Grunge: Did It Destroy Music?

[KingLouieLouie]

I've often have had this extereme interpersonal conflict when it pertains to the Grunge movement of the early-mid 90s.... Several memorable, but yet shortlived bands emerged from that defining era consisting of Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice-in-Chains, Pearl Jam, STP, Mudhoney, Tripping Daisies..etc that mounted several accolades, but it seems since then music has never recovered from Grunge's abrupt demise.....

At the outset of Grunge.... the main style that was popular consisted of hair bands and a few metal bands that incorporated some elements of other genres into their music... Mainly those bands were Guns-N-Roses, Queensryche, Faith No More and bands like Metallica and Megadeth were generating quite the following.... Then in some instances bands like the Smithereens and Living Colour got derailed by the entire Grunge trend and never overcame the affects........

Grunge therefore caused several bands to sell-out in the process and the post-grunge and the since Nu-Metal has made the music industry more depressing... Obviously we've discussed several of the corporate sounding bands that have dominated the air-waves for over the past 10-years as well......

I guess the pro of Grunge is that it was the music of my generation. .that the peak of its popularity was at the time I was about to graduate high school, so therefore the sentimental side allows me to embrace it....

The con is that it's essentially 3-chord progression music that was made popular in the 60s when other Pacific Northwest bands like the Kingsmen ("Louie Louie" fame), Paul Revere & the Raiders, along with the Britpop bands of that era (IE Kinks & the Who) had revolutionized back then... So.. perfecting that craft of music was rather simplistic... Plus.. several of the bands from that era pretty much dropped off the radar obviously since they couldnt handle the element of fame that came along with the music... Of course... that all began with Mother Love Bone's Andrew Wood.. and then later the likes of Kurt Cobain and Layne Staley couldnt resist the negative temptations.........

Music was able to rebound from Disco, but unfortunately.. it appears that it will never recover from Grunge.. but at least Grunge is a lot easier to digest than Disco.. which is a positive in itself........

Who else is conflicted on whether or not Grunge destroyed music?

 

[Ryanwb]

I think the untalented "rap rock" that had a run of the late 90's and early 2000's had a larger role in destroying music.

That and an influx of piss poor hip hop that all the white suburbinites thought was so cool. Nothing disgusts me more than a white guy acting like he's ghetto.

I remember when music videos were actually played on MTV, all there is now is crap.

Grunge was the last hope the music industry had for actual music and not dubbed voice tracks, and computerized re-mixes. Ashlee Simpson cannot sing, I have read many times that she is absolutely talentless. It's the studio guys who have the talent. They mix her vocals and she sounds great.

God bless 1992

 

[Chaplin]

Grunge was the last great rock movement--and it didn't "kill" music. Like Ryan said, what killed music is the rap rock hybrids and the teen pop that was so prevalent starting with Britney Spears (or even New Kids on the Block, if you want to go so far).

It also depends on what you consider "music". Grunge had nothing to do with the huge electronica revolution of the 90s and early 2000s. That is now dying down, but bands like Massive Attack and Moby had HUGE influence on the industry. Would you say they "killed" music as well?

 

[AZ Shocker]

Wow...after all these years...still a tough and interesting question, and still I think...a yet to be determined conclusion to the masses (via VH1 and MTV).

Like KLL...it has most certainty been an "interpersonal conflict" for me for all my 20's and early 30's until recently. I think I'm getting closer to being able to somehow not only understand this within myself, but also how to explain this mysterious anomaly to friends and family. Bear with me, and please help out when I get off course.

Part I

Where to start...
On one side I have to completly agree with Ryan that "grunge" didn't necessarily kill music...but more so the artists he points out that are the "untalented "rap rock" that had a run of the late 90's and early 2000's, and an influx of piss poor hip hop that all the white suburbanites thought was so cool had a larger role in destroying music".

For most of the last 10-15 years, I have believed that those two influences have doomed good innovative creative rock music.

After grunge came out, rap music also really took off. By the time the mid 90's came around...these two forces seriously detered the popularity of good innovative rock music. For some reason the white suburban kids loved rap, and wanted to rap their little hearts out. Remember?

