Originally Posted by princeofcats67

"Grunge was just a different animal altogether

Can you expand upon this idea? From my perspective it was either punk (Nirvana, STP, Pearl Jam) or metal (Alice in Chains, Soundgarden) produced with pop production values (okay, one thing I can say I truly hate and find to have no redeeming value is the way Butch Vig engineers drums). I don't particularly see where "Grunge" was particularly anything more than purely a marketing tool. If there was a genuine style change it was post grunge, where you had pop-punk groups like Greenday and The Offspring being played along side (honestly I've never come up with a good descriptor for the style, I just called it) wuss rock groups like Better Than Ezra, Counting Crows, or Soul Asylum (and that's not an insult, some of the groups were really great and wrote some amazing songs, it's just wuss rock).

So I guess I'm just trying to figure out what felt so different from GnR to Soundgarden that made it this firm division in your mind?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Can you expand upon this idea? From my perspective it was either punk (Nirvana, STP, Pearl Jam) or metal (Alice in Chains, Soundgarden) produced with pop production values (okay, one thing I can say I truly hate and find to have no redeeming value is the way Butch Vig engineers drums). I don't particularly see where "Grunge" was particularly anything more than purely a marketing tool. If there was a genuine style change it was post grunge, where you had pop-punk groups like Greenday and The Offspring being played along side (honestly I've never come up with a good descriptor for the style, I just called it) wuss rock groups like Better Than Ezra, Counting Crows, or Soul Asylum (and that's not an insult, some of the groups were really great and wrote some amazing songs, it's just wuss rock).

So I guess I'm just trying to figure out what felt so different from GnR to Soundgarden that made it this firm division in your mind?

Hey Kepi. I've been thinking a little about this, but I have a question for you before I respond
directly to your question.

Are you asking me about that difference in an "inside baseball"-sense, or do you mean in an
"effect on society"-sense(or both/something else)? The two are related, IMO, but the discussion
would be very different because, in the latter sense, we're only dealing with songs that received
some threshold of exposure.


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey Kepi. I've been thinking a little about this, but I have a question for you before I respond
directly to your question.

Are you asking me about that difference in an "inside baseball"-sense, or do you mean in an
"effect on society"-sense(or both/something else)? The two are related, IMO, but the discussion
would be very different because, in the latter sense, we're only dealing with songs that received
some threshold of exposure.


Prince

Kinda both. I mean, there obviously was a change. It's well documented. I'm more trying to understand why there was such a cleaving. It's probably an "inside baseball" kinda thing, because I remember watching Inside the Music several times where they'd refer to Grunge as kinda the end all for an era, so I know you're right... I'm just trying to see it and understand.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Kinda both. I mean, there obviously was a change. It's well documented. I'm more trying to understand why there was such a cleaving. It's probably an "inside baseball" kinda thing, because I remember watching Inside the Music several times where they'd refer to Grunge as kinda the end all for an era, so I know you're right... I'm just trying to see it and understand.

I agree that there was a change, but I won't go as far to say that "I'm right"(I may be over-critical
here, but I'd rather not take anything for granted). Semo successfully corrected me on the
"classic rock"-label, and that helped me to clarify what I meant by stating what I experienced, and
believe occured. So maybe we could agree that something changed, but we're not quite sure why it
changed. And, you and I are discussing that possible change i/r/t likenesses and differences in the music
(knowing that there are many variables that were probably in-play, and usually are in-play i/r/t
changes in music). I believe that's where we're at, currently.

And two things to consider. One is that there have been changes like this before. I believe
The Beatles-I Want To Hold Your Hand(here in the States) was one of those moments. I could
do an "inside baseball" on that(as well as the actual progression of The Beatles releases i/r/t
songwriting(ie: their releases in England).

Also, there was alot more going-on musically around that time-period; "Grunge" was only
one-aspect of what was occuring. IOW, an "inside baseball" drill-down on "Grunge" vs "Pre-Grunge"
is fine, but there's also a larger change that occured, IMO.

That said, I still submit that Nirvana-SLTS(and Pearl-Jam Ten) were "the spark".


Prince

PS: So, I'm going to use GnR vs Soundgarden as a starting point, and move around it,
if that's OK with you.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I agree that there was a change, but I won't go as far to say that "I'm right"(I may be over-critical
here, but I'd rather not take anything for granted). Semo successfully corrected me on the
"classic rock"-label, and that helped me to clarify what I meant by stating what I experienced, and
believe occured. So maybe we could agree that something changed, but we're not quite sure why it
changed. And, you and I are discussing that possible change i/r/t likenesses and differences in the music
(knowing that there are many variables that were probably in-play, and usually are in-play i/r/t
changes in music). I believe that's where we're at, currently.

