Talk:Grunge/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Bush

Well i just think that Bush's old stuff was Grunge and if Hole was classed as Grunge so should Bush. They were more Grunge then Hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.143 (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Yeah i totally agree with you. Im sick of people putting bush in a post grunge genre, they were around before kurt died. So if more people argue this point, we could hopefully convince them to keep bush on the out of the seattle are grunge bands. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They generally utilized a more commercial-friendly, less "dirty" production for the most part and even had a cleaned up "hearthrob" at the center of their line-up (seriously? How anti-grunge is that?). Their first record was released well after 1992. They are POST-GRUNGE, and you're just going to have to accept it. And by the way, they are not the only band who formed/recorded before Cobain's death to be classified under the post-grunge category (Live and Candlebox are other notable examples). 74.69.64.52 (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I dont think Gavin being good looking means that changes their sound? Its not like he chose to be Good Looking really? anyway alot of you Wiki types take things to seriously so im not going to argue. 81.96.244.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

I agree totally with the above. If being commercial, radio-friendly etc makes you non-grunge, then please could you enlighten me as to what Nirvana's "Nevermind" classes as? And as for grunge musicians not being allowed to be good-looking, no one seems to have told the thousands of girls and young women who seemed to think Cobain was plenty bone-able. Anyway, as for Bush, I have added their name to the list, and inserted a reference to a respectable source describing them as grunge. So, person above the person above me, it would appear YOU are the one who is "just going to have to accept it". Peace xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.127.118 (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Being Grunge wasn't about about what you wore, but there was somewhat of an expected look, and Gavin R.'s did not fit that. 70s punks were usually expected not to do bell-bottoms and superlong hair, but most importantly could not look wealthy. Grunge derived from punk and it carried on punk's tradition of looking unkempt and poverty-stricken. It was all tied to the independent, anticonformist spirit of punk (plus legitimate poverty in the background of the first punks acts, eg Iggy pop, Richard Hell, Ramones). Anyway, Rossdale sported a more clean and tidy look, that much cannot be denied. It isn't about being naturally "cute" (though that can and DOES affect which directions people go in, hence models).
Girls loved Kurt C., yes, in the way that female Rock fans will have the hots for some big-time Rock musicians regardless of their looks (Mick Jagger, Steve Tyler) simply since they are Rock Gods. That's not the point. Kurt was uncomfortable with fame and he was pretty careful not to acknowledge his female response. He hated Rock stardom, and by all indications would have end up retiring or going back to independent recording. Rossdale became a major MTV star.
If being commercial, radio-friendly makes you non-grunge
Bush has something of a part in the 90s Grunge legacy, but that is as a band visibly influenced by it. Just as Creed and Puddle of Mudd were later.
Read the damned articles. Post-grunge bands are the the more stylistically commercial, radio-ready response to proper Grunge, and Bush is strongly affiliated as one of the earliest of these bands. If post-grunge was defined by success alone, then Nirvana would be post-grunge. Obviously that makes no sense.
For a comparison, the Monkess succeeded off the Beatles and British Invasion template, but, they were clearly not a British Invasion band.
Nirvana's Nevermind was a more commercially accessible record than any Grunge releases before it. Nirvana did sign to a major label, as did other Indie/College Rock bands at the time, since Alt music was already slowly rising in visibility. But Nirvana and became critically-acclaimed and respected.
The things is, this acclaim was also a celebration of a real music breakthrough: mainstream attention being brought to unique-sounding bands who flourished for years on small labels, with low-budget recordings and small cult followings. Nevermind, commercial as it was, was significant in that it brought on a Rock revolution (arguable the last one to date).
How many people even remember the names of any Bush albums? Bands like Bush, Silverchair, Live etc used cleaner production, and were more stadium rock than punk rock for the most part. How should they, and other authentically questionable bands be sharing credit that Nirvana, Mudhoney and Soundgarden get for defining and propelling Grunge? It's not about tastes or "not being as good" either. These bands could sound quite good (especially with the help of their big-label budgets), and some underground Grunge bands could be mediocre-sounding. Fact is Grunge wasn't just a sound, but a music movement with a philosophy and specific timeline and specific formative influences.
Could you picture Bush citinginfluence from Black Flag, Bad Brains, Beat Happening or Flipper? Can you hear anything in Bush vaguely reminiscent to Sonic Youth or the Melvins? For the record, Kurt Cobain hated bands like STP and Candlebox and for sure would have hated Bush.
88.111.127 didn't contribute a real argument or knowledge so much as continued where the first two posters left off hissy fitting about their band's exclusion from a club (which succeeds FAR too often in getting genre articles damaged here). I mean what insight to point out that both Kurt and Gavin were liked by girls, therefore their bands same exact genre! But hey, you got your band in, 88.111, though it's hardly an accomplishment to get misinformation posted on this site. Bush's inclusion will probably come and go, and it's insignificant. It says just about enough that about 80-90% of the time in the article's history, Bush doesn't show up in the list of Grunge bands, and 99% of the time they do' show up prominently on the post-grunge article.
"Accepting" that this site is not reputable for music thanks in part to childish, club-inclusion whores, is not difficult. ;)

Theburning25 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to why Bush isn't included either, surely there are multiple reliable sources citing them as such.Hoponpop69 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

R.E.M.

Were R.E.M., the rock band from Georgia, a grunge band? They were once described this way on Stars in their Eyes. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not grunge in the slightest, although they were a big influence on Nirvana from about 1990 onwards. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Soul Asylum

Someone should add Soul Asylum to the list of Prominent bands Outside the Seattle area. They where defiantly a part of that grunge scene and had allot of success in the 90's after there triple-platinum album "Grave Dancers Union" in 1992 and winning a Grammy Award for the song "Runaway Train" in 1994. The band also played the Bill Clinton inauguration and where doing the grunge thing long before Babes in Toyland in Minneapolis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.55.141 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

They weren't grunge. Very much borne of the Minneapolis Husker Du/Replacements brand of alt-rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern grunge bands

how come underground bands like pet salad and garden blue aint mentioned underground bands like them keep grunge alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justing101 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

im going to add a revival section if everyone lets me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justing101 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that discuss "grunge revival" ? If this is going to just be sourced to the same myspace stuff that the other page was, this isn't going to go very far. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

well they do have they're own websites and spirit of metal has references to many new grunge bands and a page on last fm about the subject Justing101 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)justing101

right im adding it now Justing101 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)justing101

Did you listen to a thing anyone said, here or at the AfD discussion? Places like last.fm and myspace do not qualify as reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a flyer or advertisement for your favorite bands. Unless this "revival" is sources to real media, please stop adding it to this article. Tarc (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thers no such thing as 'modern grunge' its called post grunge people. post grugne was what bands were becoming after 1994 and up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBloves2rock2626 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah there REALLY needs to be a section on new grunge. There is a big difference between post-grunge and newer grunge. You can hear it. Post-grunge was always said to borrow from grunge, yet be a watered down radio-friendly version. People NEED to know that TONS of bands call themselves and are inspired by and sound like grunge since it exploded and imploded in the mainstream. I'm tired of people acting like "but i thought grunge was dead" when I tell them I'm into it. We NEED to support newer bands, and help others realize they CAN play grunge today, it's just that no one bothers to look for it, but we can help at least a little if we just tell them on the page. Oh and if you want a page that discusses new grunge/grunge revival I have a facebook page called "Spread the word of good newer grunge bands", with TONS of bands on it and a total sense of community of let's help each other discover each other, and maybe even lead to good bands getting recognized instead of the junk that's been on the radio for the past 14 years, and I try hard to keep post-grunge out of it. This article is DEFINITELY incomplete without a section on new grunge, and it makes wikipedia look bad. Without the whole picture, you're not giving the picture. You can't just talk about the past, it's a subject, it's still around,just like there are still punk bands, just like there are still metal bands, we need ALL the details, not just the ones seen by people with the opinions that we should deny that there are tons of grunge bands today and only live in the past. There's hope for the future with a lot of these bands, but one bad thing about the internet is you have to know what you are looking for before you type it into the search bar to look for it, so why not help people realize they can look for new grugne bands, support new grunge artists, go to new grunge concerts, festivals, and clubs, maybe all tehy need to do is read it on wikipedia in order to realize it and start on the journey of not constantly saying "all new music today sucks" 108.13.172.3 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 20:06, 7 February 2012
Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the key policies of Wikipedeia, for which you have links in the welcome at the top of your talkpage. Most importantly here is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", which you can find at WP:VERIFY. In short, that means that anything that is added should be supported by reliable sources. Facebook and similar are not among these, as editors have already pointed out to you. Wikipedia articles should also be written in an appropriate style for an encyclopedia and the section you have attempted to add repeatedly was clearly not that. Another vital element is determining what is in an article is consensus, which is determined here on this talkpage, meaning that you need to persuade other editors here that what you want to add is notable and appropriate. So I suggest that if you want to pursue this you find some reliable sources, bring links to them to this thread and that you get help in putting something together for the article. If you need any general help with this process you can contact me on my talkpage and I will do my best to assist.--SabreBD (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you whoever started the section, I just feel it's important to add that part of grunge. It's a subject that's very close to my heart and the only one I care to really search out. Now please keep looking for whatever media it is you would be happy with about new grunge to put it on here because the way I really found out was this page as a 13 year old wanting to know all about it, so we can really help kids and everyone discover good newer bands if we just do more things like talk about them in grunge related articles and whatnot. Hopefully there will be more news articles written about newer grunge bands, but they may not know to look for them because they didn't realize there still are new grunge bands because maybe they didn't read it on wikipedia or something. 108.13.172.3 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 18:09, 8 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.172.3 (talk)
The Facebook and similar links are of no use, but you have two references here that do look reliable (the Seattle Times and Guardian ones) and I think it might be possible to put something together about more recent trends based on these. I will see if I can turn anything else up and try to put something together over the weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Add "Hard Rock" to influences?

I was just thinking that "Hard rock" would fit the influences spot for grunge. Bands like Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith and stuff had an impact. Just thought I'd consolt it here. (This is CheezerRox4502, just forgot my password) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.142.112 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Heavy metal is more accurate and covers most of the same bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Hard rock should be added to the spot of influences for grunge. This way, musicians like The Stooges and Neil Young ("The Godfather of Grunge") would be noticed. --Rivet138 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Rivet138

I agree with the whole hard rock being an influence. like listen to the riffs on the songs breed from nirvana. thats a pretty damn heavy riff for grunge. And some of the riffs from alice and chains and pearl jam. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with that. The Who is also an influence that many grunge bands have covered some of their songs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.200.106 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I sure would think that Hard Rock is a more accurate genre influence than Heavy Metal. Still, if Metal is going to be left in then Hard Rock shouldn't need to be included as well. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should change Heavy Metal to Hard Rock.--79.115.179.48 (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't. It was influenced by Heavy Metal, not Hard Rock. Don't forget that Hard Rock isn't just a harder classic rock. Not every heavy form of rock is related to it.--79.115.178.97 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard Rock is a better term than Heavy Metal. If one were to listen to the song structures of grunge bands such as Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, and Pearl Jam, one can recognize the influence of Guns N' Roses, Led Zeppelin, and Jimi Hendricks (respectively), all of which are hard rock groups, not metal groups. However, it does seem that hard rock has become absorbed by heavy metal (for the most part), and most people cannot hear the difference anymore, so I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.74.80 (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Ceoil (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
First of all, there are plenty of sources that consider Guns N' Roses and Led Zeppelin heavy metal (Guns N' Roses isn't metal? That's the first I've heard!). Second, whether it should be or not, heavy metal has explicitly stated in multiple sources to be an origin for grunge.--¿3family6 contribs 19:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Grunge from outside Seattle

