As opposed to what? Jazz? Heavy metal? Country? Blues? All forms of music have their limitations. Grunge, in and of itself, is really just part of a larger "alternative" rock form that has always been a part of rock and pop music. Every style of music is limited to certain formats, attitudes and stylistic characteristics. It is how it can be categorized in the first place. Grunge was no more limited than heavy metal, whose place it took in the early 90's as top of the heap in rock music. This is also an over-generalization. Eddie Vedder, IMO, had a good voice. But, define "good" voice anyway. Jon Bon Jovi? Jim Morrison? Iggy Pop? Prince? Bob Dylan? Having a good or bad voice doesn't preclude you from being a quality artist. Dylan made a living off of a terrible voice by rock and pop standards. There were plenty of "grunge" singers who could sing very well, but if your point is that they didn't sing as much as growl, yell or scream, the same could be said of 80's heavy metal. The irony is that the most entertaining shows are usually the one's with the best music. I've been to dozens upon dozens of concerts and the one's that strike me as the best were the one's with the least "entertainment" value, the least theatrics. Dave Matthews, Black Crowes, Mr. Big, King's X, Robert Plant, U2 and Billy Joel would all be at the top of my list and NONE of them did anything more than come out, play hard and sound good. I don't remember any special lighting, gimmiky performances or dazzling light shows - just great music. For me, hearing great music is being entertained. I don't really need anything else. By the same token, it didn't come on fast enough for me. I was playing heavy metal in the 80's at clubs and was getting, like many of my friends, intensely bored with the repetitiveness of the music. One of the DJ's at a hard rock club I frequented played me some various stuff - Soundgarden, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Mother Love Bone and a few others. It was so much more vibrant and had so much more honesty than 99.9 percent of the stuff being played. Plus, they didn't feel the need to tease their hair or wear make up which I found particularly refreshing especially considering they were guys! Frankly, I felt the same thing of new wave in the mid 80's and the same thing about alternative rock now. Music changes for a reason. The main reason is that it starts fresh and then gets stale. People's tastes change and bands get boring because they are doing the same thing someone else already did but not nearly as well. It's like a cheap knockoff. Every 10 years or so, the music biz needs a kick in the ass. I'm always happy to hear it when it does. It makes music interesting. I guess I just find it ironic that most of what you said about grunge could easily be turned to characterize 80's hair bands as well or disco or new wave or country rock or any other era of music. Your opinion that grunge music sucked is fine as an opinion, but it doesn't make it a limited form of music.
I think Everclear was more influenced by 70's arena rock and 80's hard rock than Nirvana. Everclear was already formed when Nivana was getting popular and they are roughly the same ages. To me, I hear a lot more Zepplin and Rolling Stones in them than I do Nirvana. BTW: They are a favorite of mine.
Sure you would. The "rebellious one" would do it, because he's seen so many other artists do it and he'd figure it would fit with his promoter-assigned "rebellious" approach.
I've heard this remark several times, usually from Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons. I always wonder, what is the connection between selling a lot of albums and having a life that doesn't "suck"...? Does being popular automatically mean you're happy all the time? Where does the assumption that a "life sucks" attitude is a contrivance come from?
I think that is a good point. Obviously, life really did suck for Kurt Cobain and the guy from AIC. I don't often understand why people get angry at those who have money if those who have the money complain. Money doesn't solve problems. In many cases, it makes them worse. Just because you are rich and famous doesn't mean that you still don't have problems in your life or that you should have to forfeit your right to complain.
Its not just grunge though, the rock music of that era was as a whole better. It wasnt processed like it is now. The same type of music is rarer but still present but you wont hear Pavement on the radio. And if you dont know about Pavement then geez...
Whoa there Freak, do you want to explain that one to me. If its in refrence to sounding like pearl Jam you need to do your history on STP. they were around before Pearl Jam, but Pearl Jams sucsess made it possible for them to come out with their stuff. Now if you want to call Creed a Pearl Jam wanna be, i got your back, but STP and Pearl Jam were two diffrent bands whos lead singers sounded similar.
