Is this true

We'll find out in 10 years if they are still being discussed and cherished (as Foo Fighters are)

Foo Fighters haven't had a top-40 single in 10 years and their last album didn't even go gold, so if longevity of popularity is the metric we're using then they're certainly not legendary.

Well 3 if you count his time with QOTSA

wait what other bands has he been in? i only know foo fighters. they rock anyway

Yeah their last to go platinum was in 2005. So they were popular for really only 10 years. Taylor Swift has been more popular for as long at this point.

...

>Foo Fighters haven't had a top-40 single in 10 years
Pic related
>so if longevity of popularity is the metric
It's not. Nice strawman.

Top-40 single in the US refers to the Billboard Hot 100.

Otherwise niche Christian rock bands you've never heard of would be considered "top-40 acts" because of the Christian rock chart.

Nice try though.

those are the alt charts retard

Don't break your back moving goalposts user!

Nirvana? Yes
Foo Fighters? Fuck no.

However he did do stuff for QOTSA and Them Vultures, which gets him half a point each.

1+.5+.5=2 legend points

I mean, that's not a moving goalpost, that's literally what top-40 refers to and there's an entire radio format defined by it, but whatever makes you feel better about your favorite irrelevant band

>that's literally what top-40 refers
Not correct. You never specified which chart.

Foo fighters is an alt rock band. Why would they be in the pop charts? It's just common sense. Maybe you like to compare classical music to Punk as well?
>irrelevant band
See

How can you be this fucking retarded?

QOTSA is great, but not really legendary. Nirvana is legendary but not that great.

Idk- He's an overrated singer but a good drummer. His personality is cringe though.

>How can you be this fucking retarded?
Nice argument
>His personality is cringe though.
Oh do you know him personally?

>band has 1000 drummers

not even once

>Not correct. You never specified which chart.

You're grasping for straws, dude. Nobody ever says "top 40" and means anything but the billboard top 40.

First post itt so don't get mad at me like I'm one of the anons attacking Foo Fighters. It's just common fucking sense that "top 40" implies billboard top 40.

>Nobody ever says "top 40" and means anything but the billboard top 40.
[citation needed]

If we're going that broad then pretty much everyone is a top-40 artist because of how many charts there are. Michael Kiwanuka is a top-40 artist just because he was on the Adult Alternative chart. So Foo Fighters are as popular as this guy no one has ever heard of, cool defense.

The Billboard Hot 100 covers all genres, that's why it's used to define top-40.

Foo Fighters are irrelevant.

It's not an argument, top 40 means top 40 on Billboard's top 40, not the alt rock charts that no one gives a fuck about.

As for his personality:
youtube.com/watch?v=xXPZ5-vOeAY

>His personality is cringe though.
Dont know what you mean

because people on reddit like him. that's it.

Well he did play on Current 93, they're pretty legendary, but I don't know the other one

underrated

Trying way too hard, fampai.

Obviously there's no census data on what people mean when they say "top 40 charts" or "top 40 hit". It's literally a matter of basic logic and exposure to people who talk about music. Any person you ever talk to about topping charts or getting a top 10 hit is always talking about the billboard top 40, because that's a feat. That's hard to do. Topping a niche chart for a dying genre like "alternative rock" isn't a big deal, quite frankly.

And the point stands that their sales have been tanking for the past decade.

Beyond ALL of that, popularity isn't the one and only metric for a rock band being "legendary". If it was, the Arctic Monkeys would be on the upswing and could be considered legendary, which I'm sure we can all agree is not the case. He was in Nirvana which can be considered legendary for heavily influencing the direction of rock music and promoting a certain "attitude" which contrasted sharply with hair metal, thereby changing what was popular and sold well in rock music (for better or for worse). Foo Fighters did no such thing. They've been rehashing the same sound for a decade and a half. They have had literally zero impact on the face of rock music whatsoever. The Strokes had way more impact on the music industry and rock music as a whole with ONE album than the Foo Fighters have throughout their entire career.

That's not really why. He's just such a fucking brochacho and he always talks about how music on the radio sucks and how rock can be "saved" or whatever.

He's not an asshole or anything, he just seems fake as fuck. He has the transparency of a manufactured pop star and yet people act like he's rock music's last bastion even though he's the safest, cleanest "rock star" ever.

>arguing over stale 9gag meme

stay classy Cred Forums

>Michael Kiwanuka is a top-40 artist just because he was on the Adult Alternative chart
For the last 20 years?
>The Billboard Hot 100 covers all genres
But some genres are not treated fairly as compared to others (see poptimism)
>Foo Fighters are irrelevant.
Not really see >It's not an argument
Been nice talking to you
>As for his personality:
Link is not working. Please answer the question - do you know him personally?
There is overlap between reddit and Cred Forums so that's not relevant
>Trying way too hard, fampai.
Not really, it's fairly simple. I need a citation for these broad assumptions you make.

I'm waiting
>always talks about how music on the radio sucks and how rock can be "saved" or whatever.
How is he wrong?
>he just seems fake as fuck.
Oh do you know him personally?
>He has the transparency of a manufactured pop star
Except he got his start in the DC DIY hardcore scene.

this

>Nirvana
>Them Crooked Vultures
checks out

Tenacious D and Nirvana