This is not a forum for discussing grunge in general, it is only for article improvement.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is ridiculous none of those bands are grunge. I personally think of grunge as the Seattle Sound. Someone will bring up here that they all sound different but it's the Seattle Sound i.e. based on geographical location. It even says it within the article here - Arm used grunge as a descriptive term rather than a genre term, but it eventually came to describe the punk/metal hybrid sound of the Seattle music scene.[4] So what is the basis for those bands being there? That they have a punk/metal sound? I can think of lots more bands from the period who could fit into that section, Hum must be grunge by that logic, sure i suppose Helmet is grunge too. When i go to remove the bands it says that Silverchair, Smashing Pumpkins etc. cannot be included... Why not!? What makes them so different from Stone Temple Pilots or Hole. There is absolutely no reason for them to be there. It even says here regarding STP: "Anti Grunge From a 1993 interview, "Although STP takes pains to distance itself from the grunge groups (Weiland jokingly labels himself a "new wave Renaissance guy"), the singer also admits his band is riding the grunge wave." Just because he is riding the grunge wave doesn't mean the band is grunge. By the logic of this article any band who came out in the early 90s and has a metal/punk sound is grunge and that is simply not correct. Also if these bands were so major in the genre why are they not mentioned in the history? It also says in this article "Grunge evolved from the local punk rock scene (in Seattle) - How could those bands be influenced by the Seattle local punk rock scene if they are not from Seattle. Can we use a bit of common sense here...--Alowishus321 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that no-one seems to remember what grunge means. Nirvana were pretty much grunge in the beginning but not so much later on, Pearl Jam were never grunge, Soundgarden were never grunge, Alice In Chains weren't grunge but had some grungey tracks. The Seattle scene is not the same thing as grunge, the two terms were confused by the media; journalists asked a few talking heads and random kids from Seattle what the sound that was going around Seattle was called and they answered "grunge", which was true. Unfortunately, people took this to mean that all bands from the Seattle area were grunge bands when this was not in fact the case. Everyone who knows the history of grunge knows that, but Wikipedia seems to have missed it. The bands that actually played grunge were not as successful as the so-called big four grunge bands (unless you include Nirvana, who got big after ditching the grungier elements of their sound) because grunge is a not a very commercial sound, therefore most people have never heard real grunge, and so the confusion continues. As Wikipedia operates under the pretense of being an impartial encyclopedia it would be nice if Wikipedia helped to put this grunge myth to rest, but sadly this will never happen as most so-called reliable sources do not know what grunge means. Note that Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden don't sound very similar at all, and the only genre that you can fit the three bands into comfortably is rock. Alice In Chains were really outsiders who were influenced by the Seattle scene (including grunge, to an extent), they were regarded as phonies by many inside the Seattle scene at the time because they were originally a glam rock band who appeared to change their sound when some alternative rock bands from Seattle got big, though I personally think they were a great band, better than Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Though essentially a pop-rock band, Pearl Jam were accepted because they had roots going right back to Green River. Soundgarden were basically a metal band with psychedelic influences until later on in their career, where they became more eclectic. The fact that none of the so-called big four grunge bands actually played grunge for the most part does not seem to matter any more, that is why there is so much confusion about what is or isn't grunge. Bleach by Nirvana is the only album by any of those four bands that could be described as a grunge album, though it is not entirely grunge. I hope that clears it up for you, though most likely I have confused you even more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.121.206 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, a more accurate definition of grunge would somewhat improve the article, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.121.206 (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I come back a year later to find that some idiot has pushed my post into "discussing information in the manner of a forum". I was informing on inaccuracies in the article and backing it up with information. Isn't that the whole point of this site?! The fact that someone replied to my post in that matter has nothing to do with me. The person who replied to me is entitled to their opinion but i backed up my claims with information from other articles on THIS SITE which directly contradicts what is being said in this one. If you want to claim that what i am saying is some gibberish then by all means continue thinking that. I was just attempting to improve this article. Bands like Smashing Pumpkins are not, have never been and never will be grunge. Like i rightly pointed out if this article is going to continue on the route it is going basically every alt metal/rock band from the early 90s is going to be appearing on the list of bands. It is totally ludicrous and yet people are still piling on discussions below this suggesting "band x oh they must be grunge". This is truly one of the contradicting pages on the whole site. --Alowishus321 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

what's the connection between grunge & alternative metal?

i think you should add it as a derivative form of grunge or maybe as a stylistic origin because Aic, Soundgarden and the melvins are considered the godfather's of alternative metal and are two of the earliest bands to be labeled alternative metal. i'm not sure though because it says both genre's began around the same time in the mid 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The styles are parallel. Really, grunge is a type of alt-metal, but not the only type, so it is a derivative of alt-metal and not the other way around.--¿3family6 contribs 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Shorter

This article has too many words and reflects an African-American point of view. It should be reduced in size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.93.31 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What on earth!?--¿3family6 contribs 01:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nu-Metal

I think nu-metal should be in the derivative genres section because nu-metal bands definately did derive their sound from grunge music. If not in the derivatives section, grunge's influence on nu-metal should at least be mentioned on here.

This article is not neutral in terms of the early Grunge movement giving Nirvana with "smell like teen spirit" and Pear Jam full credit for starting it or being the most popular bands of the era. Definetly not accurate! Before Nirvana came into the scene Alice in Chains with the album "Facelift" was already making noise in MTV and the whole world.

NU-metal is a stupid sub genre, i think its a load of crap and i hate some of the bands that get called nu-metal, like distrubed for example, im trying to convince people that distrubed are progressive metal. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Um no, Nu-Metal has no real reason to be mentioned here. It crosses over with post-grunge music quite often, but pretty much is it's own offshoot of Alternative Metal inspired largely by Faith No More and RHCP (non-grunge bands), and has little in common with the original Grunge bands. As far as I know the "Heavy Metal" article covers that particular topic, and it's fine there. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) i'm removing nu metal from derivative forms since grunge was just a minor influence to nu metal (and it's unsourced) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins

I'm a little blown away these guys didn't make the Outside Seattle grunge band list...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.162.44 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am too. I'm adding them, they ought to be obvious. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
If you know anything about music, they aren't even remotely grunge. It has been removed. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tales of Terror

What do you mean "rvt largely unsource and otherwise problematic errors?" that's the statement you used to removed what I had wrote about Tales of Terror in the Grunge article, I don't understand it, so can you explain me please?. I thought the two references I wrote were enough reliable sources. DustyCoffin (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the text of this edit was not supported by the sources, which it needs to be in order to be verifiable. The first source looks as if it may be reliable, but only covers the quotation and none of the text that came before as far as I can see. The second source does not look like a reliable source, but appears to be a personal website. If you make a bold statement that says "Tales of Terror is often cited as the foundation of the Grunge movement" then you need a reliable and verifiable source to support that. There is also an issue about making sure you stick to a NPOV, for example, statements like: "An array of live recordings clearly show their live energy and exuberance", do not sound very encyclopedic. They may be taken to be WP:fancruft, original research, or opinion. It may also give undue weight to this band in the context of the article. Finally, there are also some other issues with these additions such as capitalisation, but no doubt these could be sorted, if the sourcing and tone issues are dealt with. It is worth considering that this is a Featured Article and that adding anything that does not look like it is at FA level is likely to get reverted. I hope that helps. If you want any advice on editing in general then by all means contact me on my talkpage. Issues that impact on the article should really be here so that other editors can easily see them.--SabreBD (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Since we got a reliable source when this was re added, I edited this down to fit in with the article and formatted the reference.--SabreBD (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed the cite (and the attending paragraph) because in writing this article I've read up on a lot of grunge sources, and this is the first time I recall Tales of Terror being mentioned, so saying "Tales of Terror have often been cited as the foundation of the grunge movement" is a major fallacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Grunge metal

someone should make an article for grunge metal, as that would be a good of separating the heavier grunge bands from the more punk influenced ones, and it could also be used to describe the 80s metal bands that experimented with grunge in the 90s (motley crue, anthrax etc.) as well as post-grunge bands like nickelback and creed — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not compare post grunge to grunge. Post grunge is an insult to grunge's existence and does not deserve to be lumped together. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever your feelings are on post-grunge, it was informed by grunge, so yes, it does warrant mention here. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Tales of Terror

DustyCoffin (talk · contribs) is dead set on including Tales of Terror as some forerunner of grunge, and are not afraid of edit-warring to keep that information in, sourced to this article. Here's the problem:

  1. This is an FA and edits have to be extra-good and made with consensus. The brief paragraph on this talk page, above, does not constitute consensus.
  2. Whatever "midtownmonthly" is, it's not a reliable source for this kind of important information.
  3. The text added to the article was copied nearly verbatim from that article--it may even have to be revedeleted from the history.

If anyone can make a decent argument as to why this should be kept, with all the problems cited above (in addition to the problem that no one else has heard of this band), I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, DustyCoffin has been reported for edit-warring. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind its inclusion if other sources could back up the assertions about Tales of Terror. it wasn't until i read that article that I even heard of the band, and I did all the research for this article! The claim about their influence on grunge is highly dubious and smacks of hyperbole/poor research. And straight-up copying of the article and pasting its text here is an outright copyright violation, and per Wikipedia policy it must be removed on sight. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
As a DJ throughout much of the early 90's, the name of this band does not ring even the faintest bell. I also have Greg Prato's Grunge is Dead, which consists of direct observations and quotes from a variety of Seattle luminaries. While I cannot lay hands on it at this exact moment in my messy apartment, I do not recall this band being name-dropped as an influence by anyone there either, and Mark Arm is quoted extensively in the book. In a single interview, Arm cites what is influential to him, but that doesn't necessarily confer that influence on the entire scene. Honestly, looking over the Tales of Terror (band) article, I'm seeing something that barely scrapes by WP:N, and its close. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm seeing something there that is now much shorter. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not "edit-warring," you people have no real reason to remove this, the info had been there for quite a while until this guy WesleyDodds removed it only 'cause he doesn't know them and if he and you doesn't know them then it means they're nothing? He's been removing stuff from other articles as he pleases. It's not copied 'verbatim' anyway. Midtownmonthly is a local paper and local papers are reliable sources, if none of you had never heard of the band well now you have, they are not that well known nationally but they are legends in Sacramento California, any of you is from there? What I was trynna do was let more people know about them 'cause they totally deserve more recognition and by deleting this info you people want them to stay as a unknown band. Mark Arm cites them as one of his most notable influences, Green River covered one of their songs on their 1987 Dry As a Bone EP, Mudhoney has a song called 'Tales of Terror' as a way to honour them, all the Green River members liked them so they might have influenced Pearl Jam as well since Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament where in Green River too, they might have even influenced Guns 'N Roses since they ripped off one of their songs and Tales' singer lived in Los Angeles with the GNR guys, Green River's drummer Alex Vincent attended school with Tales' bassist before moving to Seattle, they were friends and were in a band, Tales' album is listed in Kurt Cobain's top 50 and I am sure they influenced more people, they went to Seattle several times and that was when Mark Arm found out about them, what else do you want? DustyCoffin (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
An encyclopeda reflects what exists in the outside world, it is not a producer of original text or ideas. So if you're here to, quote", "let more people know about them 'cause they totally deserve more recognition", then you're not here for the purposes of contributing to an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
What are encyclopedias for? Let people know stuff they don't know, learn new stuff, learn more about what you already think you know and it is not me that is saying Tales of Terror influenced Grunge so how is that my original text or idea? DustyCoffin (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
What I believe Tarc meant is that Wikipedia is not in the advocacy game. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Who said I'm 'in the in the advocacy game'? And what I think I meant is that he said an encyclopedia reflects what exists in the outside world, well Tales' influence is something real, what haven't you read what I wrote, I'm not making that up, it's not as if it is my band and I'm spamming; I submitted it here 'cause I saw this info wasn't here, every time somebody submits something here is 'cause they want people to know it, right? Contribute to the 'encyclopedia.' So every single time somebody tries to submit new info then you people will impede it jealousy? DustyCoffin (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who said "let more people know about them 'cause they totally deserve more recognition". And no, we aren't jealous. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
So? What the hell is wrong with that anyway? Like I said every time somebody submits something here, including you and all the other 'hardcore' users, is to let people know it 'cause obviously everyone that reads it will know it so everybody here is in the 'advocacy game.' And you know what I meant when I said 'jealousy,' it wasn't literal. Just 'cause you and the others don't know the band doesn't mean it's not true they influenced the genre. What about the fact Green River the first grunge band covered one of their songs, and their album is in Kurt Cobain's top 50, and the Mudhoney song called 'Tales of Terror'? etc etc how many times do I have to repeat that DustyCoffin (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The main point of contention here is the "Often cited as the foundation of the grunge movement..." line in regards to this "Tales of Terror" band. This claim appears in precisely one source; a local magazine writing about a local band. To date, no other source cites this band as a major influence on grunge. That is why it will not go into this article, as it is at odds with the generally established history of the genre, and its origins & history. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

