Dave Grohl Says He Wanted PJ Harvey to Front Nirvana

Foo Fighters frontman admits considering PJ Harvey as the new Nirvana singer.

Ultimate Guitar

Despite considering Nirvana a "hallowed ground" and stating that there is a good reason for not playing Nirvana tracks with the Foo Fighters live, frontman Dave Grohl has recently confessed that a PJ Harvey fronted Nirvana would be something he considers amazing.

In a recent interview with NME, Grohl admitted inviting Harvey to perform with the group during a recent Sound City concert in London after discussing such an option with the rest of the band.

"Every once in a while we talk about it. For the Sound City gig here in London we were thinking about musicians that we could invite because Stevie Nicks and John Fogerty couldn't make it. Someone came up with the idea of doing a Nirvana song with PJ Harvey. Kurt [Cobain] loved her and we love her and we thought, 'Yeah, what would we do?' I said: 'God, what if we were to do 'Milk It' from 'In Utero' with Polly singing?' We all looked at each other like, 'Woah, that would be amazing...' and then she couldn't do it!" the frontman said when asked about covering Nirvana songs live.

"The thing is, it's sacred ground. If we were ever to do something like that it would have to be right because you want to pay tribute. There's a reason Foo Fighters don't do Nirvana songs, and it's a good reason."

In another interview last week, Grohl has pointed out similar views in discussing the legacy of Nirvana and the reasons for leaving it be.

"There's a reason why the Foo Fighters don't blast out Nirvana songs every night - because we have a lot of respect for them. You know, that's hallowed ground. We have to be careful. We have to tread lightly. We have talked about it before, but the opportunity hasn't really come up, or it just hasn't felt right."

Apart from working on the new Foo Fighters release, the frontman is currently also busy with his Sound City Players supergroup project, featuring the likes of Paul McCartney, Trent Reznor, John Fogerty and Stevie Nicks.

65 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    Well... Grunge lives. Happy he didn't invite Jared Leto.
    "Grunge lives" in the minds of dolts who actually think the term means anything
    Oh, come on. You could apply the arguments against the "existence" of grunge to any other rock sub-genre. They're just abstract boundaries defined by people. What does "progressive rock" mean? What does "alternative rock" mean? What does "metal" mean? Grunge can exist simply because people say it exists.
    I just don't see those terms as being nearly as meaningless as 'grunge'. Well, perhaps 'alternatiove' is currently as meaningless, but at least at one time it kind of signified something. "Metal' is a legit term simply because it refers to heavier rock music. I agree that sub-genres of 'metal' can be just as ridiculous, where people argue over whether something is 'death' or 'black' or whatever. "progressive' I believe is a fairly specific term that hs a meaning - complex rock-ish music played by musicians who are knowledgable of music theory and apply that knowledge to the music. 'grunge', on the other hand, doesn't really seem to mean anything. A handful of bands were arbitrarily called 'grunge' even though each one of them could be better described as something else. I mean, soundgarden, alice in chains and nirvana really don't sound very much alike one anoter. They're all hard rock bands and that's about as far as the similarity goes, but somehow they're all 'grunge' by some styrange connection that no one can describe??? what??? The common attempt at defining 'grunge' is that it's hard rock music that's not quite heavy enough to be metal but that's influenced equally by 70's hard rock like zepplin and sabbath and punk rock. Well, that's a really broad genre then. You could describe the white stripes, the black keys and whole host of others that way. It's just too pointless a term at this point, even compared to other genre terms.
    You are not using genre as a broad enough term. A musical genre does not HAVE to describe a sound. Grunge was attributed to those bands as a result of when they were and where they were. As well as lyrical content and general ideas, a DIY self taught aesthetic, a rejection to regular conventions. There are reasons we call them grunge. Also, genre is something that we give to bands most of the time, Alice In Chains don't call themselves a grunge band; but I still know them as grunge.
    perhaps my main problem is that grunge is really just a stupid and annoying word. It doesn't help that I associate it more than any other term with capitalists trying to market the crap out of something. I instantly recall being disgusted by such capitalist abortions like the DOD 'grunge' pedal and the dopey kids who rushed out and bought it because they were too lame and uncreative to try and come up with their own guitar sound.
    We seem to be getting closer and closer to them reuniting and actually playing Nirvana songs. First the Foos album with Krist on, then the Sound City song with McCartney, now Dave is openly discussing playing Nirvana songs.
    Harvey would be awesome on Milk It.
    Milk It is such a great song. In Utero is definitely my favorite Nirvana album by far.
    And there I was thinking there wasn't anyone to replace Kurt... How did I not think of Polly?! I would pay a lot of money to see Nirvana fronted by PJ Harvey.
    Good Guy Grohl: Now fronts his own band, sticks to playing drums if Nirvana reunites.
    I don't know what you're trying to accomplish advertising handbags and all this garbage on this site
    No, he didn't want her to 'front' Nirvana. He wanted her to sing a Nirvana song with him and Krist and Pat. Small difference, but an important one.
    Shaun Morgan!
    Shawn is good, but he's starting to lose his way. His new stuff is cool but he should go back to Saron Gas type stuff where he just played what he liked and gave no shits about what sold. No offense to him as I do like everything seether ever put out but Fragile was amazing.
    Don't get me wrong I love PJ Harvey. Dave should just front the new band with PJ Harvey and play Nirvana songs with in that set.
    but then it's not the band reuniting if Grohl isnt on drums, Krist isnt on bass and Pat isnt on geet, its just covers...
    Is no one going to call UG out on how damn misleading this article's title is? Grohl never said anything even resembling "Dave Grohl Says He Wanted PJ Harvey to Front Nirvana". All he said was he wanted Harvey to sing on a cover.
    I'd love to hear Grohl singing You Know You're Right. But if he doesn't wanna perform Nirvana with FF that's fine, and I respect it.
    Dave, once again making sure his cock's stuck in every pie. im getting tired of his attention whoring now, not a week goes by without "DAVE GROHL SAYS" something irrelevant or desperate.
    Word. He's clearly feeling the effect of not being asked for his opinion on everything, so what better way to reverse it than carpet bomb the globe with them instead. I've said it before, but if people aren't careful, they'll stray within the 1Gr radius danger zone and THAT WILL BE THAT.