Does Nirvana = Grunge?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

This has been a hotly debated subject among my peers. In my opinion the whole grunge thing was simply classic rock on steroids. Pearl Jam, STP, Alice in Chains. All these bands were characterizd by sludgey sounding guitars playing recycled blues cliches. IMO Nirvana was more of a punk band. Short songs, pop hooks, minimal blues influence. Nirvana sounds like they are more from the Pixies, Husker Du, Mission of Burma school. All the other "grunge" bands have more of a connection to Led Zeppelin or Sabbath. Perhaps people just figured, "hey, white guys from seattle who play guitars, Nirvana must be a grunge group."

― William R Henderson (Cabin Essence), Saturday, 4 January 2003 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Nirvana = Beatles

― _gi88y_, Saturday, 4 January 2003 17:36 (twenty-two years ago)

oy.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 4 January 2003 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Or to take your question kinda seriously, as far as I remember, "grunge" was more of an identification attached to the initial wave of "big" Seattle bands half-jokingly (a la Sub Pop) and/or after the fact, a sort of marketing tag for Northwest hard rock music. It wasn't a genre anyone aspired to till after Nirvana, Soundagarden, PJ, AIC, etc., started selling million$. (STP being from San Diego, constituted the first wave of Seattle imitators.) Debating grunge's meaning at this late date is kinda beating a dead horse.

But yeah, Nirvana was on the punky end of that whole spectrum. Do a search and you'll find Nirvana discussed ad nauseum in a few ILM threads.

― dub you well (wl), Saturday, 4 January 2003 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

someone help me, Im having horrid visions of yufs discussing grunge and getting it all wrong and not understanding like we already do with the punk thing.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Sunday, 5 January 2003 00:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Nirvana's singles = grunge-pop. Their songs aren't generally as hard as Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, etc., and they rely more on melody. They do have many songs that are more indie/punk than grunge, but that's no reason to dismiss them totally as not being a grunge band, esp. considering songs like "Heart-Shaped Box"

― Curtis Stephens, Sunday, 5 January 2003 03:14 (twenty-two years ago)

non-grunge != dismissal, more likely the other way around

― ron (ron), Sunday, 5 January 2003 04:22 (twenty-two years ago)

oh yeah, ;-)

― ron (ron), Sunday, 5 January 2003 04:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Grunge in general sort of evolved from indie/punk, which was the dominant, er, style within the Seattle music scene for, I guess, ever since it first existed (as with bands like the Fastbacks, Green River, the Wipers (though they were from Portland), and such). Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, et al., were essentially this made marketable via the sorts of cliches you mentioned (added "heaviness" or something), though it had more to do with style in general (flannel, long hair, etc.), as well as being generally boring than musical style. For a more cogent explanation of this (and the Seattle music THANG in general), see the documentary Hype!, in which there's actually a scene where a guy with a guitar explains the difference between punk and grunge by way of riffs (!).

― Dillon Savage, Sunday, 5 January 2003 08:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Pearl Jam are most definitely NOT a grunge band.

The only bands I'd call true grunge are Mudhoney, the Melvins, Steel Pole Bathtub, and BLEACH-era Nirvana.

― Evan (Evan), Monday, 6 January 2003 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Evan - what about Tad & Cat Butt?

― dave q, Monday, 6 January 2003 19:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Strangely enough I was just having this conversation with someone this morning. We agreed that there had only ever been two real grunge albums. One was Nevermind and the other...I forget.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 6 January 2003 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Nirvana = Shit

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 6 January 2003 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Are the Sonics grunge?

Ahahaha, hohoho, heeheehee (nothin' like typin' out laughter).