And two things to consider. One is that there have been changes like this before. I believe
The Beatles-I Want To Hold Your Hand(here in the States) was one of those moments. I could
do an "inside baseball" on that(as well as the actual progression of The Beatles releases i/r/t
songwriting(ie: their releases in England).

Also, there was alot more going-on musically around that time-period; "Grunge" was only
one-aspect of what was occuring. IOW, an "inside baseball" drill-down on "Grunge" vs "Pre-Grunge"
is fine, but there's also a larger change that occured, IMO.

That said, I still submit that Nirvana-SLTS(and Pearl-Jam Ten) were "the spark".


Prince

PS: So, I'm going to use GnR vs Soundgarden as a starting point, and move around it,
if that's OK with you.

Sounds good to me, because I like both those bands.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Sounds good to me, because I like both those bands.

That's cool because it'll help hold your interest, but it can also be problematic in that there's
a possibility for not being critical of certain aspects of the artists-output(and thus not identifying
certain variables that may or may not be significant) IOW, I'm not really a "fan" in this conversation;
It's more of an analysis. Still, describing what we like or dislike might help us to understand some
generational differences. So, that's that.

Let's just start here with a brief overview.

I'm working-on trying to find a way to describe it. I usually communicate with other
musicians face-to-face and use analogies to describe abstract ideas/observations. Very
generally speaking, I would describe the overall "grunge" sound as being "bottom-up heavy",
"raw", and very "un-orthodox"("orthodoxy" being eg: "1-5-4"/"1-b7-4"-based songs, 4/4-timing,
"verse/chorus/lead-break"-model, A440-tuning, certain lyrical content, melody and harmony!).
[Note: I understand that there were a number of Eb-tuned material circulating before "grunge".]

Also, keep in mind that were talking about the "average" listener. IOW, I'm not talking about kids
that may be listening and using music as a vehicle for anything related to "culture". I'm also not
talking about music-lovers(ie: people that normally hunt-down deep-tracks and new/different music);
Most don't. The "average" listener only really gets exposed to what they hear on the radio
(ie: Top 40/Music that actually gets played and possibly some deep tracks on CDs that are purchased).
IOW, the "average" listener has never heard, of heard-of Pantera, and never will(and IMO,
even Soundgarden is a stretch). Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that Soundgarden
isn't an amaizng band; They are, IMO. But it's difficult for me to think the "average" listener even
knows Black Hole Sun, much less, My Wave. They may know Sweet Child O' Mine though, IMO.

So, if we're talking about GnR vs Soundgarden, we're really talking about similarities and
differences between "Grunge" and "Pre-Grunge", IMO. IOW, the heavier/darker-stuff
(ie: Ozzy-No More Tears).


Prince

PS: I'll put something together when I get a chance, but certainly feel free to put something out there.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Unorthodoxy

I both see what you're saying and don't. I mean, as far as orthodoxy is concerned, it's true that Grunge veered away from a 1-4-5 major scale progression. However, the standard deviation for a grunge song was to include a stop and restart into chorus after the bridge (which still usually came with some sort of solo). Now when we're talking about breaking Orthodoxy, I'd say GnR's 9 minute hit opus November Rain wasn't exactly orthodox. And that's, I think, where I'm confused.

Sure there's a different progression from what the average was, but that was broken semi-regularly. Now, when we're talking about the average listener, sure they hadn't heard Soundgarden before, because they'd never been on the radio before. But what made average change (because I see that it did, I mean, my stepbrother went from being into hair metal to gangsta rap in that era, I think because he was turned off by grunge).

Originally Posted by Kepi

I both see what you're saying and don't. I mean, as far as orthodoxy is concerned, it's true that Grunge veered away from a 1-4-5 major scale progression. However, the standard deviation for a grunge song was to include a stop and restart into chorus after the bridge (which still usually came with some sort of solo). Now when we're talking about breaking Orthodoxy, I'd say GnR's 9 minute hit opus November Rain wasn't exactly orthodox. And that's, I think, where I'm confused.

Let me put it this way. The song November Rain(as far as how it's constructed) is what I would call
"Orthodox"; So, it's basically just a really long "Orthodox-ly written"-song. It wouldn't be the first
time that long songs were popular. I can think of a few off the top of my head:

Bob Dylan-Like A Rolling Stone(6:13)
The Doors-Light My Fire(7:05), (4:40) long-edit, and (2:52) single-edit.
Iron Butterfly-In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida(17:05), (2:52) single-edit.
Queen-Bohemian Rhapsody(5:55)
Meatlof-Paradise By The Dashboard Light(8:28), (7:55) single (5:32) single-edit.