New albums by old grunge bands

Recently Soundgarden released the new album King Animal and some of the editors keep telling me that because it's not from the 80s or 90s that it can't be grunge even if it's sourced as such while also sounding like grunge and being by a band known as a "grunge band." The same problem occurs with Alice in Chain's album Black Gives Way to Blue. Personally I think both albums are clearly grunge and I'd like some help in making sure they are labeled so because editors on both pages keep removing grunge from their genre sections. They're arguments are only that "grunge is a time period", but I thought grunge was just a sub genre and the grunge article seems to agree with me. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's indeed an interesting conundrum, "grunge" is hard to pin down as most of the bands back then hated the label and did their best to distance themselves from the hype. I still chuckle over Megan's grunge slang prank. I'll have more thoughts on this later, off for the night. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it: if it's a genre it has no expiration date and King Animal and Black Gives Way to Blue's articles should be labeled as grunge. If it's only a time period don't allow grunge as a genre for any album article, not even Nevermind, Ten, or Badmotorfinger. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Grunge isn't dead !!!

Grunge isn't dead. The whole section about Alice in Chains needs revision as the band has reformed (without deceased Lane Staley) and put out a widely praised album, "Black Gives Way to Blue." I think the album is selling as well as can be expected in a file swapping world. I leave any changes for the wiki gurus to evaluate and make.

OCT 30, 2009 Bobroberts248 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


  • well yes, in a way it is dude. The only way for grugne to come back is if a fresh young band from seattle with the grunge sound makes an album and doestn sell out, than maybe grunge could be revived. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • shouldn't it at least be mentioned that 3 out of the 5 MAIN grunge bands are back(Pearl Jam of coarse never leaving) with popularity Alice in Chains Black Gives Way to Blue produced some of the most commercially successful singles of the bands career and Soundgarden single is doing really well, and its worth mentioning STP's new album giving them thier firtst number one on alternative radioFeedmyeyes (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Or the fact that Soundgarden has a new album and another successful single. STP hasn't really been grunge since Purple though, they went through drastic sound changes after that just like Hole didn't after Live Through This. But, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, and Pearl Jam are all still active and have albums in the 2000s. People need to remember there's more grunge bands than Nirvana. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

None of the bands are making full-fledged albums that sound exactly like 'grunge' sound you know. If you watch the making of 'King Animal' videos on youtube Chris Cornell clearly states that he doesn't really want to make more full-fledged grunge or heavy metal albums. He wants to make something different and experimental with some traces of the band's trademark sound. On the other hand Alice in Chains' comeback was more like a full-fledged metal band dressed up in all black leather if you see the promotionals of Black gives Way to Blue. And the album sounded like something in between traditional melodic heavy metal with riffs and heavy bits reminiscent of bands like Candlemass, Type o Negative here and there and the album has won Metal Hammer best album of the year as well. And as Mrmoustache14 said STP hasn't really been grunge since Purple, more of southern rock and generic hard rock. Pearl Jam is making generic alternative rock records that sound nothing like 'grunge' to me. Their last 'grunge' record according to me is Vitalogy. Mudhoney is somewhere between garage rock, art rock and punk rock now. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What?

Most grunge bands were NOT uncomfortable with their popularity, only Nirvana was... actually that's not even true JUST Kurt Cobain. I'm removing this. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So is Grunge obsolete?

Are there any new Grunge bands out nowadays? At least underground laced ones? The post-grunge sounds more watered down than the raw, visceral real sound of Grunge. Why isn't there a list of new underground Grunge bands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.245.51 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of new grunge bands; unfortunately Wikipedia's guidelines make it very hard to actually mention them without them getting deleted, as it's hard to hit critical mass and get mentioned in a newspaper.98.216.65.237 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which guidelines exactly? If there's recent underground bands why not put a sub-section on the main page for a list of new, underground Grunge bands? To signify that despite the post-grunge, mainstream phase you still have a continuous and low-level scene going on with the genre. Grunge is a speciic type of genre, it's not a historical precursor like Protopunk or Post-Punk which were only titled in specific timeframes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentrazemine (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tried that before, but apparently wikipedia is extremely strict in that it doesn't let you put anything unless it had sources, and the proper ones at that, and they don't allow facebook or myspace pages, so it's really hard to get any sort of lists or band mentions, but I have a facebook page called "Spread the word of good newer grunge bands" if you want to check that out, with several lists in notes, and there have been over 400 bands posted. Some notable ones that everyone seems to love include Violent Soho, Senium, Nukeateen, Noiseheads, Dinosaur Pile-Up, Japanese Voyeurs, Cable35, Thee Now Sound, Viole(n)t Bullfrog, Valentiine, Inedia, Dirty Bliss, The Heroine Whores, and Dave's Pawn Shop. 96.229.229.77 (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you're wondering Japanese Voyeurs already has a wikipedia page. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually Seaweed is a band

They have their own article. They were formed in the 90s in Tacoma, Washington. Their debut album was in 1991 and they're considered punk rock and grunge. They also were on the Sub Pop label. Their version of "Go Your Own Way" by Fleetwood Mac was in the famous cult classic Clerks and have worked and toured along side Mudhoney. A song of theirs "Kid Candy" was known enough to be featured on Beavis and Butthead. Why aren't they on this list? They're surely more important of a grunge band and more successful than Hammerbox, Gruntruck, and Blood Circus (though those 3 definitely deserve to be on the list) so does Seaweed. The guy who linked "Seaweed" linked the plant article isntead of the band article which is titled "Seaweed (band)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJcoIEWB1C0 <-If you'd like evidence of their sound here's "Kid Candy" Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they're probably worthy of inclusion. I guess the only question is in regards to how "prominent" a band they were; I remember the grunge era quite vividly having lived through it, and I was only very vaguely familiar with Seaweed. But Mrmoustache14 makes a pretty good case. ChakaKongtalk 02:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
When I reverted the addition of Seaweed, I had already seen they were mentioned briefly above a couple of years ago but without discussion. I also looked up the Seaweed (band) article to see that they would be correctly placed in the Seattle area section. I was just following the hidden comment in two places in the Prominent bands section that says PLEASE USE THE TALK PAGE BEFORE ADDING OR REMOVING BANDS. Also the precident in the article's edit history of editors reverting for this reason and my being unsure of their prominence. However, a good edit was made and I was in error in removing it from the article. Moreover, my edit summary was hurtful and I apologize to the editor who added Seaweed. I would have been humiliated to have such a comment directed at me and I take my scolding to heart. Sorry again. Fylbecatulous talk 12:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have written an apology on the editor's talk page and truly hope they see it, since it is an IP address. Fylbecatulous talk 13:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

the swans influence

i don't know how to add citations, but cobain cites raping a slave as one of his 50 biggest influences and a google search will pull up quotes by buzz osborne talking about swans. in fact, if you cross-reference through wiki itself, you'll see swans mentioned on the melvins page, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

forget it, i figured it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • First of all, this is a Featured Article, and that means the writing and the format of the references has to be up to snuff: it wasn't when I reverted. Second, the references need to be from reliable sources. If you want the article to say that some band "has been acknowledged as a large influence" you'll have to do better than link an article from a non-notable magazine that doesn't even mention the band, let alone that they were an influence, or an interview done by someone published only on their own website. Drmies (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
umm. the first link was a hand-written note by kurt cobain. the second was an interview with buzz osborne that references swans twice. this is a talk page, so i'm going to cut and paste liberally and not care if that's against some kind of rule.


interviewre:Yeah! Because it's like - you listen to that and it's just absolutely - there's no precedent for it at all! Is there? I mean, it's like you invented an entirely new - not grunge, but an entirely new genre. It's just such a bizarre form of music you're playing on there. buzz osborne:Yeah! That's a weird one.

i: How did you come up with that sound? What was going on in that point in time that would result in you creating that kind of music? bo: Well, at the time, we were listening to a lot of Swans, Gang of Four's "Solid Gold" album which has remained a favorite, umm.Public Image Limited's "Flowers of Romance" - that was another big positive influence for us. Uhh. Meat Puppets II. Not as much Sabbath as people would imagine at that point; we were actually much more into Black Flag than Black Sabbath at that period in time. We liked them, but..

i: Yeah, but none of that music sounds at all like Gluey Porch Treatments. I mean, for the first five minutes of that record, you can't even tell what speed it's supposed to be on! bo: Yeah, that first song's pretty slow. But you have to think of that album in terms of the place and time it was created. It was recorded at the end of 1986, which was the height of -

i: Oh! Hardcore punk. bo: SKINHEAD hardcore. And we didn't like it at all. We didn't like their whole attitude - towards us especially! So we wanted to do something that made us totally opposite to what they were doing. Which were the kinds of things that made us happy! Bands like Venom. We were really into Venom and Flipper and the Swans. Stuff like that. And some Sabbath too, I guess. Though I think I was listening to the Dio stuff at that time. Probably Heaven and Hell more than any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what you're saying or what you're trying to say. If you wish your edit to stand, please address the relevant points. And please sign your messages. Drmies (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • i mean, if you've never heard of swans, that's ok. they're not the most popular band in the world. personally, i think their early material is terrible. but, i don't know what kind of more evidence you want besides a hand-written note and a direct interview response. should king buzzo have it tattooed on his forehead or something? there's a certain point where you have to admit that the evidence is clear and you're wrong. a lot of early swans material is out of print, but they're easy to find on youtube.
      • OK. Please sign your messages.

