism. Perhaps someone (not me, because I don't care and don't want to get accused of something obnoxious again!) should fix the footnote if you want different information in the article. The link that is in the footnote is: http://www.foofighters.com/community_cause.html and I would never have seen that page if not for following that link from that page. Bonni (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the link, that explains why we were seeing different things, I was going to their site through the direct address, not a link, and the link pointed at an old version of the site, last modified on Mon, Sep 10, 2007 12:55:49 PM. Sorry about the confusion, all you needed to do was tell me how you were getting the info and I would have updated it, no reason to make a big deal of it. Sorry for the warning, and I hope you continue to contribute here.--Terrillja _talk 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry to revive this old conversation again but it seems pretty clear to me that the Foo Fighters should be included in Category:AIDS denialism. Whether they are currently AIDS denialists is irrelevant: my understanding is that categories are supposed to be timeless, so the AIDS denialism category includes everyone notable who's denied the link between HIV and AIDS, not just people who are currently active in the movement. (Just as Category:Presidents of the United States includes George W. Bush, and not just the current fellow.)

It's not our business to worry about whether some idiot might be "biased" against the Foo Fighters because he sees the link at the bottom of the page but is too damn lazy to read that section of the article. And it's absurd to suggest that the Foos shouldn't be included in the AIDS denialism category because "the incident is explained perfectly thoroughly in the main body of this article" — by that rationale, we'd also remove them from the Grammy awards category, and most other categories too.

Our categories exist for a reason, and the AIDS denialism category is a useful tool for anyone wanting to learn more about the movement. Since there's no question that the Foos were once a part of that movement, there's really no question that they belong in the category. Polemarchus (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no-one replied, I've restored Category:AIDS denialism.[14] Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why under "Campaigning and activism" is only the one cause discussed? The Kerry campaign stuff, for instance, is under the One by One subhead, which seems odd because it doesn't seem to be related to the album except chronologically. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Greatest Hits

Someone has created a greatest hits page which states the album will be released next month. I have been unable to find any information including an online text to the only reference in the article. Isn't this greatest hits album mere speculation rather than a tangible album? Seems like if was to be released next month online stores (including Amazon) would have a link to reserve a copy. Should this article be deleted? --Ichabod (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it per WP:CRYSTAL. It might get me into trouble for bypassing WP:AfD, but it was an easy and obvious delete. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen commercials about the Greatest Hits CD, but I did not hear when it was going to be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.22.48 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Greatest hits CD has been released and is out now. You can get just a CD or a DVD with it. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Greatest+Hits+%5BCD+%26+DVD%5D+%5B11/3%5D+-+CD/9570305.p?id=2050852&skuId=9570305&st=foo%20fighters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.22.48 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre Extension

To revive a dead discussion from above- Now that consensus has established that post-grunge is to remain on this article, how do you feel about the genre (or 'sub-genre', if you care) extending to the earlier singles and album articles? --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 20:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Anyone? Yes, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingoomieiii (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

The Associated Acts Section should include Probot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.222.115 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Greatest Hits announced

November 2nd will be released their "Greatest Hits", will feature: "All My Life", "Times Like These", "The Pretender" and two new singles "Wheels" and "Word Forward" (or something like that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.151.50.109 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre and lead sentence

I don't want to continue an edit war, especially over something so insignificant, so I thought I'd bring it here. My edits removing the unsourced genre "alternative rock" continue to get reverted despite the lack of sources citing the genre. If Allmusic mentions it, then cite it, rather than replacing it without a source! That's called original research, and we don't want that. About the wording of the lead sentence, "Grammy Award-winning" asserts why the band is notable, exactly what Wikipedia:LEAD#First sentence tells us to do. No reason was given in the last revert for why that phrase doesn't belong in the first sentence. Timmeh 20:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations are meant for the body of the article, not the infobox. I think the current genres: "Alternative rock, post-grunge", is perfect. As for the lead sentence, see any other band article. Using qualifiers like "award-winning" indicates a bias/POV in favour of the band. Also, it gives undue importance to the award in the context of the band's career. —indopug (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about the lead. The genres, however, should not be listed anywhere in the article unless they are backed up by reliable sources. If you would rather the citations be in the article prose, then include them there, but sources must be cited, regardless of where the genres are mentioned. Timmeh 19:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I threw in that quote about alt-rock by Dave Grohl in the "musical style" section. Also, citations are required for controversial statements and/or information likely to be challenged. I don't think anyone denies that Foo Fighters are an alternative rock band. I certainly haven't come across any sources in my research saying they aren't. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"No further benefits have taken place"

A few months back, I requested a citation for the claim that "no further benefits have taken place" for Alive & Well. My tag was deleted, with the edit summary "rm {{fact}} for uncitable fact, how can you cite something hasn't happened".[15]

Per our core content policies, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". Just because Wikipedia editors are unaware of any further benefit concerts does not mean that no further benefits have taken place. If our readers can't verify this claim, it doesn't belong in the article. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Frontline Noise - Source?

The title was added and this line was added - "The album has been tentavily called Frontline Noise and will feature "ten all electric rockers and one stripped down acoustic", but where is the source/citation? The one directly posted after the line, number [27] Rawkpit doesn't mention it. --Skilmore (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who edited the page, but forgot to log in before doing so. --Skilmore (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New 2011 album/tour pages

Trust me, if I could I would. Can somebody please make a seperate page for each the new album and tour that will happen this year. --franticflare14 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Btoge4j371way

--CactusBot (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seventh studio album

Why isnt there an article for it? Theres been more information released about it yet theres no article, and you have bands like Coldplay that havent really released much information at all about their upcoming album and they have an article for it.