And long songs sometimes made a band. Rush-2112 was one whole side and it's cult-popularity
pretty much kept them alive when the label was going to cut them, but Fleetwood Mac-Tusk pretty
much destroyed any momentum they had from Rumors.

ETA: I spaced-out here i/r/t FM's Tusk. I was thinking about double-albums i/r/t Use Your Illusion Pt. 1 & 2
(which I mention in the next paragraph). I'm leaving it because it kinda speaks to the concept of "excess".

But I'm really glad you brought-up November Rain because, it may just be that sort of "popularity"
that gets interpreted as "arrogance"?,(maybe), that leads to a desire for something new/different.
Consider that November Rain was on GnR-Use Your Illusion Pt.1. Those guys released two seperate
records simultaneously and I'd have to feel like people said..."Seriously, guys? 2 records. Seriously?".
It could be that a 9-minute November Rain sorta represented an "over-the-top"-moment. I'd actually
like to get Semo's thoughts about this.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Sure there's a different progression from what the average was, but that was broken semi-regularly. Now, when we're talking about the average listener, sure they hadn't heard Soundgarden before, because they'd never been on the radio before. But what made average change (because I see that it did, I mean, my stepbrother went from being into hair metal to gangsta rap in that era, I think because he was turned off by grunge).

This is jumping the gun a little, but I'm trying to think of a Soundgarden song(of the bigger ones
that may even possibly have been heard that wasn't in an odd time-meter, other then the bulk
of Black Hole Sun(probably why that was their most accessable tune, maybe). Don't get me wrong,
they're great and deserved Grammys for that stuff, IMO(not that a Grammy really means anything,
per se).

I'd also point to Soundgarden's alternate-tunings, drop-D tunings, lowered-tunings(although I already
stated that Eb-tuned songs were already gaining exposure (eg: GnR!). Like I said, I can go through
their main songs and show you stuff like: playing the same three chords through most of the whole song,
in an odd time-meter, with a pretty "depressed" vocal-delivery(eg: Fell On Black Days). Another thing
about SG(and a bunch of Grunge, in general, was a move from light to intense(whisper to shout) in
the same song(eg: Smashing Pumpkins' Billy Corgan did that all the time); Nirvana's-SMTS pretty much
is that, IMO.

What I'm getting-at is that people actually did embrace "un-orthodoxy". And to some degree,
the more "un-orthodox" you could be, the better...if it was "good"(and that's another loaded term).
It's kinda like, what are people "ready for"?; What are they open to embracing? It seems to me that
"Grunge" fans, or a certain amount of listeners in general, were ready to, and did, embrace some pretty
new/different/un-orthodox-stuff around that time period. And it's across the board, IMO.
Odd-timing, tempo, lyrical-content, vocal delivery, etc. You name it.


Prince

PS: This is me pretty much free-thinking here. I'd rather be more cohesive in the delivery, but
I'm going to leave this post anyway.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Orthodoxy vs. Unorthodoxy

I guess in my mind, when I think of the average listener, I don't think of a person who knows how to keep beat or has any clue of something is in tune or out of tune. I mean, on a sort of primal level, they know there's a difference in sound, but I know they don't care about beat because they can't keep it even in 4/4 time. They don't care if a song is in drop D.

So even though, yes, playing unorthodox time signatures and having changing time signatures in songs was definite a big thing in the 90's there were still lots of songs in 4/4 time (The Cranberries' "Zombie" and "Dream" were really standard fare for that). What I don't really get is the division. I don't understand why groups that were popular 2 and 3 years before the onset of grunge couldn't get played on the same stations as your stations playing "alt" rock. Considering I could never figure out what the format requirements were for alt rock, I guess my question is "why the need for 2 formats?"

Originally Posted by Kepi

I guess in my mind, when I think of the average listener, I don't think of a person who knows how to keep beat or has any clue of something is in tune or out of tune. I mean, on a sort of primal level, they know there's a difference in sound, but I know they don't care about beat because they can't keep it even in 4/4 time. They don't care if a song is in drop D.

I hear what you're saying, but those tunings and rhythms have an effect on people whether or not they realize it, IMO. Plus, you ever try to dance to an odd-timed tune? I mean I believe we both recognize that there was some sort of more "lower" thing happening(think of the advent of the 5-string bass/7-string guitar). And it was darker, too. And actually got pretty weird from my POV. There's always a continuum in-place, but it seems to me that "Grunge" just combined alot of those characteristics all at once. It's like a "culture"-thing.

Here's what I mean. While I could identify with Warrant(eg: Down Boys), GnR was just a heavy/harder version.
But I couldn't "do" Soundgarden. And while the heavier folks(usually younger Xers) could hang with GnR, they
could "do" Soundgarden, but not Warrant. In fact, Warrant tried to hang with Dog Eat Dog, but couldn't
(eg: Hole In My Wall). And if we want to take it further, a lot of new "Grunge" fans couldn't "do" Metallica
(eventhough I believe we're showing that Metallica-One was a real "watershed"-moment for some of the
"sound" that we're describing. IOW, One actually got played, so it set people up to be able to accept odd-time meters, unison instrumentation w/vocal-line(ie: "Hold my breath as I wish for death"/"Now the world is gone,
I'm just one".) That type of song was just never out there before. All I'm saying is that "Grunge" really embraced
a lot of those aspects, crammed 'em all together, and people responded for whatever reason
(but that's a different discussion).

Here's an example I thought about when going-back over the Soundgarden tunes. "Spoonman" pretty much
says it all. So, I see this tune and say: "WTF is a Spoonman"? I don't want to hear a song about him; I want melody & harmony, w/some straight-progressions, some hooks, maybe a recognizable riff here or there, and some semi-crunchy guitars, and what I believe Soundgarden was saying is: all this glam-metal is BS; Spoonman's where's it's at. He's better than all this fake-shit(as far as fundamentals, image, and stuff are concerned). And that's really it. Being "Fake". IMO, Gen X despises fakeness(and I would say personally that "fake" is OK as long as everybody realizes it's fake and doesnt take it all so seriously). But then again, not everybody can handle the type of "truth" that "Grunge" was laying-out. It's sorta like that line from Elizabeth Taylor in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? where she answers
"I am, George. I am."

But ultimately, they ended-up being "fake" in their own way as far as I'm concerned. So...

Originally Posted by Kepi

So even though, yes, playing unorthodox time signatures and having changing time signatures in songs was definite a big thing in the 90's there were still lots of songs in 4/4 time(TheCranberries'"Zombie" and "Dream" were really standard fare for that). What I don't really get is the division. I don't understand why groups that were popular 2 and 3 years before the onset of grunge couldn't get played on the same stations as your stations playing "alt" rock. Considering I could never figure out what the format requirements were for alt rock, I guess my question is "why the need for 2 formats?"

Basically, white-leather jackets and "glam" vids with guys shirts open sorta-stuff. I think Kip Winger
really took the cake on that sorta thing. Like I said earlier, I believe it was necessary in a way(I mean
it did happen, so that's just the way things go.). And all I'm saying is that I personally believe that the
change was the most significant because, as Semo was saying earlier, it forced a jettison of a whole
slew of Boomer-Rock(ie: '70's AOR eg: The Eagles). And from my perspective, the only way a station
could temporarily survive attempting to do-it-all was to stick "Grunge" in the basement(9pm-Mid). But, IMO,
alot of stations said "screw that, we'll just play the '70's/Early-'80's-stuff all the time. Eventually some of
the later '80's bands(eg: Def Leppard, Bon Jovi) started creeping back in, because those songs were really
popular, and IMO, were popular for a reason(ie: the music... plus now, nostalgia).


Prince

PS:On a personal note, after I left radio, I started playing with some younger guys who were really into Alice In Chains and stuff. They were pretty much all more "intense" than I was. Too heavy, too loud, to many rhythmic hits, basically: Too intense. Once I started gigging-around, I noticed that almost all the young bass-players were playing "slap and tickle", and that sorta thing just doesn't fly with me; I'm an "old dude" that plays Hendrix/The Beatles on Telecasters. I'm "overdrive" where they're "distortion". I'm primarily into melody and high-harmony where they're bass and drums(it's a mix, but, generally speaking). So what I'm attempting to say is that the newer-stuff was more "grounded"(ie: more real "physically"). That "physicality" goes along with all the rhythmic-stuff and lower-tunings.
And not to get too far away from this, across the board, music got "funkier", IMO(although in my circles, we call it "white-boy funk" eg: The Spin Doctors, Blues Traveler, DMB).

Let me guess; The reason you got into playing bass was Flea and Les Claypool. Am I close?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Plus, you ever tried to dance to an odd timed tune?

Yeah. There are some timings that are difficult, and it gets harder if it's a dance with formal moves (like the hustle or other disco type dances). But have you ever seen the average person dance? They're not on time. I was at an Atmosphere show. It's hip-hop. Standard 4/4 timing dance your ass off hip hop. Slug was waving his arms back and forth and inciting the crowd to follow suit. I've never been more disappointed in humanity. Most people dancing aren't really dancing. They're flailing.