Australia

There should be a section on Australian bands and their influence on Grunge. It seems odd to quote Mark Arm citing Australia as the birthplace of Grunge, and then not go into further detail. So here's a bunch of facts and quotes I've collected in just a short while:

  • Greta Moon of Au Go Go Records has stated clearly that: "The Scientists and Lubricated Goat were most definitely big influences on bands like Mudhoney in particular. The Scientists were the first grunge band. They were in existence before any of those US Sub Pop bands came along. It was US Sub Pop bands like Nirvana and Mudhoney that were openly avowed fans of the Scientists. And, indeed, the singer of Mudhoney, Mark Arm, has himself stated that: ‘By the time Mudhoney began two of our most influential bands were feedtime and the Scientists, along with the Stooges and Neil Young."link
  • The Birthday Party, The Saints and The Scientists were often acknowledged by prominent Seattle bands as having inspired them. Bands like Cosmic Psychos and Feedtime were seen as peers. Jonathan Poneman - the CEO of Seattle's pioneering grunge label Sub Pop - recently came in to triple j and selected the five albums he wished he'd released on his label. All of them were Australian.link
  • Grong Grong, an Australian band often called "pre-grunge" or "proto grunge", released a self-titled album in 1983. One side of the LP was called "Grong side", the other "Grunge side".link Another band called proto-grunge, who were contemporaries of The Birthday Party, was The Moodists.link
  • Sydney band Box of Fish released a compilation called Invented Grunge 1984. They used the word grunge to describe their music and flyers from the early to mid 80s testify to this.link
  • Southern Fried Kidneys released a 7" in 1985 called Graveyard. The cartoon cover art features "Thrash" as well as "Grunge" written on amplifiers, indicating Australians were already thinking of Grunge as a genre or style of music at this time.link
  • Sydney grunge band Monroe's Fur relocated to Seattle in the late 80s. The band featured Guy Maddison, who is now a member of Mudhoney. Adelaide grunge band Bloodloss also moved to Seattle, which Mark Arm went on to front. One of the results of these Australian bands' interactions with Seattle was Bushpig, which had members of Australian King Snake Roost, the Thrown Ups and Mudhoney.
  • Alternative Tentacles, Amphetamine Reptile, Sympathy for the Record Industry, Sub Pop etc. all signed Australian bands. "John Bigley turned me on to Lubricated Goat, Steve Turner convinced me to buy the first Cosmic Psychos and feedtime LPs. It’s largely undocumented how influential a lot of those [Australian] bands were on Seattle, as a large chunk of that crowd were spinning the aforementioned bands and a lot of the Celibate Rifles kinda stuff." - Tom Hazelmyer.link
  • "Guy [Maddison], our base player, is Australian, and he claims in the early 1980s, in the scene that sort of revolved around the Scientists and Beasts of Bourbon, those kind of bands, those sort of swampy bands in Australia, in Sydney and Melbourne. They were referred to as grunge. In fact, the singer of Beasts of Bourbon Tex Perkins was crowned by some local magazine as the “Prince of Grunge.” And that was in 1983." - Mark Arm.link

124.169.174.92 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Only the first would count as a reliable source. Even that runs into a big issue, given the author writes, "I do not here want to make any claim for the priority of usage for 'grunge.' Rather, I want to suggest that both Mark Arm (and other inner-city Seattleites) and Kim Salmon (and other inner-city Australians) were developing a similar musical form in reaction to punk and that both Salmon and the Seattleites found 'grunge' a useful term to describe this music. This similar reaction was to some extent a consequence of similar, or indeed the same, musical influences and to some extent a consequence of similar modes of indigenisation of rock music". WesleyDodds (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The Australian connection probably bears mentioning in Roots and influences. Sub Pop recently reissued feedtime's back catalog, calling them "a huge influence on the label's early artistes". There's also a Cosmic Psychos documentary slated for release in 2013. Here's a trailer featuring Seattle grunge figures. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Information about 21st century Soundgarden is significant

It is important that the information about Soundgarden's recent history is mentioned and not removed because their grunge releases and success are relevant to the exposure of grunge in recent years. For example, the grunge album Telephantasm recieved the first ever platinum certification in the United States based on video games sales and their 2012 studio album reached the top five in at least three countries and number six in the World Chart. This is important to the article because it demonstrates that grunge as a genre has had some mainstream success in recent years. It would be better therefore, to keep this in the article somehow instead of pretending that grunge just didn't exist after 1997. It isn't just Soundgarden either. Mudhoney have also been releasing grunge studio albums in the 21st century --DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, though IMO there should be some sort of a distinction between the continuous (Pearl Jam) and the reunion/revival (AiC, Soundgarden). Tarc (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Consensus in the past and sources mostly point to Alice in Chains and Mudhoney no longer being grunge. As for Soundgarden, King Animal (which is generally believed to be grunge) had excellent sales and two of the songs "Been Away Too Long" and "By Crooked Steps" have charted on major rock charts. With this stated, I'm Iffy about Mudhoney and Alice in Chains being mentioned in the "modern grunge" section, but I strongly agree that Pearl Jam and Soundgarden deserve mention. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of "hard rock" as a stylistic origin

I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but i really think hard rock should be included as a stylistic origin. What genre do the so called "big 4" grunge bands (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, AIC) all fall under? - hard rock, and all 4 have mentioned hard rock/classic rock bands as influences. Having heavy metal but not hard rock is sort of misleading, since not every grunge band (Pearl Jam and Hole for example) is influenced by metal, while basically every grunge band has been inspired by hard rock. I'm confident there are sources out there confirming that hard rock is an origin as well. I call the big one bitey 22:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question but I'm not sure that all grunge bands are "hard rock" at least moreso than metal. I think historically Alice In Chains will be seen as a general metal band despite contributing signigicantly to the Seattle grunge scene because they originally were metal and thier newest releases (as discussed above) aren't considered grunge. Soundgarden is in a similar boat in terms of being more metal than hard rock.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Alice in Chains really early stuff (glam metal days to Facelift) is both hard rock and metal, same applies for every Soundgarden album excluding "Down on the Upside" which is more of an alternative rock album. And the two metal band's that mainly influenced grunge (Black Sabbath and Led Zep) are both considered hard rock/classic rock bands. Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were never really directly influenced by any "pure" metal bands like Iron Maiden, Slayer, etc. I call the big one bitey 02:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Alice In Chains have been influenced by Metallica though, who were generally regarded as a "pure" metal band at the time Alice In Chains formed in the '80s. Wikipedia cites Master of Puppets as purely Thrash metal, which was their last release before Alice In Chains formed.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

But that's only Alice in Chains, who along with Melvins, are the most extreme example of metal influence in grunge. Both are better described as alternative metal or traditional heavy metal anyway. The regular grunge band is mainly influenced by punk, (e.g sonic youth) indie (e.g pixies) and hard rock (eg. Led Zep, Black Sabbath). Also adding hard rock to the infobox would be a good way to differentiate with alternative metal, since that would help imply that grunge is overall softer and less metal leaning than alt metal, because after looking at both articles, the average reader with little music knowledge could assume both genres are the exact same thing. I call the big one bitey 02:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point. I would go ahead and list hard rock.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Candlebox

They came up in the Seattle scene as early as 1990. They might not have the depressive outlook as Nirvana but honestly neither did Pearl Jam. Candlebox had the sound and vocals of a grunge band. I'll admit they are on the lighter side of grunge but they came out way too early to be considered post-grunge. They should be listed under Seattle bands. (Xffactor (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC))

They have never been classified as grunge and never will be. Being form Seattle and having a vaguely poppy-alt sound does not make one "grunge". Tarc (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

They have been considered grunge. Perhaps not "original grunge" but they have been referred too has lite grunge or even post-grunge, which I think they came out too soon to be post-grunge. I'm not saying they are just because of being from Seattle, but let's face it grunge seems to require more street cred than rap. My point was simply that Candlebox formed from everything going on around them. Their debut does have a pop quality but there are a lot of grunge qualities as well. Some people will insist that none of the bands who actually made it were grunge. That Tad and Mother Love Bone are the only real grunge bands. Kurt Cobain used to trash Pearl Jam all the time saying that they were fake and were stealing alternative kids money. I guess it's up to ones interpretation since the STP argument is still going on. When you break down the big 5, PJ, STP, Nirvana, AIC, and Soundgarden, they have similar qualities but sound completely different. (Xffactor (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC))

Well Soundgarden is completely different from the other big 4 since they're from the original grunge scene (Green River, U-Men, Soundgarden, Melvins, Malfunkshun, Skin Yard) You know Deep Six an early grunge release dating back to1986, so it's safe to say Soundgarden is clearly grunge. Alice in Chains hate the term, but almost everyone cites them as grunge and they were close to Mother Love Bone and Soundgarden members in both friendship and music style. Nirvana also fits into the scene based on style and although I love them, Stone Temple Pilots kind of just "jumped onto the grunge band wagon" after it was popular, but still definitely made grunge. Pearl Jam did have members who were in grunge bands (Green River, Mother Love Bone), if you look at their work after Vitalogy, they actually started to be considered post-grunge and I can agree with Cobain in saying they tried a little too hard when it came to being commercial, a very un grunge like way. Though Pearl Jam is borderline grunge, it's still grunge and will be almost always cited as such. Candlebox? They're almost always cited as post-grunge, and even though some references call them grunge, they're probably the same articles that called The Smashing Pumpkins and Jane's Addictions grunge (which are both obviously just alternative rock.) --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree with Soundgarden, myself. They never really get the credit they deserve for how much work they put in before grunge became "a thing." They were the one actual original that made it. I've AIC rejected the grunge sound and Jerry said that they never even dressed the part until their label suggested they do. The thing with Pearl Jam is they did the ultimate to reject the mainstream back then which was to reject MTV after "Jeremy." That's what always bothered me about Kurt's views on them. Nirvana, although Kurt said he hated it, fully embraced the position they were in. They were all over MTV right up until his death. PJ's sound was cleaner than Nirvana and definitely went more towards just hard rock after 10. I don't think they tried too hard, I just think they had a different idea on where they wanted to go with their music. I honestly don't think Nirvana could have grown much over 10 or 20 years. I can see STP jumping on the bandwagon, but coming out in 1992 it still seems a little early for that. It's not like they were Bush, which I do like Bush but total bandwagon. STP will always be a 50/50 discussion. Ok, now for the actual point which is Candlebox. Calling Smashing Pumpkins grunge is like calling The Cranberries grunge. An experiment with a song or two doesn't define the whole band. Candlebox came out in 1993. It seems too early, at least to me, to consider them post. They were touring clubs in areas that was the basis for the grunge sound while Nirvana and Pearl Jam were headlining arenas. I'd go lite grunge, but they are like an easier PJ. A very produced, yet dirty sounding album with great guitar leads. I mean Far Behind is about Andy Wood's death. They had the grunge themes and a lot of grit to much of their first album. This is a good convo. Keep the responses going as long as no one is going to be a douche about it. (Xffactor (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC))

You need to realize Pearl Jam is definitely grunge, but they're NOT the "grunge standard" if anything Green River and the other 5 Deep Six bands are the only grunge standards, as in all other grunge bands should sound like them. Pearl Jam does on their first 3 albums, Candlebox doesn't at all. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok...I fully realize Pearl Jam is grunge. I didn't say they weren't. All I said was that they had a different direction and that's why they make make the music they make today. (Xffactor (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC))

No I wasn't saying you didn't know Pearl Jam was grunge. What I meant was "You need realize that although Pearl Jam is definitely grunge that they are not the grunge standard." --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Candlebox is not grunge and never has been. Just my two cents. ChakaKongtalk 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