Um? whats the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.64.217 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That one shouldn't be there either. --King Öomie 20:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First show

The first Foo fighters show was actually in Arcata, on Feb 23, 1995.This was the live debut, not Portland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.12.6 (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Their first live performance was actually on Feb 19, 1995 above a boat house in Seattle. That was a private performance for friends and family. Details and pictures here - http://foofighterslive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2409 The second performance was the Arcata show on Feb 23 you mention performing a secret opening slot for a cover band called the unseen. The third performance was the Portland show, and that was the first show people could actually buy tickets to knowing FF were playing. So it depends what you want to define at their first show, but their first public live performance was Feb 23, 1995 yes. Skilmore (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the Foo Fighters "Associated Acts" Section

I'm wondering if I can add the following "associated acts" to the Foo Fighters page, based on the past bands and side projects by members of the Foo Fighters:

•Dave Grohl: Scream, Queens of the Stone Age

•Pat Smear: The Germs

•Chris Shiflett: Jackson United, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, Chris Shiflett & The Dead Peasants, No Use For a Name, Viva Death

•Taylor Hawkins: Alanis Morissette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.29.7 (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While they are related (with the exception of Alanis Morissette, only a touring musician as far as I know), it would be a bit excessive to have in the infobox. Most of them are included in the Foo Fighters template at the bottom of the article. HrZ (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why we shouldn't have all the related bands there. Sure there's a lot of them, but look at, for example, the QOTSA and Pearl Jam infoboxes, to name just two. All of their related artists are listed. As for Foo Fighters, Nirvana are arguably the most important related band, but if SDRE and The Fire Theft can be included, I don't see why we shouldn't have Them Crooked Vultures, Taylor Hawkins and the Coattail Riders, etc. Demonofthefall (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Band's that are linked on QOTSA and Pearl Jam are those who are spin-offs and/or have 2 or more band members in common. But not every group has been listed, e.g. with QOTSA: Screaming Trees, A Perfect Circle, Danzig, Wires on Fire, etc. are not linked because they only share one member in common. Though I agree (as posted below) that Them Crooked Vultures and Taylor Hawkins and the Coattail Riders should be listed. HrZ (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wasting Light

Now that there's an album title, release date, and track listing, think it's time for a separate 'Wasting Light' article? (talk)

Someone already has. Wasting Light Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourced almost entirely by Twitter references. Whatever happened to WP:RS, and the requirement that we use secondary sources? Drmies (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Hard rock but no Grunge? I think most of you guys don't know what hard rock is. Foo Fighters have nothing to do with ac/dc's, for example, blues influenced rock. It's just different. --Revilal90 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say post-grunge covers it well enough -- MichiganCharms (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I listen a lot to them, and I assure you that Wasting light is a very raw record, it has the Grunge vibe -- julianserpa (talk) 09:40, 9 november 2011 (UTC)

I say that as long as any genre description is reliably sourced, then it can be put on there and stay like that. I think that overanalysis and bickering of what genres particular music belongs to is stupid and the exact antithesis of what music and encyclopedic integrity represent. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Associated acts...again

This subject has been brought up a number of times. This is mainly about the hidden note stating: "Because of the sheer volume of bands related to the members of the band, we're limiting this to acts which relate to multiple members of the band, past and present. Any other bands should be discussed before being added."

I agree with it, there are many bands that the members have been a part of/contributed to and it would be quite ridiculous to include them all. But surely Them Crooked Vultures and Taylor Hawkins and the Coattail Riders should be included? Spin-offs from Foos, they are more directly related and are both active. Perhaps the note should be altered a bit, something like "Because of the sheer volume of bands related to the members of the band, we're limiting this to acts which relate to multiple members of the band, past and present as well as those directly related to Foo Fighters. Any other bands should be discussed before being added." HrZ (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Documentary Needed? Where it says that the movie "Back and Forth" will air on VH1, and Palladia, it says citation needed, but RCA records sent me an email saying the movie would be in theaters April 5, and on tv on April 7 or 8 on VH1 and Palladia and one other channel. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1659588/foo-fighters-back-and-forth-doc-april-screenings.jhtml this should be enough citation, and also the fact that I have it recorded on my DVR schedule, so please fix this. i do not know how to edit pages correctly, so ill leave it to someone else to add the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.61.32 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation for 17 Jun 2006 Hyde Park gig

Here's a link that shows mention of the gig on the Foo Fighters' website (archived):

• http://replay.web.archive.org/20060512124745/http://www.foofighters.com/

"June 17 Hyde Park, London On Sale Now

Additional Tickets Just Released For Sale!

With Very Special Guests Motorhead, Queens Of The Stone Age, Angels & Airwaves, and Juliette & The Licks!"

That satisfies one of the "citation needed" marks on this article. -Stelio (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Foo Fighters, not "the" Foo Fighters

A bit nitpicky, but while the article begins correctly by stating "Foo Fighters is a rock band," throughout the article they're frequently referred to as "the" Foo Fighters. I'm pretty sure that's grammatically incorrect; it should probably be fixed throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.195.34 (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Is a Back and Forth article going to made?

It's long overdue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.108.12 (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:FooFighters.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:FooFighters.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)