The reason I started playing Bass was Klaus Floride of the Dead Kennedys, specifically the song "I Spy". It's... Yeah, a little frenzied and intense, but it's I think a little more straight forward and less stylized than Flea or Claypool.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

But I'm really glad you brought-up November Rain because, it may just be that sort of "popularity"
that gets interpreted as "arrogance"?,(maybe), that leads to a desire for something new/different.
Consider that November Rain was on GnR-Use Your Illusion Pt.1. Those guys released two seperate
records simultaneously and I'd have to feel like people said..."Seriously, guys? 2 records. Seriously?".
It could be that a 9-minute November Rain sorta represented an "over-the-top"-moment. I'd actually
like to get Semo's thoughts about this.

What? Why me?

Okay, okay. Yeah. Since this is sort of related to the thread, I'll give this a shot.

The period between about 1991 and 1993 was a really strange one, musically. I mean, we've been talking about mainstream rock and grunge here, but that wasn't the only thing going on. Not at all. While it's true that Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was a big deal on a bunch of levels, this was also the period when Metallica broke through into the mainstream ("Enter Sandman" and "The Unforgiven") and R.E.M.'s Out of Time and "Losing My Religion" were all over the place. Tom Petty was still a crossover rock/Top 40 artist. In the world of straight pop, there was Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You", Elton John returned in a big way when he teamed up with George Michael for "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me", the Eurythmics' Annie Lennox had returned with her album Diva, and the single "Stay" by Shakespeare's Sister was ubiquitous. On the dance side, rave was in the process of breaking. EMF's "Unbelievable" shot to #1, the KLF's "Justified & Ancient" ended up just outside the Top 10. And, although it never charted inside the Top 40, LA Style's "James Brown Is Dead" was inescapable at clubs. At the very same time, we found ourselves in the throes of a Queen revival.

I've said it before, but the one song that best sums up what the period felt like to me is this one.

The reason that I'm starting by talking about everything except Guns N Roses is that there was a certain bombast and overblown theatricality to a lot of what was going on at the time. Even in film. (Terminator 2 was the must see movie of the period, and that would launch a series of new blockbusters that simply had to be seen on the big screen.) And yeah, this was even true of that first blast of "grunge": "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I mean, first of all, it's this bombastic anthem, right? That much is obvious. But look at the video (and I'll say right now that the video was a major part of the reason the song was a success) and you'll see that the visual representation of grunge was anything but low-fi and stripped down. And that wasn't confined to grunge, of course. I mean, k.d. lang's "Constant Craving" wasn't this major release or anything, but check out the video for that. Tom Petty was making short films with actual stars at the time.

Against that backdrop, the release of both Use Your Illusions, the length of "Don't Cry" and "November Rain", and even the overblown videos for both actually made perfect sense. It fit right in with what was going on at the time.

With that being said, there was also the sense that something had changed. Stuff that had seemed fresh and innovative just a short time before, under the old paradigm, seemed out of date already (sorry Queensrÿche, but it's true) and there was no telling where things were going to end up. I don't remember anyone saying specifically, "Hey, GnR's time is over," but I don't think that people would have objected if someone had thought to say it. Things were just expanding too far too fast for Axl Rose and Co. to remain relevant.

"O brave new world, That has such people in't."

(And it seems that I have unwittingly come back around to JPT's original topic.)

This thread has gravitated FAR away from its original purpose as it has become a music forum. Originally it was intended to be to try to compare the 1920's and the 1990's from a social, political and economic point of view. There is a thread titled Generations and Music where the bulk of the recent posts to this thread should really be placed.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

What? Why me?

Because I have a deep regard for your insights and criticisms, Silly.

Originally Posted by Semo

Okay, okay. Yeah. Since this is sort of related to the thread, I'll give this a shot.

The period between about 1991 and 1993 was a really strange one, musically. I mean, we've been talking about mainstream rock and grunge here, but that wasn't the only thing going on. Not at all. While it's true that Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was a big deal on a bunch of levels, this was also the period when Metallica broke through into the mainstream ("Enter Sandman" and "The Unforgiven") and R.E.M.'s Out of Time and "Losing My Religion" were all over the place. Tom Petty was still a crossover rock/Top 40 artist. In the world of straight pop, there was Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You", Elton John returned in a big way when he teamed up with George Michael for "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me", the Eurythmics' Annie Lennox had returned with her album Diva, and the single "Stay" by Shakespeare's Sister was ubiquitous. On the dance side, rave was in the process of breaking. EMF's "Unbelievable" shot to #1, the KLF's "Justified & Ancient" ended up just outside the Top 10. And, although it never charted inside the Top 40, LA Style's "James Brown Is Dead" was inescapable at clubs. At the very same time, we found ourselves in the throes of a Queen revival.

I've said it before, but the one song that best sums up what the period felt like to me is this one.