They clearly are grunge (there are numerous sources backing this up). People are too picky about what get's called grunge these days. Most quote un quote "post-grunge" bands don't sound too different from Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Paw, Screaming Trees, Gruntruck, Stone Temple Pilots and any other "original" grunge band, compare Pearl Jam's "Alive" to Nickelback's "When We Stand Together", they sound exactly the same as each other and both have the same anthemic lyrical themes. As for bands like Green River, Nirvana and such, they're really more noise rock than they are grunge or anything. I call the big one bitey 04:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As has been said above, not all grunge bands are the "grunge standard". Bands like Pearl Jam and Stone Temple Pilots are not the "standard". The best example of what grunge sounds like is probably Soundgarden as they are the most successful of the Deep Six and are the only substantial band that is "carrying the torch" for grunge music today.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Also Green River is definitely grunge since they were the first band to be categorized as grunge EVER. Soundgarden is a good standard since they were the most successful grunge band that existed in the first wave of grunge so maybe think of grunge as something that sounds like those two bands. I'd personally say Candlebox sounds like neither. To me they sound like a sold out version of Pearl Jam and since Pearl Jam arrived really late to the grunge scene (1991, when most grunge bands had been established since the 80s) They are a terrible example of the "definition of grunge." I'd sooner argue that Pearl Jam isn't grunge than Candlebox is grunge, even though I do believe Pearl Jam is grunge. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the exact same thing can be said for Stone Temple Pilots, who are still considered major players in grunge by fans and the media. Grunge began as a sort of mix between sabbath, noise rock/punk and indie, but by the time Nevermind was released the definition had changed to hard alternative rock music. That's what i would call every grunge band popular during the genres golden years, many like Alice in Chains and STP had almost no punk influence whatsoever and no connection to underground indie music. Post-grunge is basically a continuation of that hard alternative rock sound, but people don't label these bands grunge because they haven't been around since the early 90s and the majority have come from places outside of the washington area. Candlebox emerged during grunge's "golden years", had that hard alternative rock sound and came directly from Seattle, so they deserve to be labeled grunge as much as Alice in Chains and Stone Temple Pilots do. I call the big one bitey 07:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with that at all. Well I see grunge more as a hybrid genre of either alternative rock, punk, or metal that tends to be on the heavier side... With that said the vocal style also matters. Bands such as Green River, Mudhoney, Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Hole, AND Stone Temple Pilots, all for the most part had with heavy distorted guitars, gritty vocals, and seemed to have a protesting like spirit in their lyrics (whether it be politics, getting over depression, or self expression.) To me Candlebox's guitars aren't very distorted despite being heavy, the lead singer's vocals aren't very gritty, their lyrics content tends to be of love more than anything else, and they sound alternative rock, but have no metal or punk influence heard (which is reminiscent of a pop version of a genre.) Clearly post-grunge is the "pop" version of grunge, right? That's how Candlebox comes off as so I feel they're post-grunge. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well then by you're logic Nirvana (post-bleach) and Pearl Jam (ten era) are post-grunge, since they took the original sound and made it more accessible. Actually the music on Ten, Nevermind and Superunknown is about as pop as anything you'll hear on any post-grunge album. To say grunge tends to be on the heavier side of things is saying bands like Pearl Jam, Hole, Mono Men and Babes in Toyland are heavy, and to say ALL grunge bands have gritty vocals, angsty lyrics and distorted guitars implies alternative metal/nu metal bands like Tool, Helmet, Deftones and Korn are grunge. The only 2 influences that EVERY grunge band had were alternative rock (where the base sound comes from) and hard rock (where the heavy guitars come from), and Peal Jam and Stone Temple Pilots both were mainly influenced by alternative rock and hard rock. Candlebox (and Bush for that matter) also fall under that wing of grunge, the ones with not much metal or punk influence. I call the big one bitey 10:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because its more accessible doesn't mean its post-grunge. First of all STP are clearly metal influenced, specifically on Core and Purple, most people don't consider their other albums grunge anyway. Since I'm not too fond of Pearl Jam I couldn't really put up an argument of them because I don't know much of their origins, but from what I know of them they're pretty grungy... Finally, how could you say that Tool falls under this when they don't even have alternative rock roots. Imagine grunge as a heavy, angst driven, gritty vocalized form of alternative rock with EIHER punk or metal influences (not always both) and you'll see that Candlebox isn't really too heavy, sings about love etc. not much angst, has neither punk nor metal influences, and honestly the kicker: IT WAS INFLUENCED BY GRUNGE... not just influenced by one or two grunge bands, but influenced by the entire genre as a whole, which means they're emulating what grunge already is, possibly even trying to sound like grunge... As you may know most grunge bands tend to reject the label grunge, clearly Candlebox never really did that because grunge influenced them directly (not necessarily punk, metal, or even other forms of alternative rock.) And isn't that what post-grunge is? A poppy version of grunge that was influenced by grunge? Finally of a different note, you don't think Hole is heavy??? Have you heard anything from their first album... its like Love flipping out to really loud guitars and drums for a whole album. Also when it comes to Hole generally people believe their first two albums are grunge, and that Celebrity Skin (the first Hole album that isn't considered grunge) is pure pop-rock, on that album her vocals are not longer gritty, the guitar distortion is almost gone, and she still has angst, but its a lot less well grungy... Mrmoustache14 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sprinkler

i think Sprinkler should be in the Grunge bands ouside seattle area beacause they were a Grunge band from Portland, Oregon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.143 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

um, i put them in and it says talk on the discussion board first but i already have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.143 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Sprinkler is a Grunge band and should be added. im adding them. Megabar09 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a list of prominent bands, not an all-inclusive list. A minor Sub Pop act that only lasted 2 years and released 1 full-length album does not qualify. The article on the band itself only barely meets WP:BAND as it is. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet Malfunkshun is on the list? There were NOT prominent, they were just Andy Wood's first band. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Being recognized as one of the original/founding grunge bands is what makes it notable. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Never heard until now. Seems like some ultra obscure amateur band which probably fails all notability guidelines. Just because some crumby obscure punk band from poland is said by some ip to be one of the first punk rock band's doesn't mean they are notable, nor does it mean they should be mentioned on the punk rock article, basically the same applies here. I call the big one bitey 20:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I can agree with you on something. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

STP

I have not been able to find a reliable source that specifies them as grunge. There are, however, a lot of sources that talk about the genre label being slapped onto the band in an accusing manner, but this doesn't make them grunge. My understanding is that the DeLeos struggled with the "rip off" accusations, which obviously led to the change in their sound. So is Core grunge or not? I'd rather there were a consensus (as opposed to a vote) to whether the band should be considered grunge or not. In my opinion, the grunge genre would be more of an insult to STP's proven integrity as a unique band. If they could be considered grunge, it would only be for the first album, the sound being a minority compared to their future releases. In addition, Core doesn't have "apathetic or angst-filled lyrics" (as defined in the Wiki article for "grunge") but rather political or socially influenced lyrics. Finally, in the archives, someone stated that removing STP from the list would be considered a breach of WP:POV, but I actually think having STP listed is neither notable (the debate is notable, and the accusations are notable, but that "STP is Grunge" is not notable) or reliably accurate. –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not grunge and never were grunge. Never considered themselves grunge. Keep addin back, though. If STP is grunge then so is Candlebox. Sheeeeeeep (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I wholly agree their are to many conflicting and wavering sources on should STP be considered Grunge.I have brought this up many times but people here try to Stonewall and shook and jive people because they want it their way like this is Burger King or something[1]--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Way to assume good faith there, sport. You're a credit to the project. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Way to help resolve the issue SPORT what an ass-et to the project you are :)--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Right back at ya, bro. If you wish to press the reset button here and have an actual discussion of grunge vs. not-grunge for STP, I'm all ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
Although their are some of the opinion that STP is not grunge, many if not most do label them as such and therefore should it not be included in the article as grunge as it is the widely viewed consensus that they are. Maybe with a note indicating the dispute over there genre. Paraxkill (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think STP should be included. In a way they are like Pearl Jam. They started off as a grunge band and later just turned into a hard rock band. Candlebox I also think was a grunge band for their first album. Although not on Sub-Pop, they were in that Seattle scene for years. Their first album was only lacking more writing outward instead of inward. (Xffactor (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xffactor (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

stp, like the pumpkins, could be loosesly classified as 'post-grunge'. i think it's inconsistent to include one and not the other, as they were both fundamentally psych rock at their core. and, if you're going to argue stp was grunge, you'd might as well argue tool were, too. or even korn for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hard rock/alternative rock/pop rock/post-grunge band, not grunge. Not nearly enough punk or metal (real metal like metallica not hard rock like led zep) influences to be tagged as grunge. I agree with sheeeeeeep, if STP are grunge than so are Candlebox. This appears to be a case of a few veteran editors/grunge aficionados liking a certain band (STP) and wanting them to be tagged as grunge, while not wanting another (Candlebox/Bush) which they don't like, to be tagged as such, in spite of what the sources have to say. I call the big one bitey 16:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As has been said before, STP can be grunge, they're just not the standard. Some STP sounds similar to Soundgarden. Candlebox does not.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Real metal? Led Zeppelin was called metal before Metallica existed. Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple were the standards for heavy metal before the members of Metallica (a thrash metal band) even knew how to play instruments. Those 3 bands are metal in its purest form. When people say grunge is influenced by metal they mean Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple. Nirvana, STP, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains all draw heavily from these bands or ones similar. Yet again, Candlebox does not. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

All three of those bands you mentioned are also hard rock (D.P. and Led zep are both listed as hard rock on wikipedia and there are zillions of sources calling black sabbath hard rock). So technically STP are more influenced by hard rock/classic rock than they are metal, keeping in mind they're also largely influenced by even less heavy classic rock bands like the beatles, rolling stones etc. I assume it's the same situation with Candlebox. On a side note, does anyone actually known about any of Candlebox's influences? because that would be really helpful to this discussion right now. I call the big one bitey 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources say Candlebox's major influences are: http://www.mtv.com/artists/candlebox/related-artists/?filter=influencedBy

  • Classic rock:The Doors
  • Heavy metal/hard rock: Black Sabbath, Danzig
  • Grunge:Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Mudhoney, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden
  • Alternative rock: Jane's Addiction, RHCP
  • To me Candlebox seems to have way too many grunge influences to be grunge, despite also having heavy metal influences as well.

For STP: http://www.mtv.com/artists/stone-temple-pilots/related-artists/?filter=influencedBy

  • Classic rock: The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones
  • Glam rock/experimental: David Bowie
  • Heavy metal/Hard rock: Aerosmith, Cheap Trick, KISS, Led Zeppelin
  • Grunge: Soundgarden
  • Alternative rock: Jane's Addiction, Chris Cornell

With the exception of 1 grunge band, STP seems to have mainly heavy metal and classic rock influences. Keep in mind Nirvana and Pearl Jam was also inspired by Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin. Soundgarden is also a first wave grunge band that sounded more "metal" on their earlier albums. This sound is non existant in grunge bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and STP all who have influenced Candlebox.

