I don't listen to much grunge at all, but I do still listen to the radio, and that means that all of those 90s bands pop up, on the alternative station and now on the classic rock station. And my opinion, formed in the last few years, is that STP is a band that really doesn't stand up.

Huh, I've found the opposite. I still like most of STP's stuff, not just their hits. Whereas with Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, etc, only a few songs have maintained their allure.

Am I really the only one that things STP was BY FAR the best of those well known early grunge bands?

They definitely have the most staying power for me. Soundgarden was probably my favorite at the time, and I still listen to Alice in Chains' "Unplugged" if I'm feeling blue. But I still listen to "Purple" and "Tiny Music".

EDIT: I also love Pearl Jam "Vs"

Am I really the only one that things STP was BY FAR the best of those well known early grunge bands?

Interstate Love Song is one of the best songs of that era/genre, but the rest of their stuff never did much for me. I think Pearl Jam's Vs was probably the best "grunge" record.

they were OK - Interstate Love Song is a fine driving tune.

Which uses a Jim Croce riff! From "I've Got a Name". I hated STP from the start, but that's one of the better riff thefts you'll find.

Which uses a Jim Croce riff! From "I've Got a Name". I hated STP from the start, but that's one of the better riff thefts you'll find.

Wow... I was always struck by the familiarity of the riff from the first time I heard the STP song, but I never made the connection. My dad liked to fool around on the guitar quite a bit, and Croce was one of his favorites - so I'm a bit embarrassed I never made the connection.

ten vs. nevermind

I like "Machine Head". It's a good driving song.

Aha -- YouTube just told me which one that one is. For some reason, I'd never connected with Bush or with that song title; pretty good track. And of course I hear the opening chords multiple times a week; that's the intro to Paul Finebaum's talk radio show.

Considering they were the "Standard Bearers" of Grunge I didn't think either Pearl Jam or Nirvana were all that "Grungy". Pearl Jam always sounded to me like a straight up hard rock band from the 70's would if you crossed them with Black Sabbath, while Nirvana always seemed more "punk" than "rock". For me the prototypical Grunge band would be someone like Soundgarden, Alice in Chains or Screaming Trees.

I was more into Metal at that time so was listening to Fear Factory, Deftones, Metallica, Tool, Sepultura, Pantera etc.

Could you same the same thing about Led Zeppelin? Do they bear some responsibility for the fact that we had to suffer through a decade of Poison, Warrant, and many other hair metal bands?

Could you same the same thing about Led Zeppelin? Do they bear some responsibility for the fact that we had to suffer through a decade of Poison, Warrant, and many other hair metal bands?

They absolutely do.

Could you same the same thing about Led Zeppelin? Do they bear some responsibility for the fact that we had to suffer through a decade of Poison, Warrant, and many other hair metal bands?

What PreservedFish said.

Also, I suppose the Buzzcocks are in the same boat with regard to all sorts of vapid pop punk acts from the past couple of decades.

I do this every year or so... Vedder sounds like he's imitating a heavy metal single who is, in turn, imitating a previous heavy metal singer.

I don't hear any Zep in Poison or Warrant. Whitesnake, on the other hand...

I always figured those hair bands owed more to the glam rock of Slade and Gary "Pedo" Glitter

Whether they all sound alike or not is largely a matter of perspective I suspect: I was at the right age when grunge hit, and I liked it (a lot), so the differences are huge to me. There's also the inverse of that: if you were a big fan of hair metal (which I dare anyone to demonstrate was diverse in style), grunge was so different from that that the intragrunge variation was imperceptible next to the apparent intrarock variation.

Which leads to the strange fact that I loved grunge as a kid but would have agreed at the time that the bands kind of sounded alike, but today I'm less of a fan* but the differences are plain as day.

*Still some of my favorite music, but everyone's favorite music is heavily influenced by their teenage years; if Ten came out today, would I think it's one of the ten best albums of all time? Not likely.

Considering they were the "Standard Bearers" of Grunge I didn't think either Pearl Jam or Nirvana were all that "Grungy". Pearl Jam always sounded to me like a straight up hard rock band from the 70's would if you crossed them with Black Sabbath, while Nirvana always seemed more "punk" than "rock". For me the prototypical Grunge band would be someone like Soundgarden, Alice in Chains or Screaming Trees.

This demonstrates how the term "grunge" drifted over the years. Nirvana sounded generally like the other bands from the late-1980s that were first called grunge. The more metalish Soundgarden et al sound came later.