For the period we're talking about(early '90's), yeah, I believe I hear what you're saying.
I believe things changed in the mid-1990's, though. I don't want to elaborate and get
off-track.

Originally Posted by Semo

The reason that I'm starting by talking about everything except Guns N Roses is that there was a certain bombast and overblown theatricality to a lot of what was going on at the time. Even in film. (Terminator 2 was the must see movie of the period, and that would launch a series of new blockbusters that simply had to be seen on the big screen.) And yeah, this was even true of that first blast of "grunge": "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I mean, first of all, it's this bombastic anthem, right? That much is obvious. But look at the video (and I'll say right now that the video was a major part of the reason the song was a success) and you'll see that the visual representation of grunge was anything but low-fi and stripped down. And that wasn't confined to grunge, of course. I mean, k.d. lang's "Constant Craving" wasn't this major release or anything, but check out the video for that. Tom Petty was making short films with actual stars at the time.

Against that backdrop, the release of both Use Your Illusions, the length of "Don't Cry" and "November Rain", and even the overblown videos for both actually made perfect sense. It fit right in with what was going on at the time.

With that being said, there was also the sense that something had changed. Stuff that had seemed fresh and innovative just a short time before, under the old paradigm, seemed out of date already (sorry Queensrÿche, but it's true) and there was no telling where things were going to end up. I don't remember anyone saying specifically, "Hey, GnR's time is over," but I don't think that people would have objected if someone had thought to say it. Things were just expanding too far too fast for Axl Rose and Co. to remain relevant.

I was going to expand on this and what I saw occur going-forward, but I'm going to save it
for later.

Originally Posted by Semo

"O brave new world, That has such people in't."

You see why I wanted your opinion!


Prince

Originally Posted by Semo

(And it seems that I have unwittingly come back around to JPT's original topic.)

Unwittingly...right.

I would go farther than some of what's said above, and say that Grunge killed rock music altogether, not just the existing style of it. Also, being in the target age group for it, I knew very few people who liked it very much. For those who had been listening to mainstream music or "classic rock", it was too negative and unpleasant to listen to. For those who had been in to various "alternative" or "underground" styles, it was seen as a sell-out.

It seems to me that the music industry and entertainment industry in general were looking for "the new thing", and they jumped on this whole "Gen X" thing as a marketing ploy. Boomers were aging out of the pop market, and they had nothing better to promote. So you had strands of various styles that had been percolating since the late 70s - rap, metal, punk and "post-punk", and that's what ended up being brought forward. The whole Grunge thing was not that commercially successful in comparison to earlier trends, and it didn't take long before rap and R&B ended up dominating the 90s. Rock music had gone to a place that was not sustainable for a mass audience.

Grunge was not merely anti-hair metal. It was anti-music. It was a pose, not a musical style. Bands like the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc remain immortal, and can or could continue to fill stadiums to this day. The Police had a massive reunion tour a few years ago. The bands of the Grunge era have largely broken up and disappeared from public consciousness. Those that remain, like Pearl Jam, haven't sniffed real success since the early 1990s. The whole thing was a fraud, and most of the songs are completely forgettable.

More importantly, the stylistic rabbit-hole of poor musicianship, darkness and anger as requirements for "cred" resulted in the situation we have now, where rock music is nearly extinct.

JPT stumbled uncontrollably into the truth

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

JPT stumbled uncontrollably into the truth

[SARCASM] Yeah, because what we needed was more songs in 4/4 time.
[/SARCASM]

After I left rock-radio around 1992, the next record that pops-out as being important i/r/t a cultural trend
IMO was Green Day-Dookie(1994) and their first single off that record: Longview. I was then managing a
video rental store that also sold CDs, and it seemed every kid was buying it. I suspect that it was a case
of the next generational cohort exerting its desire. So, in my mind, where "grunge" was generally focused
on the grim realities of life, this new "power pop-punk" was a frustrated, sucker-punch, FU to "Grunge".
It's still a great pop-record to this day, IMO, and I'd say it's pretty much "watershed" for an entire musical
movement that was to present itself.

So, if this be true, would the generation that embraced Green Day-Dookie be the Y-Cusp? IOW, if 13-years-old
is around the time when music is used for personal(self)-identification, that would put it right around the time
when the Y-Cusp was hitting that age.


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

After I left rock-radio around 1992, the next record that pops-out as being important i/r/t a cultural trend
IMO was Green Day-Dookie(1994) and their first single off that record: Longview. I was then managing a
video rental store that also sold CDs, and it seemed every kid was buying it. I suspect that it was a case
of the next generational cohort exerting its desire. So, in my mind, where "grunge" was generally focused
on the grim realities of life, this new "power pop-punk" was a frustrated, sucker-punch, FU to "Grunge".
It's still a great pop-record to this day, IMO, and I'd say it's pretty much "watershed" for an entire musical
movement that was to present itself.

