Jump to content

Do you consider Grunge a real music genre?


Haters Gonna Hate

Recommended Posts

I think Grunge is more of a movement, statement, mentality that was different than what rock was offering at the time rather than Grunge being a sub-genre of rock. I mean the main four bands of the Grunge movement pretty much have different sounds from each other so we can't really say it's a genre by itself.

Edited by Anguyen92
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternative rock? to what started to become joke rock, or too tied up to the roots and bloated.

Alice In Chains and Soundgarden are kinda more metal to me. Nirvana comes from or at least combined Black Sabbath with their other influences as well, like those bands, but it's also more punk and Beatles.

Pearl Jam is kinda a retro hard rock thing that sounds fresh and sterile at times? first time I've heard them my reaction was this is cool, but something is missing. But what's there I can relate to. Always honest and naked with good energy.

I feel like AIC and Pearl Jam took it very seriously while Nirvana had something those bands lacked imo. It was more immediate and cathartic.

Superunknown is just a great hard rock album. Soundgarden is a lot of Zeppelin as well.

And Mudhoney punk dirty and loud.

To answer the queastion: No, I do not consider it to be a real genre cause the bands that are most recognized as "grunge" are too different from one another to get bunched together like that.

To me it was just the next evolution in a few new fresh directions of a melting pot of hard rock, punk, and metal. Less bullshit, more honest at least compared to many bands that were on top before the next thing came along.

From all of those, it was clearly Nirvana really taking the next step imo. A sharp contrast to the fake image driven bands but also the self indulging and the tired and old arena rock thing.

Since Nirvana, it is my opinion that Radiohead was the next step and it stopped there in a way for me. Not primal, but no one but them made such a big step forward in rock music without making it aimless and dumb or just a copy of something else that was already done before.

Faith No More contributed a lot to make it more original and fearless and they've truly rocked, but Radiohead took over with what they did. Not as hard, but it had something else that just worked really well. Their concepts were the strongest after Faith No More was no more. Was more pop rock really.

The Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A. They've made U2 obsolete.

Nirvana and Radiohead: the R.E.M connection. It's just that Radiohead have some Pink Floyd in them or that vibe at least and Nirvana was get to the point with powerful riffs and pure expression and directness musically. But both were the real deal to me.

Then Muse and Coldplay copied Radiohead and since then no band has claimed the throne imo. Not inventive, accepted, adventurous, original and talented as Radiohead at least.

Everything after that felt too derivative. New sub bands, watered down to make it easier to swallow or just retro bands or bands that were good at combining many cool flavors together but you could always break it apart and see it's not the next step. Not free of their influences as bands to create something that was never really done before in that way.

Edited by Rovim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, i think it's a load of fuckin' bollocks and so was most of the music that came under it's banner, precisely because it was trying to live up to this vague idea about Seattle and...greyness and rain and long hair and fuzzy guitars and all that kinda bullshit. It's a marketing scheme basically, bands began coming out of Seattle that needed some kind of cohesive concept they could tie it together with and make it marketable and journalists facilitated the corporate magazines that they work for with this by way of a throwaway term that Mark Arm from Mudhoney used once, rather flippantly.

I guess it's identifiable by a certain sound that sets it apart but in terms of being an out and out other type of music, no, it's a sub-division of rock, it's a way people help themselves in trying to feel unique, i'm this kinda rock, i'm that kind of rock...but ultimately it's a load of bullshit and it leads eventually to a kind of musical fascism which is like the antithesis of the creative experience, the essence of which is freedom, freedom to create.

If you're bound by some silly idea like you gotta play this way, you gotta dress this way, you gotta be from here then quite frankly you're a wanker musically as far as I'm concerned. I mean one can exploit prejudice to your benefit too so working within certain restrictive notions for a time can be beneficial i think but ultimately it just degrades music and makes it insubstantial and hokey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternative rock? to what started to become joke rock, or too tied up to the roots and bloated.

Alice In Chains and Soundgarden are kinda more metal to me. Nirvana comes from or at least combined Black Sabbath with their other influences as well, like those bands, but it's also more punk and Beatles.

Pearl Jam is kinda a retro hard rock thing that sounds fresh and sterile at times? first time I've heard them my reaction was this is cool, but something is missing. But what's there I can relate to. Always honest and naked with good energy.

I feel like AIC and Pearl Jam took it very seriously while Nirvana had something those bands lacked imo. It was more immediate and cathartic.

Superunknown is just a great hard rock album. Soundgarden is a lot of Zeppelin as well.

And Mudhoney punk dirty and loud.

To answer the queastion: No, I do not consider it to be a real genre cause the bands that are most recognized as "grunge" are too different from one another to get bunched together like that.

To me it was just the next evolution in a few new fresh directions of a melting pot of hard rock, punk, and metal. Less bullshit, more honest at least compared to many bands that were on top before the next thing came along.

From all of those, it was clearly Nirvana really taking the next step imo. A sharp contrast to the fake image driven bands but also the self indulging and the tired and old arena rock thing.

Since Nirvana, it is my opinion that Radiohead was the next step and it stopped there in a way for me. Not primal, but no one but them made such a big step forward in rock music without making it aimless and dumb or just a copy of something else that was already done before.

Faith No More contributed a lot to make it more original and fearless and they've truly rocked, but Radiohead took over with what they did. Not as hard, but it had something else that just worked really well. Their concepts were the strongest after Faith No More was no more. Was more pop rock really.

The Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A. They've made U2 obsolete.

Nirvana and Radiohead: the R.E.M connection. It's just that Radiohead have some Pink Floyd in them or that vibe at least and Nirvana was get to the point with powerful riffs and pure expression and directness musically. But both were the real deal to me.

Then Muse and Coldplay copied Radiohead and since then no band has claimed the throne imo. Not inventive, accepted, adventurous, original and talented as Radiohead at least.

Everything after that felt too derivative. New sub bands, watered down to make it easier to swallow or just retro bands or bands that were good at combining many cool flavors together but you could always break it apart and see it's not the next step. Not free of their influences as bands to create something that was never really done before in that way.

this post pretty much says it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy shit, how many generalising posters here...

yes, i consider grunge as a genre
a sub genre? yes

a totally full "new" unique genre? not really

If you're bound by some silly idea like you gotta play this way, you gotta dress this way, you gotta be from here then quite frankly you're a wanker musically as far as I'm concerned.

Well, this can be said from ANY band or genre or musician...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's basically a media construct.

Grunge was a fashion term though wasn't it? Grunge fashion.

Half the bands were on Sub Pop. They all got major label deals and developed in their own ways.

Kind of like Brit Pop was invented by media. To create a scene. One issue of Select magazine had Denim, Suede, Radiohead, Blur, Pulp on the cover calling them Brit Pop. I don't think anyone thought these bands had much in common. The UK media seemed to like Nirvana because they had a more pop element.

Radiohead failed as a Brit pop band but had a hit with Creep in the US.

From that Oasis got called Brit pop but they are more of a rock band. And from Manchester.

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radiohead failed as a Brit pop band but had a hit with Creep in the US.

I think maybe if Radiohead were interested in writing more hits or Creep-like songs they would have been bigger in the US? idk.

But artistically, they were the only band imo to have the ability and interest to move forward unlike Oasis for example which are a great band but they didn't really add anything.

Success in the US. They could have been bigger maybe, but they still seemed to influence bands that are huge in the US (I think) and many other bands as well.

like Coldplay or Muse or whatever. A simplified version of Radiohead which is easier to digest or a more rock version but taking one or a few elements of Radiohead and just work from there, making something less interesting but more acceptable for an audience that isn't interested in deep meaning in every song or investing time digging in or just needs an easier way into the music.

You know... easy access bands. Radiohead got rid of the shadow of their influences after their first album enough to take a step forward. Pablo Honey which contained Creep was just the first pancake.

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy shit, how many generalising posters here...

yes, i consider grunge as a genre

a sub genre? yes

a totally full "new" unique genre? not really

If you're bound by some silly idea like you gotta play this way, you gotta dress this way, you gotta be from here then quite frankly you're a wanker musically as far as I'm concerned.

Well, this can be said from ANY band or genre or musician...

It is being said about any band or genre or musician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radiohead failed as a Brit pop band but had a hit with Creep in the US.

I think maybe if Radiohead were interested in writing more hits or Creep-like songs they would have been bigger in the US? idk.

But artistically, they were the only band imo to have the ability and interest to move forward unlike Oasis for example which are a great band but they didn't really add anything.

Success in the US. They could have been bigger maybe, but they still seemed to influence bands that are huge in the US (I think) and many other bands as well.

like Coldplay or Muse or whatever. A simplified version of Radiohead which is easier to digest or a more rock version but taking one or a few elements of Radiohead and just work from there, making something less interesting but more acceptable for an audience that isn't interested in deep meaning in every song or investing time digging in or just needs an easier way into the music.

You know... easy access bands. Radiohead got rid of the shadow of their influences after their first album enough to take a step forward. Pablo Honey which contained Creep was just the first pancake.

I think they had the talent to develop in any direction. They dropped most of the pop element on Pablo Honey pretty quick.

It's just interesting how the media tried to put them in the Brit Pop category. But really they are from Oxford and probably not really as poppy and knowing as Pulp or Blur.

I feel like to break America you have to fit in and want it. Radiohead slotted in to the Depeche Mode or U2 role. Kind of earnest but cool. Radiohead are the same kind of guys as Pink Floyd. They aren't pissed up brummies like Sabbath or Zepp. Arty but earnest it plays well. Kind of angsty art rock like Smashing Pumpkins.

Blur and Pulp aren't rawk enough. They are singing about teapots and Grange Hill. It's not soul catharisis.

Noel always taking the piss in the interviews. And they Axl'd their tour. You have play the Tacoma Dome and destroy.

Blur have the talent but not the ambition to break America. They did get around to doing something that was possible on the self titled. Song 2 but I doubt they toured extensively to capitalise. They prob sent that song on their space probe.

Blur did the same as Radiohead, the first album was kind of indie dance to fit in. There's no Other Way got them in the game like Creep did for Radiohead. After they failed they got serious.

Oasis were the saviours of the NME. A more rock n roll Smiths or Stone Roses, The Sex Beatles. Like the new Motörhead. A roadie who can play guitar with tunes up for a session.

The difference is Oasis made their own scene whereas Radiohead, Blur, Pulp kind of hacked out a career.

Suede are kind of like Oasis in that way, never really changed to fit in and ended up with the Manics, Radiohead as the outsiders of Brit Pop.

Same as AIC, Smashing Pumpkins and Soundgarden maybe the dorks of grunge. But in the end they out lasted most bands and sold more.

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...