Page 181 of 439 FirstFirst ... 81131171177178179180181182183184185191231281 ... LastLast
Results 2,701 to 2,715 of 6581
  1. #2701
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    Part of what made Nirvana explode to the level they did was how stale the hair bands had become.

    First, a single about how sexy and/or dangerous the frontman/whole band is. Then, a power ballad to show the more serious side. Sometimes an acoustic song subbed in for the power ballad, but for the same end.
    Oh, don't get me wrong. The hair metal genre did have it's issues. Like you say it was formulaic and over-saturated. In certain respects it was a dead-scene-walking towards the end. I doubt the world really missed Winger. Or Warrant. Or Slaughter. Or Britney Fox. Or Roxy Blue. The list goes on. I don't mind new generations of bands coming through at all. It's a lifeblood that keeps music relevant and vital. The alternative rock/metal scene took over during the 90's in a way that was brutal at the time though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Ronin View Post
    Sorry miss read that you put Nirvana in with Crue and Def Leppard.
    No problem man. Putting the words Def Leppard and Nirvana in the same sentence does seem a little weird .

  2. #2702
    Astonishing Member TheRay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    3,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMorgan View Post
    Not sure how controversial this is but I massively prefer the 1980's music scene to the 1990's. It was a bit dumb and excessive at times for sure but the 90's Gen-X bands were just way too miserable for me.
    I think that's what made it into something unique. Grunge was far different than any of the music that came before it, I suppose you can say the same for death metal/screamo, but I guess that type of music plays to an emotion that I have just never felt. Perhaps that's what it comes down to, you have to experience what the art or artist is going through to truly understand it.

  3. #2703
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    19,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRay View Post
    I think that's what made it into something unique. Grunge was far different than any of the music that came before it, I suppose you can say the same for death metal/screamo, but I guess that type of music plays to an emotion that I have just never felt. Perhaps that's what it comes down to, you have to experience what the art or artist is going through to truly understand it.
    I'd prefer to say that it felt fresh after the previous decade of really shallow LA Hair bands, but it's not too hard to see how some of the grunge bands were sort of reworking Sabbath and early classic rock through a kind of "punk rock" filter. And I say this as guy that likes a lot of those bands.

  4. #2704
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMorgan View Post
    It's definitely an acquired taste. Luckily it's a acquired taste that I do have.

    Not sure how controversial this is but I massively prefer the 1980's music scene to the 1990's. It was a bit dumb and excessive at times for sure but the 90's Gen-X bands were just way too miserable for me. And nu-metal is without question the worst offshoot of metal in history. I really hate the Britpop scene that was a big deal back then here in the UK too. 90's culture stinks in general.

    Give me, say, Def Leppard or Motley Crue over Nirvana any day.
    Defining music by decade is deeply flawed idea. The Beatles and Pat Boone, for example, were entertainment contemporaries.

  5. #2705
    Mighty Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRay View Post
    I think that's what made it into something unique. Grunge was far different than any of the music that came before it, I suppose you can say the same for death metal/screamo, but I guess that type of music plays to an emotion that I have just never felt. Perhaps that's what it comes down to, you have to experience what the art or artist is going through to truly understand it.
    Not really different at all. Grunge was just a continuation of the sound that many 80's alternative bands had been making. Take for instance this song by Husker Du, a band that many grunge bands cite as influence, that came out in the mid 80's - if it had been released in 1995 people would have assumed it was another Seattle band. Nirvana just popularized the sound. Besides Husker Du you could cite some early REM stuff, Jesus and the Mary Chain, The Stone Roses, and a number of other 80's bands as being the forefathers of grunge with similar sounds. And they of course evolved out of the new wave sounds of the early 80's.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoKeH7JYE48

  6. #2706
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ed2962 View Post
    I'd prefer to say that it felt fresh after the previous decade of really shallow LA Hair bands, but it's not too hard to see how some of the grunge bands were sort of reworking Sabbath and early classic rock through a kind of "punk rock" filter. And I say this as guy that likes a lot of those bands.
    I'll agree with that - grunge wasn't far different than anything that came before it, but it was far different than anything else typically playing on the radio at the time.
    Dark does not mean deep.