This sort of semantic drift happens all of the time with musical subgenres. A great example is emo, which you can really hear if you go to the Wikipedia entry on it and listen to the various samples, in order. There is certainly a chain of descent there, marked mostly by the continued survival of the loud-quiet thing and the Mr. Earnest Boy vocal style. But if you just listened to Rites of Spring, then Jawbreaker, then Dashboard Confessional, you'd have a really hard time concluding that they're all the same sort of music, except that they are all broadly American rock music existing in a post- (and in the example of Dashboard Confessional, extremely post-) hardcore world.

EDIT: OTOH, following veer bender, if you've never been into this sort of music then they'll probably all sound the same.

EDIT EDIT:

if Ten came out today, would I think it's one of the ten best albums of all time? Not likely.

Well, it'd be such and obvious Creed ripoff...

VS is better anyway...

Bush, yech.

I used to really like grunge back in the day but only Nirvana still exists on my Ipod. I just moved away from it--I guess I got bored with it. The stuff I still listen to from that time period is Pavement, Fugazi, New Order, the Pixies, Cracker, The Beastie Boys and the Spent Poets. (Just off the top of my head).

I always thought Nirvana had more in common musically with the Pixies, if you're just listening to the instrumentation and the dynamics. Nirvana just really cranked up the alienation and seriousness/earnestness.

Another comment re: grunge -- people are talking as if these bands don't change over time, which is a major problem for a discussion of grunge. Most of the big names changed so much that either they quickly (by the second album often) had moved out of grunge, or else the definition of grunge kept changing.

There's one sense in which Bush (and to a lesser extent Creed) were filling in the blanks of what would have been recorded if the original big names hadn't changed styles so much, but had gradually grown more polished but tired/jaded.

In another sense, Creed (and to a lesser extent Bush) were directly copying a grunge band that never existed, a perfect amalgam of simple song structures that sound good and "rock"(like Machinehead) but don't go anywhere (unlike say, Would?), along with Vedder vox that give you that angsty feeling, and allow serious lyrics about alienation, etc. to not sound ridiculous to a teenager (not saying Creed's lyrics are any good, but they are serious compared to Motley Crue, and could you imaging them being sung by a hair band singer?). Creed further perfected the product by adding a touch of metal sonics -- heavy, but crisp distortion, with palm-muting, that chugga-chugga sound (if you don't play guitar, turn on Metallica's black album - that sound). It's brilliant, and I thought Creed was kind of great if unoriginal, until I realized I'd been had.

Its ironic that Nirvana became the standard bearer for grunge, since I never thought they had much to do with those other bands other than hailing from the PNW.

To me grunge was more of a fashion trend than music trend. They seemed were more grouped together by their image than their actual music. Their main musical similarly was mostly that they weren't Warrant or Motley Crue.

I just realized a simpler and shorter explanation for people thinking all grunge sounds alike - surely some are focusing on the vocals much more than I do. The singers' voices were pretty different from each other (I think more so than most rock genres), but there was a lot of overlap of what could maybe be called "style".

The stuff I still listen to from that time period is Pavement, Fugazi, New Order, the Pixies, Cracker, The Beastie Boys and the Spent Poets. (Just off the top of my head).

My Bloody Valentine and Sonic Youth were said to be related to grunge. Spacemen 3, Galaxie 500.

Interstate Love Song is my least favorite STP song. It sounds like an Outlaws song.


Foo Fighters prove that Dave Grohl>>>>>>>>Kurt Cobain.

Foo Fighters prove that Dave Grohl>>>>>>>>Kurt Cobain.

This is wrong.

My Bloody Valentine and Sonic Youth were said to be related to grunge. Spacemen 3, Galaxie 500.

MBV and Galaxie 500 are the only band from that era that I spend a lot of time with these days. Galaxie 500 are my weight lifting music.

I don't really see a MBV-grunge link, other than the meaningless one that they both liked feedback.

I always figured those hair bands owed more to the glam rock of Slade and Gary "Pedo" Glitter

I'd say this - and also add KISS.

Foo Fighters prove that Dave Grohl>>>>>>>>Kurt Cobain.

This is wrong

Too many '>'s? How about Grohl >> Cobain?

Like I said above, I can appreciate Cobain's talents even if I didn't care for his music all that much, but for pure craftsmanship, I think I'll still take Grohl.

I hate to be a dinosaur by saying I'd call it an insult to Lennon/McCartney -- but I sort of feel like Grohl/Cobain fit in that paradigm. Lennon/Cobain were the better 'artists', in that they had a way of capturing the spirit of a specific age and putting it to music, but I think McCartney/Grohl are just better musical craftsmen.

It weirdly works out to a peak vs. career thing and I honestly think that would have been true even if not for the untimely demises.