I also absolutely agree with KLL that "grunge" did kill something. It killed an era of music (80's hairbands) that obviously was due for a change. As a lot of us will remember, at the end of the 80's and early 90's the "hair band" genre was getting seriously watered down by record companies still holding on and pimping bands like "Warrant", Slaughter, Winger, and even "Skid Row". Those bands and a few dozen more were waaaaaaaayyyyy overstaying their copy-cat invites. Guns and Roses being the exception, but only for a couple years 'til about '91 or '92.

For those keeping score (and happen to recognize my avator)...Van Halen was still ultra popular during most of the 90's...thus must not be considered an 80's hair band, and absolutely not a grunge band. Also Metallica was neither either. Two bands that had staying power and not really associated with neither genre. Just very popular and SUCCESSFUL! Sorry for the "plug". Go EVH!!!

So where does that take me? Well...I've come to the simple conclusion that as music "genres" change over time...popular music doesn't necessarily take a dive and needs to somehow "recover". It's all relative ya know. Yes as music styles change we think it sucks because we're used to a certain style (the style we grew up with usually in our teen years), but for the greater good and more important cause...music needs to change and evolve.

Where would we be if Jimi never died? Where would we be if Led Zepplin was still around playing that same "twangy" non-distorted guitar? Where would we be if Disco was still tearing up the charts? Where would we be if God...errrggghhh...I mean Guitar-God EVH never quit being so good? Where would we be if Kurt was still depressed and not dead yet?

We would be stuck! There's no "recovering". I have come to the conclusion, that "recovering" is in the eyes of the beholder. Again...it's all relative. These days I've learned to roll and appreciate.
Oh I'll always have my roots...but good music is good music, and I know when I hear good music.

 

[Rivercard]

Van Halen was still ultra popular during most of the 90's...thus must not be considered an 80's hair band,

I always thought Van Halen was the main inspiration for the hair band movement. VH sorta had all the magical ingredients that made up a hair band. The leather, the posing on videos, the 30 second guitar solos filled with tapping and a big run up the neck at the end, and of course the hair. But VH always had a more unique sound and were clearly much more creative than the typical hair band (especially the early work).

I suppose VH were the trend setters and many of the hair bands were copying them.

 

[Rivercard]

I think the evolution of marketing and men in suits with no concern for artistry have stalled the creative growth process for artists.

Grunge at the time was a new and interesting departure for rock music. Then for a few years almost every new band that got industry support sounded just like Nirvana. Why was that?

Years ago I worked at a record label. On the desk of the president was a sign that read: "We Are Here To Make Money". Nowhere in that office was any reference to creative arts.

 

[AZ Shocker]

I always thought Van Halen was the main inspiration for the hair band movement.

Totally! lol
Those guys started a whole "look" and didn't even mean too.
Funny thing is that no "hair band" ever sounded like them.

Right as MTV was really taking off, VH set a trend that would help make MTV a major player in cable tv. Every newly created "hairband" wanted to be like Eddie Van Halen or David Lee Roth, and every teenage girl wanted to watch.

Sorry to hi-jack thread here fella's....back to how grunge killed good music...

 

[Chaplin]

Totally! lol
Those guys started a whole "look" and didn't even mean too.
Funny thing is that no "hair band" ever sounded like them.

Right as MTV was really taking off, VH set a trend that would help make MTV a major player in cable tv. Every newly created "hairband" wanted to be like Eddie Van Halen or David Lee Roth, and every teenage girl wanted to watch.

Sorry to hi-jack thread here fella's....back to how grunge killed good music...

Wait--didn't Robert Plant and Jimmy Page have the "look" well before Van Halen? Eddie was a phenomenal guitar player, but you have to give credit where credit is due. Even Alice Cooper had the hair band look before VH.

 

[AZ Shocker]

Wait--didn't Robert Plant and Jimmy Page have the "look" well before Van Halen? Eddie was a phenomenal guitar player, but you have to give credit where credit is due. Even Alice Cooper had the hair band look before VH.

Yep your right...except MTV wasn't around when Led Zepp or Alice Cooper were in their prime. MTV videos created the "hairband" folklore. The term "hairband" wasn't even used until MTV's cousin VH1 started doing all these "We Are the 80's" shows a couple years ago.

For the record, I would rather not have Van Halen mentioned with "hairbands" anymore. Two entirely different beast.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I am barely even a grunge fan, if you could even say that. If you want to say that Nirvana or Pearl Jam destroyed music, you really have to be sick. A lot of people say that Nirvana's (Smells like Teen Sprit, isnt this the name of the album) is one of the most influential albums of all time.