  7. #2707
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    19,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    Not really different at all. Grunge was just a continuation of the sound that many 80's alternative bands had been making. Take for instance this song by Husker Du, a band that many grunge bands cite as influence, that came out in the mid 80's - if it had been released in 1995 people would have assumed it was another Seattle band. Nirvana just popularized the sound. Besides Husker Du you could cite some early REM stuff, Jesus and the Mary Chain, The Stone Roses, and a number of other 80's bands as being the forefathers of grunge with similar sounds. And they of course evolved out of the new wave sounds of the early 80's.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoKeH7JYE48
    I think a another good example would be an all-girl band called L7. They were continuously lumped into the "Seattle/Grunge" scene despite being an LA punk band ( but hey, they had a record on Sub-Pop).

  8. #2708
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    19,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    I'll agree with that - grunge wasn't far different than anything that came before it, but it was far different than anything else typically playing on the radio at the time.
    Oh definitely! I remember those days and I remember the shift. I literally remember when although the fans thought of bands like Janes Addiction and Soundgarden as alternative bands, the record companies were trying to sell them as "metal". And depending on were you lived and what station you listened to, they weren't always played next to Warrant. Nirvana broke and then corporate radio was like "Oh! We can sell this 'quirky' stuff."

  9. #2709
    Astonishing Member TheRay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    3,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    Not really different at all.
    Different tonally and emotionally, yes for sure.

  10. #2710
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Defining music by decade is deeply flawed idea. The Beatles and Pat Boone, for example, were entertainment contemporaries.
    No it isn't. Musical artists and genres, or many other forms of mainstream pop culture for that matter, are inherently defined by the periods in which they attained peak popularity and acclaim. It doesn't even have to be a specific decade as such. The Beatles and Pat Boone were certainly very different recording artists during the 1960's but it was the former that came to symbolise and define that decade's music and cultural trends more than anyone else did. Bob Dylan is also still mainly defined by his work from the 1960's in the eyes of many. Dylan has recorded many albums since then, some of them very good indeed, but it's his 60's work which still remains his most celebrated. When people think of disco music what decade normally springs to mind first for most of them? The 1970's. There's a reason for that.

    There was an enormous cultural change that took place in the rock music scene in the early 1990's. With hindsight it was something that had been building up from the underground for a few years by that point. You can see it in the success of The Real Thing album by Faith No More, an admittedly brilliant record that was totally out of step with the likes of Poison and Skid Row. Or Nothing's Shocking by Jane's Addiction. Or the gradual rise in popularity of R.E.M.. The release of Nevermind in 1991 was a real catalyst though. It helped to shape the rest of the decade in a way that gave the music of that period a completely different tone and character from the one that preceded it. The 1990's music scene was such a polar opposite of the 1980's that 'defining' them as such is perfectly valid.

    Nevermind released in 1991. Kurt Cobain dead by 1994. If Nirvana don't define the 1990's then I don't know who does.

  11. #2711
    I am invenitable Jack Dracula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Slouching toward Bethlehem
    Posts
    5,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Star_Jammer View Post
    What an awkward conversation to only talk about the appearance of only oneself; the other participant(s) can't really say anything!
    Possibly. The point is that no one is likely to say something potentially offensive.
    The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    “It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe

  12. #2712
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMorgan View Post
    No it isn't. Musical artists and genres, or many other forms of mainstream pop culture for that matter, are inherently defined by the periods in which they attained peak popularity and acclaim. It doesn't even have to be a specific decade as such. The Beatles and Pat Boone were certainly very different recording artists during the 1960's but it was the former that came to symbolise and define that decade's music and cultural trends more than anyone else did. Bob Dylan is also still mainly defined by his work from the 1960's in the eyes of many. Dylan has recorded many albums since then, some of them very good indeed, but it's his 60's work which still remains his most celebrated. When people think of disco music what decade normally springs to mind first for most of them? The 1970's. There's a reason for that.

    There was an enormous cultural change that took place in the rock music scene in the early 1990's. With hindsight it was something that had been building up from the underground for a few years by that point. You can see it in the success of The Real Thing album by Faith No More, an admittedly brilliant record that was totally out of step with the likes of Poison and Skid Row. Or Nothing's Shocking by Jane's Addiction. Or the gradual rise in popularity of R.E.M.. The release of Nevermind in 1991 was a real catalyst though. It helped to shape the rest of the decade in a way that gave the music of that period a completely different tone and character from the one that preceded it. The 1990's music scene was such a polar opposite of the 1980's that 'defining' them as such is perfectly valid.