Face it Candlebox was inspired by grunge in the post-grungiest way possible. STP mainly was inspired by classic rock and heavy metal, which Nirvana and Pearl Jam were as well so it makes them no less grunge. Actually no 80s metal bands really influenced Nirvana or Pearl Jam and when it comes to them being influenced by "metal" they mean Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and oddly enough ACDC. The only 80s metal bands Soundgarden was influenced by was Metallica, but its well known that Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and surprisingly Neil Young were all bigger influences to their sound. It seems STP's influences mirror Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden's very closely, while Candlebox was inspired mainly by Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, but shares few similar influences. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Candlebox weren't only influenced by grunge bands, since they emerged around the same time as bands like Nirvana, Alice in Chains Soundgarden and Pearl Jam. They were mainly influenced by classic rock (just like Soundgarden, STP and Pearl Jam) as well as metal (just like AIC and Soundgarden). If you don't believe they were influenced by metal than just look at their offcial bio http://www.candleboxrocks.com/bio/ it says

They may not have been influenced by punk at all, but Alice in Chains, STP and Pearl Jam (for the most part) weren't either. What I'm Saying is Candlebox are technically on the same boat as STP, AIC and PJ in terms of influences. I call the big one bitey 13:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No but Alice in Chains wasn't influenced by another grunge band, nor was Soundgarden, Nirvana, or Pearl Jam. STP was, but it was only 1 (Soundgarden) and it was their earlier less grungy work. Candlebox? They were influenced by 5 grunge bands (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Mudhoney), 2 of which (Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam) were commercially successful as soon as their first release came out. So you're telling me that a band influenced by a commercially successful grunge band can also be grunge and not post-grunge? Can you name another grunge band who had 5 commercial grunge bands as influences? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Alt-Metal

Would you consider Alternative Metal to be derived from Grunge at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.120.62 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No I would not since prominent older alt. metal bands Primus, Tool, and Faith No More had little to no link to grunge even if grunge bands such as Alice in Chains and Soundgarden are also considered alt. metal. It'd be easier to prove in reverse. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Like i said on the alternative metal talk page, both genres emerged around the same time [first grunge band U-men formed in 1981, first alt-metal band Faith No More formed in 1981, first grunge hit was released in 1991 (nevermind), first alt metal hit was released in 1989 (the real thing)], so it's nearly impossible for bands from both genres to have influenced each other. Although on the faith no more page it says nirvana were influenced by fnm or something, but i haven't read the source yet. The only alt metal bands that i can think of who were influenced by grunge are Tool and Helmet, who were both influenced by Melvins, although Melvins themselves are more alt metal than they are grunge. I call the big one bitey 16:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just get confused sometimes when I see some bands are listed as both genres. Would you consider Alice In Chains' "Facelift" album to be an Alt-Metal album since it came out a year prior to 1991? 99.248.120.62 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that album's really more like traditional heavy metal/hard rock with even a little glam metal, since Alice in Chains originally began as a glam metal/hard rock band. Alice in Chains weren't really grunge or alt metal until after that album. I call the big one bitey 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

99.248.120.62, You do understand that grunge existed before 1991 right? U-Men and Green River were first considered grunge bands in 1985 (Even if they had existed prior) so anything from 1985-today can be grunge (though generally it is believed grunge died in 1997 when Soundgarden broke up, which only added the decline of grunge caused by Pearl Jam's sound change and Kurt Cobain's suicide.) I believe Facelift is definitely grunge, but with clear metal/glam like influences. With that said Primus and Faith No More (2 of the first alt. metal bands) were not inspired by grunge even slightly. If anything alt. metal inspired some grunge acts, but this is barely true in reverse. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand it existed before 1991, as Nirvana's Bleach album came out in 1989. I didn't think the first Grunge "hit" album would've came out in 1991. 99.248.120.62 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nirvana didn't invent grunge... Bleach was not even close to being the first grunge album. Grunge was first established in 1985 with bands lie The U-Men, Green River, Malfunkshun, and Soundgarden. Nirvana made it commercial in 1991 (well not really Pearl Jam's Ten was a hit before Nevermind came out) Anyone who thinks Nirvana is the basis for grunge is just incorrect. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Continual removal of "new grunge" sections

There have been several sections such as "Grunge in the 21st century", "Grunge in later years" that keep being removed and any post-90s information lumped into the "decline" section. But how is grunge still "declining" today? It was discussed above why Soundgarden's revival needs to be included and there is no way that grunge was still in the decline when they re-formed in 2010, thirteen years after 1997 when they disestablished in the 90s.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Soundgarden's album King Animal should definitely be mentioned, but the problem that other grunge bands have either moved onto new genres or have just broken up. (Such as Hole's latest album being mainly pop rock, Alice In Chains last 2 albums are not considered to be grunge by most people, same with Mudhoney's 2000s albums, and STP's last album is usually considered just Alt rock, honestly only Core and Purple were considered grunge in the first place) Because Soundgarden is the only major grunge band that's currently still making grunge music it makes King Animal an awkward inclusion, but I still think it deserves to be included because it is A. definitely grunge and B.sold VERY well. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The 2008 studio album The Lucky Ones (Mudhoney album) is classed by Wikipedia (and Allmusic) as "Grunge". What do you think about this album? This album is the reason why I mentioned Mudhoney in the section above.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Even if some bands have moved away from it, others haven't, and others are continuously getting back together, AND there are the TONS and TONS of modern grunge bands that have continuously formed, and some that have been getting a bit of success, such as Violent Soho going to Lollapalooza and everyone posting on their music videos on youtube that grunge is back, and Noiseheads' album 1994 being among the best selling compact disks on bandcamp the week it came out. 96.229.229.77 (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "modern grunge band", any more than there could be a "modern disco band". These are not just music genres or styles, but also a part and parcel of the time that they came about. That time has passed, for both. As for Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, etc...still soldiering on, yes, that is certainly worthy of mention. Whether or not one still calls them "grunge" in the 21st century is debatable as well. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Why does something have to be from a certain time to be a certain genre? Let's pretend that tambourine music was a recongized genre that was popular from 1991-97 instead of grunge, and that tambourines had never been heard by the mainstream before. If I put out a song with tambourine music in 2013, could it be considered part of the tambourine genre too, or would it have to something else because it's not the 90s?--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Genres work by sound. Sometimes culture goes with it, but it is not restricted to a time or place. No one sees it as that either. There are still punk bands, metal bands, even jazz bands, and everyone sees them as such and labels them as such, and yes, same with grunge. 96.229.229.77 (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I already had a debate on Soundgarden still being grunge on the King Animal talk page. The result was "yes" so if you have any doubt I guess refer to that conversation. I believe its under the headline of "grunge?" Mrmoustache14 (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Determining what qualifies as "grunge"

With previous statement I doubt user "I Call the Big One Bitey" has heard most of Down on the Upside (to no offense I hope, but I feel as though you're not sure as to what makes grunge, grunge.). As a whole Down on the Upside may be their mildest album, but some points get heavier than Superunknown did (Such as "Rhinosaur", "Never the Machine Forever", and "Overfloater") and plenty of the songs on the album other than that are also heavy as hell ("Pretty Noose", "Ty Cobb", "Tighter & Tighter", and "An Unkind.") Its completely grunge and WAY heavier than Nevermind or In Utero. Soundgarden as a whole gets much heavier than Nirvana anyway, even on Down on the Upside. It'd be easier to prove Nevermind to not be grunge than Down on the Upside. The guitar style on Down on the Upside followed Superunknown's almost exactly, the album was just a little less depressing in content. Grunge doesn't have to be depressing and that's not one of its requirements. Even with a sunnier attitude, Down on the Upside was still filled with heavy distorted guitar and angsty lyrics, not to mention it being extremely close to heavy metal. If anything Down on the Upside reminds me heavily of Led Zeppelin, while Soundgarden's other albums do not. To continue, as my favorite grunge album of all time, I've heard it dozens of times so I know what I'm talking about. Now Candlebox's self titled in my opinion sounds like Pearl Jam's music with a higher pitched voice and anything based off of Pearl Jam isn't really grunge... Bush is a long the same lines as well. I don't think sounding like Pearl Jam makes a band grunge at all but if anything qualifies a band to be post-grunge. Soundgarden, like earlier stated is the best meter of grunge as Ultramega OK and Louder Than Love are perfect examples of 80s grunge, Badmotorfinger is a perfect example of how hard grunge can get, and Superunkown and Down on the Upside are great examples of how although grunge went mainstream it still remained heavy in a way where it ignored conventions. King Animal is even a great example of how grunge just may not be dead. I would always consider any release by Soundgarden grunge first, but Pearl Jam sound a-likes like Candlebox and Bush lack all of these qualities especially when Pearl Jam themselves are only on the cusp of grunge.

With this said I think:

  • A. We should not be considering any other additions to grunge list.
  • B. Stop using Pearl Jam and Nirvana as a basis for grunge.
  • C. Start using Green River, U-Men (the 2 first grunge bands ever), and Soundgarden (the best example of grunge) as the basis for grunge.
  • D. Stop thinking grunge can only be from Seattle.
  • E. Stop thinking that grunge has "died" or comes from a specific time period only.

I think these are agreeable ideas, but you can tweak them if you like. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but your opinion is rather irrelevant; an encyclopedia is not a blog, it is a reflection of and a gathering of information that is out in the world. reliable sources generally agree that the "big 4" are Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and Nirvana. Yes there were bands before these (with many overlapping members), yes there were bands outside the Pacific Northwest. But you will find that most sources put these 4 at the center, that what is referred to as "grunge" generally faded out in the mid 90's, and that post-grunge bands like Canddlebox, Bush, etc... are not consideredof the body and this not fitting in with a listing here. Tarc (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
They're called the big 4 not because they're what makes grunge, grunge. They're called the big 4 because they're the most famous grunge bands. Of course the big 4 are all grunge bands, but my point was when considering other grunge bands we shouldn't necessarily say they're grunge "because they sound like Nirvana or Pearl Jam", but instead consider them grunge for other reasons such as "similar to original grunge bands with similar themes and sound" as a band like Candlebox or Bush is brought up as "possibly grunge" their similarities to Pearl Jam sound not be a point in their inclusion. I'm not arguing that anything about the big 4 be changed, I'm arguing against this spark of wanting to include various post-grunge bands as grunge. I was trying to clear up why Bush and Candlebox aren't grunge once and for all. I don't think its encyclopedic to include "the most popular" as "the best example of", but instead to include it as "the most popular." Another user was trying to compare Down on the Upside to Candlebox and Bush so I felt it necessary to point out the sheer difference. My 5 points all revolve around that idea of "although Pearl Jam is grunge, they're not the best example of grunge and sounding like Pearl Jam doesn't make a band grunge" and out the big 4, they're the furtherest from grunge. Other users kept trying to call post-grunge bands, grunge because they sounded like Pearl Jam specifically. That's why I proposed these ideas to keep people from making that mistake. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tarc i have no idea what you just said, but you'll find the overwhelming majority of sources state that Candlebox and Bush are grunge, not post-grunge. To say that those bands are post-grunge (despite the sources obviously leaning towards grunge) is you're opinion, which as you mentioned is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. I call the big one bitey 21:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So? Some reliable sources call The Smashing Pumpkins grunge and I'm pretty sure nobody, including myself, agrees with that. You can't just look at all reliable sources blindly, you need to use discretion to which reliable resources are more accurate. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
If you have "no idea what I just said", then perhaps en.wikipedia isn't the right project for you; the only language I speak is English. Candlebox is not grunge, and should never be listed on this article as such. Sources that actually know a thing or two do not call the band "grunge", and some editor who slaps the word into the headline of a website's album review will not magically make it so. The media has a very spotty track record in this particular music topic, I still quite fondly recall Megan fucked with the media and made them look like idiots. Some of us were kinda, y'know, there, and know what we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


There aren't just "some" sources calling Candlebox and Bush grunge, there are a LOT of sources calling them that, infact its probably the genre with the most sources for them, as opposed to the pumpkins who are mainly categorized as alternative rock, only occasionally being called grunge. If a large number of sources (not just one or two lone ones) agree on something, than you should just go with what those sources say. I call the big one bitey 21:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

MrMoustache14 is right. Soundgarden are the only one of the Deep Six (album) to ride the "big four" wave of the '90s and are the flag-bearers for grunge today (see King Animal). Besides, do songs like Tonight Tonight and 1979 (song) sound remotely like typical Soundgarden (again, Mrmoustache14 gives good reasons for Soundgarden being the best example of grunge)? Of course not.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well when most people say The Smashing Pumpkins are grunge they only mean Gish and Siamese Dream, which the two songs you named aren't on either. I still don't consider those 2 albums grunge either, and few sources do as well. Other than that I agree with DrumstickJuggler's points completely. If you really want to, we could re-examine citations and do the whole grunge listing again to get a new consensus of which bands are grunge based on citations mixed with discretion. For instance 7 Year Bitch's article doesn't list it as grunge and neither do most of the citations I've found about them. Most citations consider them both punk and riot grrrl, but not grunge. For all I know there could be other bands like this on the list who really aren't backed up by citations. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we debunk the false myth of grunge dying in 1996/97?