So, if this be true, would the generation that embraced Green Day-Dookie be the Y-Cusp? IOW, if 13-years-old
is around the time when music is used for personal(self)-identification, that would put it right around the time
when the Y-Cusp was hitting that age.


Prince

Dookie and The Offspring's Smash are definitely the "intro to cool" album for the Y cusp. I wouldn't say it's an FU to grunge mainly because most grunge was a form of punk, just slowed down and with the progressions played backwards. Prior to adding pop production values, most of the bands we label grunge were just punk/metal fusion bands that tended to err more on the punk side of things. If anything, I'd say Greenday and The Offspring were the solidification of grunge's effect on popular music.

Compare/contrast Seatle Grunge and East Bay/OC punk to blues and Jazz, with Swing coming in as comparable to third wave ska.

I think what Greenday and The Offspring really represented was an inability for the record industry to find a significant crop of new acts in one style to push to the public. Greenday was the only band willing to go to a major label out of their scene at the time (and they caught a lot of flack for it, too). Both bands had to do a lot of work to regain the street cred they lost. Rancid went on Mtv, and Epitaph records as a whole was unpopular for years because of that (well, a combination of that, profitting off Smash even though they lost The Offspring, getting Bad Religion radio airplay and having a disproportionately large amount of crappy bands on the label).

And really, what industry wants to tollerate that level of shennanigans? One that's struggling to find exploitable resources. That's why there was Green Day, The Offspring, and No Doubt getting played along side Bush, Counting Crows, and Radiohead. It doesn't make sense from a programming perspective until you factor in the reality that there were a lot of bands who were surviving and thriving, making an actual living, off playing niche music for scenes which had self contained, self sufficient distribution networks that rewarded greatly for those in them and punished harshly those that left.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

After I left rock-radio around 1992, the next record that pops-out as being important i/r/t a cultural trend
IMO was Green Day-Dookie(1994) and their first single off that record: Longview. I was then managing a
video rental store that also sold CDs, and it seemed every kid was buying it. I suspect that it was a case
of the next generational cohort exerting its desire. So, in my mind, where "grunge" was generally focused
on the grim realities of life, this new "power pop-punk" was a frustrated, sucker-punch, FU to "Grunge".
It's still a great pop-record to this day, IMO, and I'd say it's pretty much "watershed" for an entire musical
movement that was to present itself.

So, if this be true, would the generation that embraced Green Day-Dookie be the Y-Cusp? IOW, if 13-years-old
is around the time when music is used for personal(self)-identification, that would put it right around the time
when the Y-Cusp was hitting that age.


Prince

How funny that you came to this conclusion when in another thread I came to a similar conclusion about "formative years". And by the way your typical 13 year old in 1994 would've been MillennialX, the 1981 cohort.

A theoretical hypothesis based on the linked post I've been musing:

Some personal "formative period" data:

Chas'88's would be: 2001 - 2009.
MillennialX's would be: 1994 - 2002.
Uzi's would be: 1991 - 1999
ASB'65's would be: 1978 - 1986.
Roadbldr'59's would be: 1972 - 1980.
The Wonkette's would be: 1969 - 1978.
KaiserD2's would be: 1960 - 1968.
My Father's would be: 1956 - 1964.
The Grey Badger's would be: 1952 - 1960.

To use a variety of people of different ages.

What I hypothesize is that you can "commune", share "viewpoints", and "nostalgicize" about your formative years more easily with someone who shares some part of your "formative period", than you can with those who don't.

Theoretical suspicions:

MillennialX and I can commune more easily than Uzi & I can--though MillennialX can commune to us both.

The Wonkette, Roadbldr'59, & ASB'65 should all be able to talk about 1978 theoretically.

Theoretically there should be less of an ease of communication between The Wonkette & KaiserD2--though James50 (not included) would theoretically be able to speak to both of them.

The Grey Badger, My Father, and KaiserD2 should all be able to talk about 1960 theoretically.

We could probably call this "spread" the "sibling spread" as the majority of "siblings" of an individual would share a "formative period" with you and be born within that time.

Just another guess: In terms of actual siblings, only a "kid sibling" would be noted as being outside of the sibling spread culturally--but the "kid sibling" in terms of familial relationships would find older spreads easier to get along with considering different values of parenting and interactions with older siblings on a familial level--the cultural level being a different matter.

