When did/will grunge end?

[fullhousefan]

I think it is still going in the form of post-grunge.

As for "real" grunge - i would say by 1996.

[pen]

Apr 28, 2009 9:58:20 GMT -5 fullhousefan said:

I think it is still going in the form of post-grunge.

As for "real" grunge - i would say by 1996.

Not really sure why this is a debate. Grunge ended when Soundgarden ended. By that time, AIC was over, Nirvana was buried, and Pearl Jam had fallen out with the mainstream.

It's true that since then Pearl Jam has picked up success again and AIC has reformed, and so grunge traditions will still be carried on in some form, but I think the real grunge era is over.

Very few post-grunge bands (if any) really carry on any of the grunge traditions anyway. Only ones I would say really do off the top of my head are Seether and Hurt, and only in the barest ways possible.

[Glove Slap]

It's a bit tough to pinpoint exactly when Grunge ended, but I'd definitely separate Grunge and Post-Grunge from each other.

You can make an argument for the end of Grunge anywhere from late 1993-1996 imo. In some ways, Nirvana's In Utero was an attempt to break the mainstream's fascination with Grunge and their Unplugged special pretty much removed all the elements of grunge from their performance. It's true that Alice In Chains and Soundgarden released records after that, but was Jar of Flies Grunge? I wouldn't say so. Like Nirvana's Unplugged performance, it was an acoustic set which stripped away the sonic elements associated with "Grunge". As for Alice In Chains' 1995 album (whatever you choose to call it) and Down On The Upside, I'd count them as Grunge, but they didn't achieve the success of the predecessors, which can be seen as proof that in the eyes of the public, Grunge was fading or already over. As for Pearl Jam, they started to move away from that sound gradually after Vs. and lost their commercial luster after Vitalogy so I wouldn't count their post-Vitalogy albums as actively carrying on the "Grunge" label. Symbolically, most people obviously point to Cobain's death as the end of Grunge for understandable reasons.

I'd mark late 1994 as the beginning of Post-Grunge because that's when Bush released their first debut and I'd consider them the first big Post-Grunge band. That continued after in the form of Creed, Staind and Nickelback, but in some ways it seems rather silly to use the term "Post-Grunge" in 2009, at least to me. Nickelback's latest draws more from Arena Rock than anything else imo, large because of Mutt Lange's production.

[pen]

But there are still bands that borrow from grunge like Seether and Hurt, as I said.

[Glove Slap]

That's true, but there are also bands which borrow from Punk & New Wave as well, does that necessarily mean that those genres are current and thriving? I wouldn't say so. A style of music can continue to influence new acts after its commercial and cultural apex.

[pen]

I don't think you read my post. I know they're not grunge, I'm making a case for them still being post-grunge.

[pen]

I mean, Thursday and etc. are still post-punk.

[Glove Slap]

I see what you mean. I agree with that mostly. The labels "post-grunge" & "post-punk" seem a bit silly to me so long after the initial waves had died, but what they represent does hold weight.

[pen]

Right. Exactly.

[weaver]

I always thought it was a pretty bogus designation to begin with. It has more to do with the style of dress than the style of music!

[pen]

Apr 30, 2009 12:15:47 GMT -5 weaver said:

I always thought it was a pretty bogus designation to begin with. It has more to do with the style of dress than the style of music!

That's ridiculous, if only because every genre of music has spawned a significant scene culture that has resulted in different styles of dress. Punk, disco, emo, metal, they've all had their own kinds of emblems that have come associated with the music. It's fact.

But grunge as a musical genre has very real characteristics that make those acts associated with that genre. Thinking it's all about fashion is very ignorant and naive.

[pen]

In fact, if anything I'd argue grunge is the musical genre that has been least about fashion since most grunge listeners were associated with flannel shirts and jeans. WOW, nobody sure dresses like that anymore.

[weaver]

Apr 30, 2009 12:43:46 GMT -5 pen said:

In fact, if anything I'd argue grunge is the musical genre that has been least about fashion since most grunge listeners were associated with flannel shirts and jeans. WOW, nobody sure dresses like that anymore.

Exactly my point? The only reason it was CALLED grunge is because everyone dressed in flannels and grungy jeans. I really think it's more accurate simply to call it alternative. While we're at it, I think EMO is a stupid genre too. It stands for emotional, right? Well....isn't all music supposed to be emotional? I think in general, there are all of these sub-genres under the umbrella of rock, and they aren't all that different from one another, or the lines are very blurry. Like, what is the difference between emo and punk? Not a whole hell of a lot.

[pen]

Actually there is a big difference between a band like Dashboard Confessional or Jimmy Eat World and a band like Rise Against and Pennywise, and I think the differences should be pretty obvious. Everyone wants to scoff at the idea of certain genres, but you know, when you really look at things with an open mind, it's pretty obvious why certain bands are called emo. It's because their music is very highly open and personal and emotional, not saying other bands can't be, but you know, originally emo was emocore, for emotional hardcore, because it was an offshoot for that genre, and then hardcore receeded in the music and it just was emo. It's not stupid, what's stupid is how much people tend to writhe at being placed in that genre. I think if they really want to get rid of the stigma, embrace the genre. Push it forward. We're making new waves for emo.

And yes, you're kind of right about grunge, but it wasn't the bands who gave their music the name grunge, it was the press and it just stuck. It was a term to describe all of those bands, because it was different from anything else and they needed something to call it. Punk was made in the same way, as was metal, as was nu-metal. Most genres were made in the same way, really. You think these bands got together and planned shit out? HA!

[weaver]

To me, it's always just been moderate variations on good old rock and roll. Sure, there are differences in the sub genres, but they're all sub genres of rock and roll. I guess people get really into categorizing everything though.

[pen]

Well it's easy to call Staind and Green Day and Nine Inch Nails and Modest Mouse rock. It doesn't do any of them justice though. And it certainly doesn't tell anyone anything about how they sound.

[weaver]

No, I guess not. For some reason though, I have a real problem with "emo" as a genre. As if other music is not confessional/emotional. Maybe I'm just getting too old and I can't relate properly. lol.

[pen]

(shrugs)