other than nirvana....no. and i don't enjoy listening to nirvana that much either.

I'm surprised people still debate grunge in this time and age. There wasn't enough of a style of playing for it to be regarded as such, but there were some similarities between certain bands that could be regarded as a common sound. Soundgarden were for the majority of the time a good band, and so were Mudhoney till they turned to meaningless pap. Nirvana were'nt a shit band at all, they just suffer from the constant overesposure that they still get. Threads like this sometimes make me wonder about what people really expect from music, apart from having a voluminous record collection to show off.

grunge... another made up term by journo hacks to describe a style of music that they dont understand fully to people who dont know what to understand fully...... yeah i know it came from mark arm origionally but i mean for wider useage!

to me..... nirvana are not grunge.....
to me mudhoney and dinosaur are kinda just because the music sounds grunge, sounds dirty, it sounds like it came from the ooze.... onomatopoiec rock (sorry if that spelling is wrong)

alice in chians, soundgarden, pearl fucking vedder jam sandwich, erm, fait no more to a point, nickelfuckers, any band that adopts that whiny nasaly irriating whine and plays loud guitars and is not "heavy metal" gets labelled as grunge... to me its a fucking turn off.. if itsd grunge then its usually shite

sonic youth of course got labeled as grunge during their height of popularity, along with babes in toyland, nirvana and even, and this made me laugh, my bloody valentine.... around the era of the rollercoaster tour thingy. melody maker has a lot to answer for..................

genre labelling is just a handy way for dumbasses to communicate to the wider audience. it makes a person who buys maybe 3 albums a year feel like they are part of some scene or other. it makes them feel in touch with the "kidz". its all bullshit, its all fashion trendyness, its all a fake. listen to music, like what you like.....

my favourite genre is that rare one of good music.......

i mean, this picture sums it up.. make yr expensive giutar and amp sound like a shitty broken cheap one....

Yes, I could never think of Nirvana as anything else but an excellent rock band. They didn't write 'pop songs', they wrote rock songs that sometimes had a pop edge to them. They operated like a rock band in popular culture terms, still that doesn't make them a pop band. The harder edge of rock music is almost never there with proper pop music.

to me grunge doesnt really mean a thing
but when i think of the term i usually associate it to pretty ordinary guys, bums, who cant play instruments like eric clapton and dont take things to serious like a Metal band, and arent as wacky and silly as Punks

being a decent song writer doesnt have anything to do with it

the only way the word grunge can be used
-music of 90s from the seattle area

yes, emos listen to nirvana,

but they rocked along tad and aic, (sonic youth approved)


with their end came the shit music scene
now thats a real movement, thus the phrase post-grunge especially for groups like prick.in.back

I agree. Grunge is just an easy category journalists made up. Soundgarden is completely different from Nirvana, Nirvana from Mudhoney, and so on. Myself, I always found Soundgarden boring and pretentious, but I loved Nirvana and few others from that Seattle scene and from that era that get dumped into the grunge category.

the word grunge was around before the bands of the 90s right

True. But how was it used before then (that is, before it was applied to those bands of the late 80s/early 90s)?

STOP STEALING MY THOUGHTS!!


grunge meant filth before that,
but it became a 'label' around the 90s if im not wrong (green river?)

Late 80's. Nirvana got slumped with the whole scene (rightly) because they came from Seattle.

I can see why you might find them boring, but pretentious?

I take back "pretentious." I throw that around too much for stuff I find boring.

Just boring, then. They just didn't "swing" very much. I find that true for a lot of sort of metal-influenced stuff. It lacks that r&b swing. Sometimes it can be pulled off. For example, Melvins, Boris. And so much of the time Soundgarden just sounds to me like a heavy metal band that takes itself too seriously. They're rather humorless. Humorless rather than pretentious then.

Whatever. If shit doesn't matter, why point out irrelevant bits of information, then?

the the home recordings and crap on nirvanas unreleased box set is what defines grunge for me, disagree if you need

I think of true grunge as lo-fi or at least not overly produced. That to me is what distinguished early Nirvana (Bleach) as grunge and later Nirvana as rock, and what distinguished Soundgarden as rock. I used to think of Beat Happening as grunge, too. Now people lump them into twee pop, which greatly irks me since twee pop wasn't even a term when the band was around.

i can name you 100 artists right now who don't dedicate themselves to writing songs and play music (keith fullerton whitman, earth, carcass, geto boys, charlemagne plaestine, i can go on and on).


first off, you put this out of context, i said that within the underground scene, these bands had already done artistically what nirvana did. and i was talking in the EIGHTIES. and the melvins tried to be radio-friendly? that's a new one.

and speaking of ignorant, are you going to tell me that nobody knew about replacements, dino or hüsker dü before saint kurt kabang? what an idiot (sorry, but it's idiocy to think that.)


sonic youth are not a 3 minute song songwriters.


so? you mean great artists are not influenced by anyone? my point is that soundgarden tried different things and progressed from album to album, instead of just trying to invert riffs out of funhouse.



in band time, a few years is fast, they had released like one or two albums before splitting town, that to me is fast. it matters because seattle was a dead town when it came to music; seattle hardcore had it's moments (mostly by the fartz) and they were some good bands, but mostly it was drunken idiots who tried their hardest to sound pretty much alike.



i think you missed the part that said they were disposable. it's not like they are my favorite bands in the world but they were better songwriters than mark fucking arm.

-----

and people, isn't it wonderful we're talking about music again?

I adore that Boris photo, by the way. What's that from?

The whole rip-off guilt that exists in rock music is abhorrent.

forthcoming 7" single.

--

and swa(y) thanks for clarifying, i agree mostly; but i didn't say nirvana was a rip off of the stooges, it was mostly bands that directly influenced nirvana from seattle (mostly mudhoney).

but one thing i don't agree is what you say about boris, they might (and this a big stretching "might") sound like the melvins, perhaps even rip them off as you said, but they also rip off (if it ever applied) amon düül II, earth, motörhead, ghost, my bloody valentine, black sabbath, eyehategod, bathory, brian eno, the stooges, guru guru, acid mothers temple, corrupted, and many many many more bands that might sound like them in seconds.