Died (Alice in Chains song) is a song that was recorded in 1998 and released in 1999 (famouly the last song performed by Layne Staley before he...well, you know). It is recongized as grunge and was one of the new songs on Music Bank. Music Bank has been certified gold in the United States so it's fair to consider it a substantial release. I think it could be good for the article to adress that there was grunge in the late 90s too, just not as much. Bleed Together by Soundgarden was a 1997 song that is recognized as grunge, so at least two of the "big four" released grunge in the late 90s. The song was a minor charter, but a charter nonetheless and ties in with the A-sides compiltation, also released in 1997, that reached number six in the New Zealand albums chart. My point is that it's just incorrect to make it sound like grunge didn't exist in the late 90s when I've given a few good examples of its existence.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't believe grunge ever died, it just took a break, but some people insist it died in 1997 when Soundgarden broke up. Some even think it died when Cobain killed himself in 1994 as if Kurt IS grunge (which is ridiculous.) I wouldn't say a few singles really call for grunge being alive, but it was on vacation I guess... I do believe King Animal, Mudhoney's 2000s albums, and L7's 1997 and 1999 albums are grunge though. So that's why it remains alive. Pearl Jam, STP, Hole, and Alice in Chains changed their sound too much to be grunge on post-1995 releases in my opinion. Nirvana clearly ended... Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What about Died (Alice in Chains song)? It's cited as being grunge and it was post-1995.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I meant their albums, Died is grunge, but can 3 songs (Died, Fear the Voices, Get Born Again) really be considered as a lot grunge material coming from a band? Fine for Alice in Chains I guess you can say post-1999 for their sound change... Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't pinpoint an exact moment a genre dies, infact it's debatable whether grunge actually did die or not, but to me Alice in Chains self titled 1995 record was the last pure grunge album. Down on the Upside was really more on the alternative rock side of things since the guitars on that album weren't particularly heavy or "grungy" sounding. Down on the Upside is as grunge as Candlebox's self titled and Bush's Sixteen Stone, which to me were sort of half grunge half post-grunge albums. It's debatable whether "Died" is grunge. That song sounds more like something from one of Jerry Cantrell's solo albums, which are mainly considered alternative metal and post-grunge/hard rock, not grunge. The same can be said for the stuff on Black Gives Way to Blue as well. I call the big one bitey 19:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well of course you can't pinpoint when grunge has died, but that's mainly because of King Animal. If there was no evidence of a genre existing after a certain year, then we could say it fell into obscurity in the following year. Soundgarden's Down On The Upside is definitley grunge. Grunge isn't only about being "heavy" or whichever but consider songs such as "Never The Machine Forever" or "Rhinosaur". Died is not only grunge, but is even one of the genre's most significant songs due to the fact that it was the last song that Layne Staley recorded. Black Gives Way to Blue isn't grunge, but then again we're talking about 1999 here so it's not relevant to the discussion of grunge in the 1990s.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Cantrell's solo career

I'm bringing this here before editing the article because this page has a history of editors removing sections of material for various reasons and at least if it's discussed on the talk page, there is a dicussion to refer back to. The article for the Boggy Depot album calls the 1998 release as a grunge album. Two songs appeared in the top ten of the Mainstream Rock Tracks and the album itself reached the top 40 in both the United States and Canada. Degradation Trip is also put down as grunge, the album also charted in the top 40, and the Anger Rising song was also a top ten Mainstream Rock track. Even though he is a component of Alice In Chains his solo career appears to have contributed to the genre but with releases after 1997 (the year that many mark as the decline of grunge). I'm not entirely certain how we approach this. Despite his success as a solo performer, he also can't merely be listed under "Prominent bands" because he alone isn't really a band and even if we changed the title of that list to "Prominent music acts" we would still have an issue because people would then say "if Jerry Cantrell can be listed as a music act, what about all the Kurt Cobains and Layne Staleys that drummed, sang or guitared in some way on the scene?" and by extension "which singers, drummers and guitarists are worthy of being listed and which ones are not?". Per the articles calling his solo career releases grunge, and the reasonable sucess of these works, I think his work is worthy of being included somehow, but it's fair to have it included in a way that satisfies a consensus. So what do people think?--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Its seems he should be listed since sources categorize his work as grunge before any other sub-genre. Since you have proven his solo career had also spawned successful, well charting singles: I say just add him to the list. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

List of grunge supergroups

List of grunge supergroups was an article that was boldly converted into a redirect to this article in October 2012, the redirect have now been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 18#List of grunge supergroups. Your comments in the discussion would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In my naive Wikipedia youth I regrettably voted to keep in one of those years-ago AfDs, as I really just liked it as a way to keep track of who went where over the years. But the term as it is popularly used never quite fit with how things worked here. There was a lot of mix n' matching from the early 80's thru early 90's, that was the nature of the 2 dozen or so people who were pretty much the core of what we call "grunge" now. "Supergroup" should be reserved for actually famous people who work with other famous people way after their original...famousness (totally not a word, but...). Mad Season is probably the only legit entry. No WTO Combo was a one-off performance, Audioslave only had Cornell to represent. The most cited example, Temple of the Dog, were Green River + Cornell doing a tribute to their departed friend, and invited some newbie named Eddie Vedder to do 1 song. None of them had really hit the "fame" part at the time. The redirect could really just be deleted outright now. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grunge supergroups (2nd nomination). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Meat Puppets

The Meat Puppets have already been classified as grunge on their page, so I think it is only appropriate to add them here. --TheeCakee (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I'd sooner change their page to say their not grunge than add them to the grunge list. People need to stop labeling Nirvana's influences as grunge because they aren't. Meat Puppets are classified as a lot of things --punk, cowpunk, alternative rock, neo-psychedelia-- and grunge is not one of them. For future reference: The Vaselines, David Bowie, and Lead Belly aren't grunge either (Sorry for the humor...) Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Meat Puppets were not grunge. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because they are classed as grunge on their page doesn't mean they should be mentioned here. Infact if you check the editing history of The Meat Puppets you'll see grunge was just added by some random genre warrior ip address without consensus or sources, so obviously that means little. I call the big one bitey (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

add band Dickless

I would like to add Seattle band Dickless to Prominent Acts section.
Reasons:

J_Tom_Moon_79 (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't wait, I added Dickless. Again, before removing them, please listen to Saddle Tramp. Also, check out the book references in their article if you're still doubtful.
J_Tom_Moon_79 (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It says "prominent grunge acts" not "all grunge acts." Dickless doesn't even have a full album, just singles and a compilation. They received no fame... I'm removing them. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Tin Machine discussion

I think there's an argument for at least a mention of David Bowie's band Tin Machine in this article. I've been doing some research for the band for their article and now have several articles that talk about how the band "explored alternative and grunge before the styles were even widely known to exist." (as one example) Please see Tin Machine#Band legacy for the list of references and statements. Of course there's an additional connection, with Bowie's influence on Kurt Cobain already being noted. Tin Machine were formed in 1988, released their first album in 1989 and disbanded in 1992. Thoughts? I didn't want to go change a featured article without some discussion first. If there's no immediate dissent, I'll figure out how to add something to the article without disruption. 87Fan (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The sounds of Tin Machine is reminiscent of Alternative rock, but not even close to grunge. I think when Cobain was influenced by Bowie it was his older albums (70s era.) I know Bowie is a genre chameleon, but grunge is something he never even came close to, not even with Tin Machine. Also you may want to consider that Bowie being an influence to 1 grunge band means nothing. Bands or artists who have influenced many grunge bands would qualify as notible for mention, like Aerosmith influencing Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and plenty of other grunge bands. Maybe consider adding something to the Alternative rock article instead. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was of interest that the band was called "grunge before there was grunge" so to speak, and with no less than 3 different sources mentioning it, which is why I brought it up here. I certainly don't think TM was truly grunge of course... but thought maybe it warranted a mention in the article. 87Fan (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yea, you'll forgive me if I don't take the word of "Mojo Flucke" terribly seriously. I place much more stock on contemporary reviews as opposed to modern-day revisionist ones, where it is far easier to declare "X was singing Y way before anyone ever heard of Y" to make oneself look sage. Tarc (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair point, but that's just one source of three, and the earliest of them was published in 1995. The latter didn't appear until 2007. I'm also concerned about some bias here - nobody seems to care that there are in fact are multiple sources all making a similar claim. 87Fan (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Just because a music journalist says it, doest mean its so. Although Tin Machine's used the same basic chord structure and many of the patterns, their production was so polished, for instance, the comparison makes no sence. I think its grasping at straws to redeem a (unfairly) maligned project. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You can't make grunge with Bowie's money behind you. After a while, you couldn't even do it with Cobain's. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Er... ok. I'm glad I asked - clearly people are very protective of this genre. I don't need to add anything - was merely asking if it was appropriate. Consensus appears to be 'no.' Thanks to those of you who were constructive in your discussions. 87Fan (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It's like asking if the Foo Fighters are grunge. They're not - they've got money these days, they do things right in studios. Now this is all fine and dandy, and they make great alt rock instead, but it's no longer grunge. No more than the Beatles of Sgt Pepper were the same Beatles who did things on scabby four tracks after the Cavern.
As to Tin Machine, then purely IMHO, but it's one of those bands/albums (cf much of mid-period Lou Reed) that shows why you should keep your successful rockstars away from the coke. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't so much "protectionism" as you're thinking, i.e. a "we own the article" kinda thing, but rather a desire to not see bandwagon-hopping so many years after the fact. For a brief blip of time, grunge was the "it" thing, grunge was cool, and there was a rush to make every scruffy alt-rocker out to be the next Big Grunge Thing. Sometimes the reliable sources out there do it to such an extent that the Wikipedia has no choice but to report it, as we are not an original creator of content but rather a reflection of what is "out there" in the world. That's why the Stone Temple Pilots are listed here IMO, even though outside of a few tracks of "Core", they aren't grunge in the slightest. But a lot of people out there think they are. Tin Machine, I just didn't see much out there for numbers or reliability. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this thoughtful and articulate reply. Seriously. I totally understand - I see genre wars on pages all the time. That's why I asked. I certainly don't think Tin Machine was grunge. What I thought was interesting (and perhaps notable enough to warrant a mention somewhere on the page) is that, even in a reasonably contemporary review, some thought the band was dismissed because they explored the genre before it was known/popular. Grunge-ish, so to speak. Not necessarily proto-grunge or anything. You occasionally see this with bands who are dismissed because their genre isn't yet or is no longer popular. But I'm no expert, and, as I said, consensus seems to be "keep your rock star away from my article!" or more simply, "no." And I'm ok with that. 87Fan (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Blur? Why?

The page has limited pictures; why is one of them some British dude who casually mentioned he doesn't like the genre in an interview? Shouldn't the pics be of grunge musicians, or at least producers or record label owners directly related to the scene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.164.74 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, even if no one has a better picture at the moment, that one should be taken out. What is it supposed to demonstrate: So this, for example, is not Grunge? There must be better pictures you could just collect on Wikipedia: Soundgarden, Pearljam, the Nevermind cover...93.82.20.185 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
That's funny, I never even noticed that in all this time. Natural aversion to vapid britpop I guess. The image has been removed. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Bands disdain of the grunge label

Should this be mentioned somewhere? recently Soundgarden's Ben Shepherd trashed grunge and said Soundgarden were never a grunge band www.alternativenation.net/?p=25233 Billy Corgan has also said "I think we've finally proved that we're not a grunge band, thankfully."

Here's a quote from Mike McCready from an Entertainment Weekly feature: ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Is grunge still a bad word? [Laughs] Yeah. But it's used so much. So I don't have the reaction I used to have to it. I used to be like, "NO. WE ARE A ROCK & ROLL BAND. WE PLAY ROCK. WE PLAY HEAVY ROCK. WE'RE A HARD-ROCK BAND." I call the big one bitey (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Origin of the term" section could use a bit of expansion, sure. Corgan has nothing to worry about, as no one seriously considered them part of the grunge scene back then anyways. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusing statement

All,

I have looked through the archives, but have not found a mention of this. The lead states "It emerged in the mid-1980's, particularly in the state of Washington, and its capital Seattle." The way this is written makes it sound as though the capital of Washington is Seattle, not Olympia. Can we rework this to avoid the confusion? I do not know how to do so. Svyatoslav (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a recent change by a new editor, and has now been removed. Tarc (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing Albums/Era (1994-96)

Is there a reason why Superunknown (Soundgarden's true commercial breakthrough) and Vitalogy (the album that completed Pearl Jam's trilogy of albums that sold 5 million+ copies) are missing from the article?? Not to mention the highly notable unplugged albums from Nirvana and Alice in Chains. Grunge did not die in 1994 with Kurt Cobain's death. Grunge actually continued to be one of the most commercially viable forms of rock music through 1995 or 1996, I would say. I think this is further confirmed by the success of acts such as Live, Bush, Candlebox, and STP in the mid 90s. Alice in Chains' eponymous album (1995) is another glaring omission, as is STP's Purple (1994). After Soundgarden's Down on the Upside (1996) was really when the genre faded out I would say, being supplanted in the alternative rock world by more pop-sounding modern rock and the harder-edged nu-metal genre. I can go ahead and add this gap in coverage, but this is a featured article and I don't want to mess with it too much before getting some feedback from other editors. Thanks. Abog (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

More information on Neil Young influence on grunge

The section of this article talking about early influences seems to completely gloss over what should be a prominent feature of that section... Neil Young was clearly a big influence on the genre, it mentions Rust Never Sleeps, but completely ignores Freedom(1989) which had a few songs on it that sound almost identical to 90s grunge... Young's clothing style pre-grunge was almost perfectly reproduced by grunge bands(flannel) LeCabbage (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

People in the northwest wore flannel because it was a cold and rainy climate, it was simply the clothing on their backs that they wore throughout the day, then showed up to play at night in them as well. Once all the kids around the country say them on MTV, THEY were the emulators. Niel Young doesn't come into the picture at all, it's like saying Aerosmith is "the Godfather of Rap" because "Walk this Way" came out in '75. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grunge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Softcore punk?

The article says that hardcore punk is an influence on grunge. Should it not be softcore punk?--Oddeivind (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hardcore is sourced in the article as a key source of influence. What is softcore punk anyway?--MASHAUNIX 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I was just thinking about punk that is not hardcore. Grunge seems more soft than for instance Sex Pistols. --Oddeivind (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Standard punk rock is included in the influences as well, but I think hardcore punk is considered more influental to grunge. It could have influenced it in other things than "heaviness" as well.--MASHAUNIX 21:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hardcore punk bands like Black Flag were the first to integrate metal sounds into the punk genre as a whole. Also softcore punk isn't a thing, and the hardcore scene was what allowed grunge to develop. Hardcore bands were some of the only ones who'd come through town (most larger bands wouldn't due to Seattle's geographic location), but the geography factored in as well in that the cities isolation allowed it to break from the more prototypical hardcore ideology that was favored nationally (i.e. drugs weren't taboo. The proximity to the border certainly didn't help that one either, but whatever).

Point is, I don't think that this edit is necessary, nor is it accurate. Theabsurdreigns (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grunge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Bush doesn't belong in the mainstream success section.

The post-grunge band Bush doesn't belong in the mainstream success section, let's face it, Bush wasn't grunge, they were post-grunge. Being post-grunge means being a grunge band in a radio-friendly way, Bush was radio-friendly and lacked the underground roots of grunge. Bush was never included in the mainstream success of this section until a Bush fan decided to include them here, if Bush was grunge that means that bands like Live and Collective Soul were definitely grunge which it isn't the case, those bands were post-grunge. Gavin Rossdale clean voice and his good looks for females doesn't make them grunge which many grunge bands didn't care about their looks. Bush's music isn't as raw as the other grunge bands, they were imitators and a radio-friendly sound. Bush also caused the demised of grunge, they affected it with their radio-friendly post-grunge sound. Bush has a lot of things to do with grunge but were they grunge, no. The same thing can be said about bands like Nickelback and Creed, they have a lot to do with grunge but are they grunge, no. They are post-grunge bands and the same thing can be said about Bush. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC) )

The thing is with Bush is they were having mainstream success relatively early (1994), which is kind of before the post-grunge era. Although not from the US/Seattle Grunge scene (as with many bands in the article) they are still a Grunge band.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, they were not having mainstream success in early of 1994, that is wrong. Sixteen Stone was released in December of 1994 and it got it's biggest peak in 1996, by that point grunge was dead and got replace by what it created, post-grunge. Bush is definitely post-grunge and not original grunge. Grunge was original and were not imitators, the only grunge band I could call a imitator is probably Stone Temple Pilots but even the lead vocalist had a different voice for some songs, his voice sounds different from Creep to Plush. Bush in the other hand was radio-friendly and Gavin had the same voice for most of the band songs. Sixteen Stone was released in 1994 but it was released during the ending of 1994 and it got it's peak during 1996. Bush was popular again in 1997 with Razorblade Suitcase which got it's biggest success in that year, by that point the original grunge was already dead. Bands like Bush, Candlebox, Collective Soul, Better Than Ezra, Live, Our Lady Peace and others were the first wave of post-grunge bands. If Bush was grunge, Nickelback is definitely grunge too but that is not the case. Bush is post-grunge. I was watching the hype movie about grunge and there was no Bush include on there, they are post-grunge.( Strangeguy91 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC) )

I did not say they were having mainstream success "in early of 1994", what I said was they were having mainstream success "relatively early (1994)". That means in 1994 not necessarily early 1994. Nevertheless, I do agree that Bush are in the post-grunge category, although were probably one of the earliest post-grunge bands, and are certainly not part of the original generation of mainstream grunge bands (not to mention the original generation of grunge bands overall :) However, I think the mentions of Bush in the article are necessary as an example of perhaps one of the earliest and most prolific "rip-off" and "mimics" of Nirvana's music. Sure that topic is expanded on in the Post-grunge article but it needs a mention in the Grunge article as well.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment but Bush still wasn't having mainstream success in 1994, their mainstream success came in 1995 and at their highest peak in 1996. I like both genres, grunge and post-grunge are great genres to me and I have a lot of grunge-post-grunge albums but to me, like you said, Bush was one of the earliest post-grunge bands. If Bush are mention in the mainstream success section of grunge, why are they saying that they are grunge when they were post-grunge and not original grunge? If they are mention in the mainstream success section, at least write on how they were post-grunge and were using the sounds of Nirvana or something like that instead of making them original to the grunge genre. Can I somewhat change it? ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC) )

@Strangeguy91: I'm sorry we need more consensus on this. Maybe do a RFC on the Bush page? Karst (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

When Bush were having mainstream success is irrelevant to why they should be included in this article. The reason they should be included in this article is as one of the earliest and one of the most well known prolific "rip-off" and "mimics" of Nirvana's music. Including the information about Bush is mainly relating to how Nirvana's Grunge music came to influence music that came later. That is why the information about Bush is in the article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nirvana had cultural impact? Who knew? I thought they were relatively obscure, and with relatively few hits. Anyway, the problem with the discussion above is that it does not mention any sources for the analysis of which band is grunge and which is not. Please remember not to do original research. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Bush sound like Nirvana. They do NOT sound like Creed and Nickelback. If Bush were from Seattle and got big in 1992 then everyone would call them grunge. If Sixteen Stone was by Nirvana then everybody would call it grunge. If In Utero was by Bush then everybody would call it post-grunge. If Nirvana were NOT from Seattle and was from the UK and released their first album in 1994/1995 then everybody would call them post-grunge. Statik N (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOS says to use sentence case case in subheadings

Hi, An editor changed a number of the subheadings to all capital letters at the start of each word. WP:MOS, the style guide for Wikipedia, says that all subheadings should be "sentence case", which means that only the first letter of the subheading should be capitalized (WP:MOS#Capitalization). Thus a typical subheading would read "History of the region". The exception is when one of the subsequent words is a proper noun or place name (e.g., "Colonial America" or "Grunge in Seattle"). I am changing the subheadings to comply with WP:MOS, as this is the "house style" for all Wikipedia articles. ThanksOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Grunge speak

Is this hoax independently notable from the main article? And is it already sufficiently covered in the main article? The hoax article depends almost exclusively on sources primary to the incident as it is (the NYT report, the Baffler reply). Unless it's going to be sourced to secondary source coverage—that is, about the hoax at a distance, not involved in the hoax itself—it should be merged or redirected. czar 00:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be a distraction from the content of the central article, were the content to be merged. Grunge speak is a minor incident, when considering that the page is seeking to cover an entire genre of music. However, it was notable enough as a historical/sociological and pop-cultural event that it should remain on wikipedia.

The film Hype covers the incident in depth, regarding a secondary source. Theabsurdreigns (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's more a matter of does it need a separate article if it's entirely sourced to primary citations. I don't think there's much to merge here as is, but that it could be adequately covered in a few sentences here. (It's more related to grunge culture than a standalone entity.) czar 19:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's necessary, regardless. There's enough detail to the story that would be lost in the merger that I would say don't do it. Also, to reinforce my original point, I think that it would distract from the content regarding the actual music. Ultimately I don't think it's hurting anybody, but also it doesn't really matter all that much. --Theabsurdreigns (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as is, seems notable as well as interesting. Randy Kryn 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a specific incident more relevant to journalism history than Grunge the genre - if it were an article about actual Grunge-related slang then there'd be a case to merge but it isn't so there isn't MagicBez (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Over-quotation issue

While I think recent expansion has brought many improvements to this article, there is I think a serious problem with the overuse of quotations. Some sections almost can't go a sentence without quoting source material, often making the text clunky and the reading experience repetitive and tiresome. For example, this random example from the opening section on the etymology of grunge ...

"When grunge first developed, music journalists called it 'pain rock', due to the genre's focus on 'impossibly' and its strong influence from '[Black] Sabbath's late-60s negativity.'"

... could become ...

"With its themes of apathy and negativity, early grunge was referred to by the press as 'pain rock'."

This I think is also a more accurate summary of the source, which does not actually say that grunge was called "pain rock" due to a Black Sabbath influence, or a focus on "impossibly", which is meant to read "impossibility" (still doesn't make a whole lot of sense divorced from context). Will be interested to see what other editors have to say about this. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point by HappyWaldo. I will go through entire article and try to change quotations to paraphrasing, except when the wording of the original seems really unique or unusual. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced international bands by editor

Hi all, An editor has deleted the list of grunge bands from outside the US twice now. This editor is User:2804:7f7:e18a:e658:2067:fa01:9f:3aaa. The editor does not provide a rationale for deleting these other bands from outside the US. At least regarding the Australian bands, the source is The Guardian, which is considered a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have reverted this deletion once, but I do not want to do so again, because I don't want to get into an edit war with 2804:7f7:e18a:e658:2067:fa01:9f:3aaa. If he or she has concerns about whether the Australian and British bands qualify as grunge, or whether the sources are reliable, I am happy to discuss here. But I think deleting without explanation in the talk page summary is not the best approach. Thanks : )OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/PostGrunge.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grunge/Archive_4&oldid=1136779129"