#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?

#198

Sorry, I meant that Nirvana had more in common with the Melvins than the other grunge guys they got lumped in with.

80s grunge would define in as starting with the slowed down hardcore from the early-mid 80s (My War era Black Flag, Flipper’s first album, Blight, YDI) and continuing on through the later period hardcore records that no one apart from people in Seattle seemed to give a shit about (Die Kreuzen’s October File, I Against I by Bad Brains, Redd Kross’ Neurotica, Animosity by Corrosion Of Conformity) stuff like that. Then the Seattle/Aberdeen bands (U-Men, Melvins) and culminating with the early records by Tad, Mudhoney and Nirvana, which is pretty much where it ends (give or take a couple of decent records by some other bands). Not the whole story at all - really similar stuff was happening in Australia in particular - but think that’s the basics.

1 Like
#199

Oh sure, my comment about Melvins was more general.

That’s an interesting timeline which I’ve not thought about before (I.e I knew My War era Black Flag was important and influential but not necessarily down that line.) What would you most recommend? Or got a playlist?

#200

Not on spotify, but can definitely put something together with youtube links Will get back to you shortly…

(Probably tomorrow now)

1 Like
#201
2 Likes
#202

Love a nice EP release

1 Like