― hstencil, Monday, 6 January 2003 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

!=, but their intersection is non-trivial

― mei (mei), Monday, 6 January 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

the fastbacks are not grungy

― ron (ron), Monday, 6 January 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Or to take your question kinda seriously, as far as I remember, "grunge" was more of an identification attached to the initial wave of "big" Seattle bands half-jokingly (a la Sub Pop) and/or after the fact, a sort of marketing tag for Northwest hard rock music.
Yep. he's right. It started out as the "Sub Pop Sound" (like how the Motown Sound was named after the record label) then the "Seattle Sound" (like how the Motown Sound was renamed after the city of Detroit in general) then "Grunge" (which included not only Seattleites but bands from Minneapolis and San Diego) and finally "Alternative" (which included everybody including Tony Bennett and possibly Air Supply.)
"...this is just proof of how categories fail..." E. Costello.

― Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Monday, 6 January 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Nirvana were post-rock.

Pearl Jam were hair-metal.

Mudhoney was afro-pop.

The Melvins were psychadelia.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 6 January 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

three months pass...

In as much as "Grunge" is an over-simplified, catch-all description for music eminating from the Pacific Northwest around the early 1990's, then yes, Nirvana can be considered Grunge. I've always thought, however, that once people began labeling bands as "Grunge," the movement was already in decline and musical tastes were moving on. In short, Nirvana is Grunge, I'm sure, but other designations (read prior posts above) can perhaps more accurately capture the band's true identity.

― Klaus Muller, Saturday, 19 April 2003 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Seven Mary Three in da HAUS!

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 19 April 2003 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It ain't grunge unless a shirtless guy is stagediving into a moshpit with a flannel shirt tied around his waist (timberlands would be good too). In fact, next concert I go to I plan to leap off the stage screaming GRUNGE!! with that outfit on. I believe the next concert I'm going to is Wilco or Third Eye Blind.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 19 April 2003 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

r0x0r!!! Make sure to tell us how you get on!

For me, "grunge" = "Superfuzz Bigmuff", pretty much. It defines the sound, the production, the whole sense of what it was trying to put across pretty much perfectly. I fukcing love "Superfuzz Bigmuff" actually, especially thee CD version w/all the extra trax, incl the better version ov "You got it, keep it outta my face", which in itself kind ov defines "grunge", as it was recorded in a cheap 8-track studio, and has a sound & feel that you could imagine achieveing yrself @ low cost.* Plus, it rocks. Thee album version (from "Mudhoney" album)was clearly done when they had a bit more $$$ to spend, in a 16-track studio, and is I think inferior. It sounds too prettified. I tend to associate "grunge" with this low-budget ethos, which appeared to be quite uncontrived. Obviously, it might well have been totally contrived, but it did convince me. I supopose the melvins and tad at least did the grunge thing as well, but I didn't care for the rekkids too much. Despite their (IMO) over slick sound on "Mudhoney", they did manage to achieve a state of grunge (haha) nirvana later, on several rekkiids, esp. "Five Dollar Bob's Mock Cooter Stew", which I suppose is an achievement ov sorts - usually the production/playing skillz escalator only goes up, and when a band does try to keep itself in this idealised/romantic low budget but oh-so artistickally pure space, it sounds totally bogus. Mudhoney sounded like they meant it, even when they sux0r3d, which makes me like them.

Nirvana, at least on "Nevermind", has that big, expensive radio-orientated sound, that "Superfuzz", (and "Bleach", for that matter) doesn't even come near. I tend to prefer the less overtly "produced" sound, though I like "Nevermind" just fine, but I like it for the same reasons i like EG Cheap Trick, not for its "Grunginess".

*It might be a different track, I can't find my copy to check.

Poss, though, "Grunge"=this:

http://www.zzounds.com/graphics/zzounds/product/l/DODFX69.jpg

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 19 April 2003 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

All the other "grunge" bands have more of a connection to Led Zeppelin or Sabbath.

FWIW, when my flatmate bought a copy ov "Bleach" when it first came out, we heard him playing it thru the wall, and we though he'd got into sabbath!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 19 April 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Half the "grunge" bands were playing melodic post hardcore and the other half were playing stoner metal. It's not so much a genre as it was a fashion sense.

― hep j, Saturday, 19 April 2003 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.