This is wrong.

Might be closer than you think: Do you believe that Grohl's drumming was a big part of Nirvana's greatness? I do. And "he didn't do anything any other drummer couldn't do" isn't a compelling argument when the comparison is to Cobain.

It's really mostly about the songs, right? I count the intro drum fill in Teen Spirit under songwriting. You can not cover that song without nailing that part, because the audience will know it - it's not an interchangeable part with other drum fills. Yeah, it's short and simple, but it's as awesome as anything Cobain contributed.

There's also the inherent interplay in rock bands during songwriting. Natural selection happens a lot as bands play out new ideas in practice/songwriting sessions, especially for loud rock of any type. You can try to write kick-ass riffs in your bedroom, and it does work sometimes, but the band almost always serves to approve/veto/modify everything, even unknowingly. I'm guessing that Grohl was at least as important as the average drummer in shaping Nirvana's songs, given what we know about his later career.

I always figured those hair bands owed more to the glam rock of Slade and Gary "Pedo" Glitter

They did, with Pyromania providing the blueprint for updating it.

I started reading this thread until I got to the part where someone said that Cobain, Vedder and Chris Cornell sounded alike and then suddenly I lost interest.

Also speaking of bands from the 90's, I always thought Dream Theater was a grunge band because of "Pull me Under" but turns out they are progressive metal whatever the hell that is.

This is wrong.


Your mom is wrong.

I much prefer Foo Fighters to Nirvana.

I enjoy reading histories of grunge that paint it as a major musical breakthrough. Maybe it was.

A gleeful factoid I have heard in music histories more than 50 times: Nirvana knocked Michael Jackson off the top of the Billboard album chart. This is significant because the new is destroying the old, and the genuine is replacing the artificial, and ha ha ha.

A factoid I have heard in music histories 0 times: Nirvana was then knocked off the top of the Billboard album chart, after 1 week, by Garth Brooks.

One reason I think Foo Fighters>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nirvana is because I don't care to listen to someone whine about how miserable life is. As if I need to be reminded. Go shoot yourself. Oh, you did. Oh well.

I said this at another place on this website once: Lyrics are way down on the list of what attracts me to music. I'm not at all interested in how deeply some schmuck feels about whatever. In my experience, people who find lyrics "profound" usually think that they're capable of being "profound". They're wrong about both.

Like I said above, I can appreciate Cobain's talents even if I didn't care for his music all that much, but for pure craftsmanship, I think I'll still take Grohl.

[...]

It weirdly works out to a peak vs. career thing and I honestly think that would have been true even if not for the untimely demises.

In my book, Foo Fighters = replacement level seasons.

I don't think the Foo Fighters are replacement level, they are consistent and boring and probably somewhat above average. Paul Konerko.

One reason I think Foo Fighters>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nirvana is because I don't care to listen to someone whine about how miserable life is.

Lyrics are way down on the list of what attracts me to music.

Yeah, so?

I don't like Nirvana as much because of the lyrics, and lyrics don't matter to me

They don't matter, but they're unavoidable, so try not to be a tedious schmuck.

But this is the internet!

If I had to pick a band whose lyrics I liked, I'd go with the Cramps. They're fun. Light, airy, goofy.

92...oops, I forgot. Sorry.

Cliched, I know, but I don't think anyone has ever done lyrics any better than Dylan. Absolutely, some of them are impenetrable, but the gems are so standard setting and so numerous, it's like complaining about Aaron's strikeouts or something.

The only real question to me is whether you consider Dylan too folkish/not rockish enough to be judged with the other standard bearers in rock.

If I had to pick my favorite still active artist (I don't want to debate Dylan's last good work), I think I'd take the New Pornographers. If I can't pick a supergroup and you force me to identify individual writers, I'd probably fall back on (and I can hear the boos now) I might take Green Day maybe?

Please do.

I was never a huge fan of STP, but I grew up in their (and the earlier Nirvana, etc) era, so I'd heard a lot of them. I saw their recent tour too, and it was ####### amazing. Those guys can play live.

Cake! There's another band with fun lyrics, that don't make you want to kill someone. I wasn't a big fan of them, either, but saw them twice. Fun!

edited twice. How embarrassing.

Cake! There's another band with fun lyrics, that don't make you want to kill someone.

This reminded me of two different Grandpa Simpson flashback bits, one, where he praises Johnny Unitas' "haircut you can set your watch to," and two, when he boos at Woodstock and chants "Bring on Shanana!"

I enjoy Cake - fingers crossed that I can get out of a work trip - going to see them at the Aragon in September.