#178

loads of shit bands get big, ATDI were definitely being pushed as the next big thing circa 2000

#179

Think this is a good point. I distinctly remember a “rock and roll is back” narrative being pushed by MTV in 2001. I think part of it too had to do with MTV’s finally deciding to hedge the bet it made back around 1997 when rock was basically dropped overnight for the Spice Girls and boy bands (while also not wanting to admit it possibly made a mistake, which suddenly playing newer material by the old artists would have shown).

It’s all confusing though since 2000 was an incredible year for rock music, especially by established artists. Plenty of albums (in my opinion) were coming out that were much better and much more exciting than anything The Strokes, The White Stripes, etc. ever would do. I guess latching onto new bands that were generating buzz locally made for a more exciting narrative.

This is a thought I just had today so it’s probably total garbage, but I wonder if a small part of the reset with new bands was a reaction to the violence of Woodstock 99. Like a, “Ok, rock got dumb and destructive, but look, bands are bringing back the classic style that you and your parents used to love” kind of thing.

2 Likes
#180

The most baffling thing to me about any of it was how QOTSA didn’t completely blow up with Rated R.

  • It’s one of the greatest and most exciting pure rock albums ever
  • It’s very far from nu-metal
  • It has a similarity to popular and respected rock music that came earlier
  • It has ties to the big popular rock bands of the early 90s, but those ties were relatively unknown and the band was young enough that they could have been marketed as something brand new

Just a year too early maybe?

5 Likes
#181

So like I said, everyone getting pissed off at Kid A

#182

Yup, that and metal bands thinking they had to include a DJ

1 Like
#183

Think there’s quite a bit in this tbh. Genuinely consider that despite some amazing records being released by rock bands during this time, the late 90s was the absolute nadir of mainstream US rock music and this was epitomised by just how shit Woodstock 99 was. Reckon it could well have been one of the things that made people reassess their music choices.

3 Likes
#184

3.34 Not a bad score, nice thread too.

1 Like
#185

that’s a good shout actually, Rated R is on a bit of an island in the year 2000, think how successful Songs for the Deaf was a couple years later is probably testament to it just being a little bit ahead of its time (which is kinda odd to say for a pretty straight up alt-rock record but there you go)

1 Like
#186

I didn’t really acknowledge the other part of your reply here, but surely guys like Jon Spencer and Jay Reatard are equivalent to Nirvana’s contemporaries Pixies and Mudhoney in terms of size and influence?

#187

This is exactly what made me dislike Nirvana overall until about 2011

#188

Not their fault though.

#189

hence why I said indirectly

#190

It was a different time, maann, when I wasn’t open-minded enough to remember to read the brackets.

#191

(Five minutes ago) :man_shrugging:

#192

My memory of it is that the music press, especially the NME, was determined to launch a new rock ‘movement’ for the 21st Century, and The Strokes and White Stripes were the first bands to have the right ingredients (image, accessibility, and novelty factor) to really catch on. QOTSA were much more similar to early 90s alt rock.

2 Likes
#193

Yeah maybe, although don’t think either were as big as the Pixies tbh. Mudhoney for sure, although the White Stripes, Jon Spencer and Jay Reatard (or The Reatards as they were then) weren’t part of the same local scene in the same way as Nirvana, Mudhoney, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains and Pearl Jam were, so more difficult to build a movement around them I guess

#194

*aware that Nirvana and Mudhoney were probably in a different part of that scene to Soundgarden, Alice In Chains and Pearl Jam, but can discuss that the next time there’s a conversation about whether grunge existed or not

1 Like
#195

Nah of course, Pixies were just the first who came to mind for that example. As I’m fairly sure we’ve argued before (I’m pretty certain) Nirvana has way more in common with them than anyone in Seattle :wink:

1 Like
#196

Not with me I don’t think - aside from the Melvins, I agree with you!

(FWIW - 80s grunge - a thing; 90s grunge - not a thing)

#197

Ooh ok! What are defining as 80s grunge? Aren’t Melvins quite a bit heavier than those other guys?