TheFreak -- Stone Temple Pilots defintely benefited from the Seattle explosion but they've proven themselves to be more durable and just plain better than anything that ever came out of Seattle. I can't think of another band who consistently changed and improved their sound from album to album. Clone Temple Pilots is a moniker that was suitable ten years ago. No need for words to back me up, I would just suggest checking out No.4, Shangri-La-Dee-Da, or Tiny Music.
Right. I know more money would make me happy. That's why I'm pursuing an MBA. But I also know money's not the end-all be-all, and for some people, it doesn't help at all. If you're deranged enough to kill yourself, I think you're a bit beyond being comforted by material success. "Well, I would suck the bullets out of this gun, but the guy from the home theatre store is coming at 4 PM." As for STP, Tiny Music should have been an EP. Half the songs on it are terrible, if I remember correctly.
Gee, can't a man criticize a brand of music that someone else may like without being taken to task for it? Okay, I used a poor choice of words. I shouldn't be throwing out terms like 'limiting' anyway, not being a musician and all...I don't know a whole lot about music, I just know what I like. I don't know what kielled grunge musics, I was just making a guess. Who's to say it's dead though? Aren't bands like Creed and 3 Doors Down playing grunge? As for grunge 'taking heavy metal's place', I'd have to disagree with that. Black Sabbath is heavy metal. Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, Megadeth...those are 'metal' bands. What grunge displaced was 'pop metal'. I was merely pointing out that Cornell was more from the Rob Halford, Bruce Dickinson, Geoff Tate school of singing, which is more of a metal-style than a grunge one. I didn't say anything about theatrics, I said I wanted to be entertained. I don't want to go see someone stand in one place and stare at his shoes -- if I just want to hear them play, I'll listen to the CD. I want a high-energy show, a band with some stage presence. Sexist.
Stone Cold, IVFL: I actually have the first four STP albums. I like them okay I guess. Something about them just never seemed 'real' to me though. If you like STP, check out a band called Earth to Andy. I actually think one of the Deleo guys has good things to say about them as well.
I don't necessarily think it's Pop Crap vs. good music, but rather, it's a question of what the RIAA wants to promote. The GREAT bands are the ones that became popular without being promoted to all heaven. Nirvana is a great example -- they got picked up and promoted after they had a following. But that's not the formula for success that the recording industry wants, and it's not the big money maker that the Pop crap is. Even with all the money that Nirvana has made for its record label, I'd wager that NSync has made MUCH more in a shorter time period. The RIAA's goal is not to make music, but to make money. And I can totally understand the profit motive, but the way that they've pushed legislation and modeled technology has only further evidenced more than just profit motive, but overriding greed over the desire to merely make a good profit. It's THAT specific mindset that is the model for the current Pop-music genre. That's not even to say that pop music is bad (Michael Jackson kicked ass!), but that its surge has been promoted by the record companies with the sole desire to make more money than they could promoting other music. And so, the RIAA's goal is to keep the Pop-music culture alive as long as possible because it makes more money than any other genre could.
Smart ass! Good point. I guess what I meant was took its place in terms of popularity. I mean, Journey is still playing, but that doesn't make them popular or even all that relevant to music today. I kinda figured that and you are correct about Cornell. I can see that. I guess, for me, I'm so used to seeing jazz or fusion artists who just stand there, it isn't a big deal to me. The energy comes from the music, not the performance. I think that if a band has high energy, they don't really need to do anything but look at their shoes. If they don't have it, they could jump all over the stage and it wouldn't help. b****!
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DONOT MAKE DUKE KILL AGAIN! So now I rumble, you, with Oprah arms Nothing to hide, bleed what I shave So here I am, with Op-rah arms Hoping you see What your lung means to me Oprah arms DUKE DUKE DUKE DUKE of cry cryc cry. What a gREAT song