So, "sibling spreads" would be:

Chas'88's Sibling spread: 1980 - 1996 cohorts
MillennialX's Sibling spread: 1973 - 1989 cohorts
Uzi's Sibling spread: 1970 - 1986 cohorts
ASB'65's Sibling spread: 1956 - 1973 cohorts
Roadbldr'59's Sibling spread: 1951 - 1967 cohorts
The Wonkette's Sibling spread: 1948 - 1965 cohorts
KaiserD2's Sibling spread: 1939 - 1955 cohorts
My Father's Sibling spread: 1935 - 1951 cohorts (my father's actual siblings: were born from 1937 - 1951--so in this case it's quite accurate)
The Grey Badger's Siblings spread: 1931 - 1947

That again, is theoretical and in a lot of cases me just throwing numbers around--based upon a poll in which 49 voters participated on this site--which is something I don't like to do too often.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

After I left rock-radio around 1992, the next record that pops-out as being important i/r/t a cultural trend
IMO was Green Day-Dookie(1994) and their first single off that record: Longview. I was then managing a
video rental store that also sold CDs, and it seemed every kid was buying it. I suspect that it was a case
of the next generational cohort exerting its desire. So, in my mind, where "grunge" was generally focused
on the grim realities of life, this new "power pop-punk" was a frustrated, sucker-punch, FU to "Grunge".
It's still a great pop-record to this day, IMO, and I'd say it's pretty much "watershed" for an entire musical
movement that was to present itself.

So, if this be true, would the generation that embraced Green Day-Dookie be the Y-Cusp? IOW, if 13-years-old
is around the time when music is used for personal(self)-identification, that would put it right around the time
when the Y-Cusp was hitting that age.


Prince

As an early adopter of the punk/grunge/alternative music scene before the industry began creating these monikers to better divide them up in the music stores to sell more records I can tell you that all of the previously mentioned genres were simply called "punk music" by those who listened. Literally music listened to by punks. At that time a punk was just someone outside of the mainstream, up to and including (but not restricted to) actual punks (who in those days were mostly skater punks rather than the more familiar British variety). As many of my friends at the time were local skater punks, I was introduced to this sort of music through the usual distribution methods of the day. "Punk music" more generally meant damn near anyone making music DIY and who had not yet "sold out". The whole sell-out thing was very important to people at the time as it usually (but not always) marked the end of good material from a given band. Dookie was actually a great example of this phenomenon as it was the end of Green Day's influence amongst those who had bought their records before a major label signed them. It wasn't so much a middle finger to grunge as it was selling out to the man.

Punk could be folk music, rock, progressive rock, country, rap, metal, industrial, anything just so long as you remained loyal to the scene. I once saw a talented front man for a local punk band pull out a banjo and sing a perfect rendition of Rainbow Connection in front of a mosh pit (incredible). That was punk for young Xers.

Pop-punk was merely an abomination created by the recording industry to have bands that kinda-sorta sounded like the more edgy stuff but would still be snapped up by 13 year old girls.

Perhaps the best summation of what punk meant (and still means I suppose) appears in a song called 60% by a now aging punk band called NOFX (a band I loved back in the day and still love). Now well into their 40's, they created their own record label in 1990 to distribute their music. The label is known for having unusual rules (bands are only signed to 1-record deals).

Originally Posted by The Rani

I second that notion.
While they weren't "punk," R.E.M. is another classic example of the concept, considered sell-outs by most of us who had listened to them in the early 80s.
To a lesser (or perhaps greater) extent, U2. Lesser because they weren't as "underground" to begin with, greater because Bono turned into more of a self-important ass than Stipe ... IMO.

Selling out as a concept was both a completely ridiculous idea and an idea that had a great deal of merit. To be acceptable, music had to correctly mirror the self-destruction Xers were embracing at the time. Not an easy thing to pull off.

Originally Posted by Kepi

[SARCASM] Yeah, because what we needed was more songs in 4/4 time.
[/SARCASM]

It certainly was ridiculous wading through those Xer/3T songs that have no rhythm. If that was an experiment, it failed. Gimme 4/4 anytime over that. Even though, even Justin Bieber says there's too much emphasis today on the "beat beat beat...." Clever rhythms are great, but at least rhythm should be envigorating and bring some continuity and movement to the music. The dead noise of the 3T just doesn't make it.

There is no Y cusp, but there's an X/Y cusp.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Selling out as a concept was both a completely ridiculous idea and an idea that had a great deal of merit. To be acceptable, music had to correctly mirror the self-destruction Xers were embracing at the time. Not an easy thing to pull off.

[sarcasm]Yeah, self-destruction is a very inspiring basis for great art.[/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

[sarcasm]Yeah, self-destruction is a very inspiring basis for great art.[/sarcasm]

As it turns out, yes. Yes it is.

(complete with Pixies no less)