There’s a discussion on one of my other messageboards (yes I’m a two-bit tramp) about Foo Fighters where people were saying that Foo Fighters probably outsold Nirvana long ago and much of the Foo Fighters’ core audience would be too young to have been into Nirvana and may or may not be into the older band. Anywhere I could find out how many records both bands have sold worldwide?
Thanks,
An Gadaí
Well, Nirvana’s sold over 50 million as of 2002. I can’t seem to find anything for the Foo Fighters, though.
I would bet the Foo Fighters have sold less than 20 million records. Maybe less than 10.
According to the RIAA’s website Nirvana has been certified at 25 million units. Foo Fighters don’t even make the list, which cuts off at 10 million.
Looking at the breakdown by artist , we see that while all of the first 5 Foo Fighter’s albums went platinum (sales of one million), none have gone double platinum (Sales of 2 million). Nevermind alone sold 10 million copies.
So, no contest. Nirvana outsold Foo Fighters by more than 2:1. Of course, CD sales were a lot higher when Nirvana was around.
ETA: D’oh!! RIAA figures only account for US sales. The OP asked for worldwide sales figures. Carry on.
US sales are a good indicator though, thank you. I know Foo Fighters are popular in Europe but so were/are Nirvana so Nirvana probably wins. Thanks for your help guys and gals!
PS ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness is a great nick. 
I never thought about this before, but I wouldn’t have guessed that sales disparity was so large. So much for Nirvana being ‘Dave Grohl’s first band.’
I’m surprised it’s not bigger, actually. Nirvana’s popularity in the early 90s was far far greater than the Foo Fighters have ever been; it was theirs and Pearl Jam’s popularity that allowed the grunge genre to flourish. On the other hand Foo Fighters has the reputation of being a pretty good band. And I say that as someone who has always liked the Foo Fighters too.
Are they included or are we strictly speaking about album/cd sales? Could it be that Nirvana’s numbers are higher because people only bought CDs at the height of their popluarity whereas more people get their music online now?
I thought it was only recently that iTunes numbers were factored in those numbers. shrug I really don’t know so hopefully someone more knowledgeable about these things can fill me in.
I just peeked at my iTunes and for the record, I have 6 Foo Fighters albums and only 1 Nirvana album. A quick peek at the CD cases in my office reveals 1 Foo Fighter CD and 1 Nirvana CD.
Yeah, when you have a hand in inventing your own genre your band has reached another level. I think Foo Fighters is a good band, but they’re not as original as Nirvana, nor did they arrive before a public primed for their appearance by fatigue with conventional pop music. Having said that, I’m surprised FF has never had so much as a triple-platinum album. Just how would one sum up their popularity? Is it possible to have a handful of platinum albums, yet be considered a “mid-level” band in popularity?
I was out of the country (in Germany) when Nirvana hit the charts, and everyone - EVERYONE - from ages 10 to 30 had a copy. I bet the sum total of all the Foo Fighters album sales will never touch the sales of Nevermind alone - which are estimated over 26 million copies worldwide.
[nitpicking]Well, Nirvana was at least his second band. He had previously been in some hardcore band whose name I can’t remember[/nitpicking]
I’m running on pure memory here, but I think it was Dain Bramage.
As in most things, the Dope is not the main demographic of the U.S. CDs still outsell downloads, but it’s narrowing, I admit.
"A total of 135.8 million albums were sold in the U.S. through the end of last week, compared to 163.3 million in the year-ago period, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
The number of digital tracks sold, meanwhile, jumped 53 percent to 250.8 million compared to 164.2 million in the same period last year, the firm said."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18220349/
That was in April of 2007. Remember that this is comparing albums vs tracks, so multiply the CDs by about 12 for gross revenue and tracks sold. Also, iTunes albums usually sell for $10 even if they have 13 tracks.
Argh! I have that original SCREAM album up in the attic someplace. Grohl was DC Scene way back when I was still in college.
Oi! DC!
That is, if you don’t count The Pixies, The Replacements, Sonic Youth, Husker Du, The Descendents, The Minutemen, Bad Brains and Black Flag, to name but a few: Nirvana invented a genre my arse; it’s like saying J.K. Rowling invented fantasy fiction. They got lucky through timing and canny marketing was all: hell, they weren’t even the best Seattle band around at the time.
I dont know, the Foo fighters sure as hell put out a lot of “Foo”, Nirvana was at least interesting and something new. (even if I consider Cobain to be a comedian first and musician second). Foo Fighters are just another poppy band.
and Nirvana was probably the biggest Seattle band fame wise but IMHO they were the worst of the big 4 that came out at the time and if I had to give a top 20 they wouldnt have even made the top ten…well maybe the top ten but it would have been close.
SoundGarden was better on a dozen different levels, Pearl Jam was a great rock and roll band who got labeled grunge due to location/timing and Alice in Chains was a hell of a band all the way around. bands most of you never heard of, Hammerbox, Funky Stew, Silly Rabit, Bathtub Gin, Tad, Panic…man find me an old copy of the Rocket.
comparing Nirvana and Foo Fighters is pretty pointless, they are 2 very very different bands in different genre’s.
He and Sinbad were in the same band?
Not even that. Nirvana, without Calvin Johnson (of Beat Happening fame), wouldn’t exist. While someday science may allow for organs to grow in fields, music will never exist apart from the body of experience drawn before it. Even picking up a guitar at Wal Mart for 8 shellfish and 9 squid is only possible through a 100 year music legacy we all collectively carry as a society. Saying Nirvana was new, fresh, original, or any of these things is saying that Kurt is a bubble boy. The fact of the matter is that punk hadn’t been popular in nearly a decade, after cocaine and overt homosexuality took over. While the underground existed throughout the 80’s, it wasn’t until the testosterone fueled ball rock phase that punk burdened through began to fade out, replaced by more acceptable emo sensibilities. We don’t have to take our shirts off and rub together to show how pissed off we are, we can simply be pissed off for no apparent reason. Or not pissed off at all. Once punk mellowed out, people flocked to it once again, just as people will always flock to the movement where they feel like they, too, can be geniuses. Dig?