 

[Chaplin]

A tougher question is what would rock have been like if there was no grunge movement? You gotta wonder just what it would have progressed to, because right now, all the rock (good and bad) is a direct descendant of grunge--even that rap-rock crap grew out of grunge (along with 80s Beastie Boys).

I'd even go so far as to say grunge (or alternative) music as a whole started in the early 80s with Blondie and the Police. So I think blaming grunge for the current state of the industry is way off base.

 

[AZ Shocker]

I dunno man. Blondie? The Police?
Grunge is "grunge" and alternative is "alternative".
I see what your saying, but the connection between the two genres are poles apart.

But back to your question on "what would rock have been like if there was no grunge movement?" Great question by the way...

I'm not sure. It is my belief that we needed a "shake-up". I was sad to see the "fun" leave music, and even more sad to see the "not-so-fun" grunge at the time, but as I've grown older...I've come to realize the "fun" must've gotten really old for the next generation behind me. My younger bro's generation grew up with rittalin, and prozack. Serious stuff man. No longer did kids wanna have fun...they wanted to feel like s*#t. That's why we have EMO today. Grunge has transcended itself to EMO. lol

btw...I loved Pearl Jam! But when I heard that song and video "Jeremy", I was thinking..."why"? Why would you make a song and video about that? Great song, but terrible message.

We had quite the problem there in our high schools in the 90's after that song came out. Thankfully we don't really hear about it anymore. Maybe EMO does have a little more "happiness" in it than I give it credit for. lol

 

[Chaplin]

I dunno man. Blondie? The Police?
Grunge is "grunge" and alternative is "alternative".
I see what your saying, but the connection between the two genres are poles apart.

That's just not true. Alternative is certainly a much bigger generalization than "grunge", which is simply a form of alternative. Certainly most rock of the early- to mid-90s was some form of alternative, except for the rare occasions where Def Leppard or Aerosmith came out with an album that tried to cater to the hard rock crowd. Hell, even Metallica's albums of the decade were more alternative/grunge than heavy metal.

It's a tough distinction, but IMO, grunge is an alternative genre, grown out of Blondie and the Police a decade earlier.

 

[abomb]

It's a tough distinction, but IMO, grunge is an alternative genre, grown out of Blondie and the Police a decade earlier.

Would you include true "punk" in the parentage of grunge? I know Nirvana, Sound Garden, et al were heavily influenced by the punk era.

 

[Chaplin]

Would you include true "punk" in the parentage of grunge? I know Nirvana, Sound Garden, et al were heavily influenced by the punk era.

Sure, much like the British New Wave influenced the pop of today--and to an extent, the techno/dance music of the late-90s, early 2000s.

Even though they weren't true "punk", the Ramones definitely influenced grunge. In fact, the first time I saw Pearl Jam in concert, the Ramones were openers for them, so their influence is recognized by the big boys.

 

[SirStefan32]

I think grunge was the very last line of defense against crap we now call music.

In my opinion, music died with Kurt Cobain, not because of him.

 

[Chaplin]

I think grunge was the very last line of defense against crap we now call music.

In my opinion, music died with Kurt Cobain, not because of him.

I wouldn't go that far, because there is still some great stuff out there, but I'm more of the camp that rock music specifically is pretty bad right now. There are a few pop-rock acts that are trying to keep it afloat, but I don't think they are having that much success.

But music as a whole didn't die with Kurt Cobain--there are several artists over the past 10 years that have been extremely influential, and some have produced some really good music. Added to that, with their last album, Pearl Jam appears to have regained some of their glory that they had in the early- to mid-90s.

A lot also depends on what people consider "music". I consider electronic music to be a big part of what defines the art today--but you look at different genres, and some are going pretty strong. New Age seems to be dying just a bit, but jazz is still good, country (while not my favorite) seems to be alive and kicking, and rap, well, some of the most powerful and biggest artists in the industry are in the rap field.

 

[Assface]

I think the main problem is that the best rock bands aren't mainstream music. Bands like Muse don't get major push here. Record labels are now trying to dictate what's popular instead of finding out what the people want. They seem determined to force generic crap like Nickelback on us.