    Nevermind released in 1991. Kurt Cobain dead by 1994. If Nirvana don't define the 1990's then I don't know who does.
    You make excellent points. I still get a bit annoyed when somebody says "the xxx0s sucked." The same era that gave us the worst of Disco (apologies if you loved it) also gave us the glory days of Elton John, Billy Joel, Carly Simon and tons more. I don't know that there's any time that was bad across the board, or good, for that matter.

  13. #2713
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    You make excellent points. I still get a bit annoyed when somebody says "the xxx0s sucked." The same era that gave us the worst of Disco (apologies if you loved it) also gave us the glory days of Elton John, Billy Joel, Carly Simon and tons more. I don't know that there's any time that was bad across the board, or good, for that matter.
    Cheers for that. I actually nearly went back and amended that last post as I was a bit worried that it was possibly too defensive. I hope that it didn't come across as too argumentative.

    Just to clarify further and add to the the point that you made there, I think some of the stuff we got back then was pretty good. These are all 1990's albums that I think are absolutely great for varying reasons:

    Badmotorfinger - Soundgarden
    August And Everything After - Counting Crows
    Ten - Pearl Jam
    The Holy Bible - Manic Street Preachers
    Urban Hymns - The Verve
    OK Computer - Radiohead

    And I've enjoyed many more. The ire I sometimes direct towards the 90's really stems from seeing bands that I was very fond of rendered obsolete overnight. It wasn't just hair metal that suffered back then. It seemed like a lot of my favourite artists were dropping like flies. Bruce Springsteen had a bad 90's. Guns N Roses imploded and so did Van Halen. Dire Straits did one final album and split. Genesis bit the dust. Pink Floyd too. Rush suffered personal tragedy and went on a long hiatus. Metallica went down a different path that I thought produced dreary music. And so on.

    I still stand by my comments on nu-metal though. I hate those bands with a passion.

  14. #2714
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMorgan View Post
    Cheers for that. I actually nearly went back and amended that last post as I was a bit worried that it was possibly too defensive. I hope that it didn't come across as too argumentative.

    Just to clarify further and add to the the point that you made there, I think some of the stuff we got back then was pretty good. These are all 1990's albums that I think are absolutely great for varying reasons:

    Badmotorfinger - Soundgarden
    August And Everything After - Counting Crows
    Ten - Pearl Jam
    The Holy Bible - Manic Street Preachers
    Urban Hymns - The Verve
    OK Computer - Radiohead

    And I've enjoyed many more. The ire I sometimes direct towards the 90's really stems from seeing bands that I was very fond of rendered obsolete overnight. It wasn't just hair metal that suffered back then. It seemed like a lot of my favourite artists were dropping like flies. Bruce Springsteen had a bad 90's. Guns N Roses imploded and so did Van Halen. Dire Straits did one final album and split. Genesis bit the dust. Pink Floyd too. Rush suffered personal tragedy and went on a long hiatus. Metallica went down a different path that I thought produced dreary music. And so on.

    I still stand by my comments on nu-metal though. I hate those bands with a passion.
    Nu-metal is a pretty large category depending on who you ask. It contains some of the most annoying bands I can remember but also some very good ones are sometimes lumped in with them.
    Dark does not mean deep.

  15. #2715
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    Nu-metal is a pretty large category depending on who you ask. It contains some of the most annoying bands I can remember but also some very good ones are sometimes lumped in with them.
    I can't think of any band that's been included on nu-metal lists that I've had the time of day for I must say. Thing is, I'll openly admit that part of this is generational as much as anything else.

    I was in my mid 20's when the likes of Limp Bizkit (urgh..) really took off. If I'd been a decade younger and listening to these bands up in my bedroom whilst simultaneously raging against my parents and the world in general then I may have been much more well disposed towards it. Not being an angry teenager, these nu-metal songs just came across as incredibly whiny and with an obvious level of corporately mandated 'angst'.

    My teenage years were the hair metal years, hence me having a real soft spot for a scene that many consider vapid. They aren't wrong really but I lived and loved those years.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •