Talk:Post-grunge

Bush?

I know lots of you guys think that Bush is post-grunge, but I have some reasons that might change your mind. They were formed before Kurt Cobain even died. How could a post-grunge band exsist in the grunge era? Any, post-grunge is a wikipedian term that is used no where else. For example, I asked several people what genre they thought Bush belonged in, and they said Grunge. When I told them that we named it post-grunge, they said, "Whats post Grunge?". The argument below this has a perfect point; bands are either Grunge or Alternitive. There is no Post grunge catagory. Also, look at the name of the band, Bush. SLANG ALERT. Most bands of the era had something dirty about them, and Bush fits all the catagories listed, and more not listed here. Unless a good argument is raised why Bush isn't a grunge band, or what defines post-grunge, I plan to remove it from the list. AdNimitz

        I tried putting it in grunge but people always take it off.71.169.4.101 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

the biggest hang up people seem to have is they're not american. They may not say this but people just think they're a british copy of the seatle bands.152.78.124.250 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Grunge" as a genre, was based in Seattle and surrounding area. If they didn't come from the American Northwest, they're not grunge, simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.187.114 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny... I didn't know nothing about that Seattle copyright... "Grunge" is a genre (I hate those "genres" invented by magazines ; for me, it's only rock 'n' roll! and I know only two genres of Rock : good music and bad one...) and everybody outside Seattle was able to play "Grunge"!! 84.103.176.90 17:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying "If they didn't come from New York, they're not punk." That is a ridiculous statement, to say the least.Natt the Hatt (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

just scrap this wiki

Many if not most of these "post-grunge" groups are musically indentical to the "real" grunge groups they are imitating. "Post-grunge" is just a way for scenesters to seperate what they think are "cool" bands from those they think are not.

I don't think it needs to be scrapped, BUT I think the band list needs to be edited. I don't think you can be both grunge and post-grunge. Or maybe you can, but those should be few and far between. Just because a band started as a grunge band and didn't break up doesn't automatically mean they are post-grunge. Bush's music got more electronic, so I see the argument for them being post-grunge, but Silverchair? I think Everclear's listing is questionable at best. Some of these bands, like Cake, bare little resemblence to Nirvana or Soundgarden. Just because they were around at the same time doesn't make then grunge or post-grunge. I suppose the Cake article calls them post-grunge, so I won't argue with it too much. Perhaps arranging the list by the bands other genres would be better than the timeline format. Dawhitfield 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

no information?

if grunge is a musical idiom, not just some marketeer's advocational term of choice, then the wiki needs more information about what characterizes the music. or what characterizes the attitude-- or whatever it is that "post-grunge" is supposed to refer to.

the wiki as it stands seems to serve as a great example of the completely VACUOUS nature of musical terms like "post-grunge." the wiki is meaningless, it needs more work. and that will take some work.

in other words, if "post-grunge" doesn't mean anything, then the wiki is great. if not, somebody better do some homework. 128.119.232.206 00:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

New template

As I mentioned on Talk:Grunge music, this new template is unneeded. The genre box for grunge does not work for post-grunge, as it gives no details that are specific to this sub-genre. -- LGagnon 03:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Post-Grunge

The bands in this category are a little too diverse. Some of these bands should be called alternative rock or maybe their needs to be another subgenre of grunge for these bands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.39.194 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

But adding "post-" to things makes definition unnecessary! 71.131.183.156 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article name

We should move this to post-grunge. The additional "music" tacked on at the end seems odd because nobody actually adds that on to the name (and there is no need for disambiguation because nothing else is called post-grunge). -- LGagnon 03:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Live

I think Live should be readded to the list. I don't know if they started out as a post-grunge band, but I think some of their albums, such as Throwing Copper, would qualify.

I would also readd Stiltskin. They didn't have great chart success, but were big on the UK touring circuit for some years, had their own Levis ad soundtrack, and appear to have had influence.

Travis?

I thought they were an indie rock band? I don't know much about them myself; do they deserve to be on this list? --Dalkaen 02:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Audioslave,Foo Fighters,Ect.

Bands that spawned from origonally grunge bands should not be classified as post-grunge. There's reasoning for this,as a.these bands do not possess the same sound as creed or three doors down, and b. these bands are seen more as alternative rock than post grunge,

Agreed. I came to this talk page to post about this and I am happy that someone agrees with me. Thoughts on this? Flyerhell 05:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And Life of Agony? WTF? Also, I think Local H should be moved to the section with Bush, the Toadies and Silverchair and not with the Creed and 3 Doors Down section. If not for stylistic reasons then for the fact they had an album in 1995.

Weezer?

I don't think Weezer qualifies as a post-grunge band. They do use moderately distorted guitars, but they have more of an emo/alternative sound. I agree that Live can be considered post-grunge for some of their music. Stiltskin is questionable, but they could probaby be added to the list. La Pizza11 00:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)La_Pizza11

Agreed. In the mid-'90s Weezer was played on the same radio stations with the bands discussed, but that's about the only connection. -Bert 171.159.64.10 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but the band list is certainly questionable. Dawhitfield 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Weezer Post-grunge/Pop rock (Tigerghost 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Sleater-Kinney

Even though they don't necessarily sound like most other post-grunge bands, I would consider them post-grunge. The influence of L7 is pretty audible, and the riot grrl genre is general is closely related to grunge. I'll add them to the list. If you disagree, feel free to add a comment. La Pizza11 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think Sleater-Kinney had any grunge influence. Additionally, when they put out their first albums they were part of (and still are) the US indie rock scene at the time that was a complete reaction against mainstream forms of alternative rock. WesleyDodds 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference or remove

This article seems to me to be a joke. While I am not nominating it for deletion, since I believe it could be a good article, there need to be references cited to support any artist's inclusion in this genre. Wikipedia is not original research - it should only report what is already out there regarding post-grunge. mgekelly 13:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Audioslave?

Hi there I don't understand why Audioslave is in the post grunge section. I am going to delete it because they have a more original, and a more creative sound then bands like Nickelback and Creed. You can't compare a band which comes from two bands who pose a sharp contrast to guys like Nickelback and 3 doors down. Bill102 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Nikleback and creed are clasic examples of post-grunge--82.10.89.119 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove them--La Pizza11 16:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph under contents

The whole bottom of the paragraph can go: "Frogstomp's release also helped divide post-grunge bands into two categories: those who came before Frogstomp, and those who came after, much as Nirvana's Nevermind album had helped do with grunge a half-decade earlier. This last bit was clearly written by someone from Silverchair.

Either remove the Silverchair fanboy stuff or let my comment stand."

It's dumb, unverifiable, POV'd (though POV has always been the least of my concerns on this site) and besides these points, who even remembers Silverchair? How can one begin to compare them to Nirvana? And not only are the last two sentences immature, but they don't belong in the main page at any rate. So, I'm getting rid of them.

Dudewhiterussian 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Godsmack Post-Grunge?

Since when was godsmack post grunge? Godsmack is definately not. They are metal. I will remove them from the list.--82.10.89.119 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Godsmack is to post-grunge what Alice in Chains is to Grunge. They're both on the heavier edge of grunge.

Alanis Morrissete?

'Nough said. And yes, Travis are indie; and who the fuck wrote this? Kevin Doran 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Excessively Long Lists

This page seems to have excessively long lists, I reccomend changing to list headings to "Notable Post-Grunge Bands" and including only those who have had significant mainstream popularity, or were notable one hit wonders. Although these are all good bands, but there are simply too many of them right now. Also I believe the bands should be listed under the era when they first gained said popularity, i.e. 3 Doors Down may have first formed in the mid-nineties but it wasn't until 2000 that they came into the public eye.

S. Luke 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Pop Rock

These two articles, Pop Rock and Post-grunge seem very similar. and if not merged with Post-grunge I'd at least say that Pop Rock is a subgenre of Post-grunge, at least pop rock acts of the 90s and 2000s seem to fit in with post-grunge anyway. The article even mentions Pop Rock in its paragraphs as a part of post-grunge. (Tigerghost 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

why to be merged with post-grunge?? not every pop rock band is related to alternative music as its commercialized branch (example: Blink 182 as a corporate version of Punk rock). you can call it corporate MTV pop-punk but not pop-rock. there are certain bands who have absolutely no connection to this post grunge thing,. example, Fredy Mercury's Queen had indeed certain pop rock phase during the 1980s. what they have incomon with postgrunge?? the songs like One vision for example (or how it was called): there are distorted guitars, brian may's rock solos and all, but still its quite poppy, its not 1970s long hairs and flares and old keyboard solos. there are numerous other examples around the world: bands with traditional rock lineups who are too soft for orthodox rock and especially for alternative rock, but on the other hand they are too hard comparing to new kids on the block. i cant think of much examples right now, but lets say INXS, Brian Adams, Fine Young Cannibals in the late 1980s, certain U2 and Dire Straits stuff then numerous European bands and so on. as im from former yugoslavia there were plenty of bands here labeled as "pop-rock" by the media (ussually during mid-to-late 1980s after the decline of the New wave, the New Romantics and the synth pop). Bajaga i Instruktori for instance. what post grunge? call it pop-grunge if you want, but not pop rock, its wrong--Chajeshukarie 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, modern day artists such as lindsay lohan, hilary duff, michelle branch and even christian artists like krystal meyers are all firmly pop-rock artists, but there roots are hardly that of post grunge? i see your point though, there are relativly similar genres, but they differ vastly in there respective artists, for example, are you saying Lindsay Lohan draws influence from Third Eye Blind & the Red Hot Chilli Peppers? or rather just a pop sound with rock influence? I'd also like to draw your atension to the above exclusion of Alanis Morisette from this article, one of the early pioneers of the modern pop-rock genre Phlox

What about the 1990s hit "Whats going on" by the 4 Non Blondes? I consider it as a typical mainstream poppy version of grunge rock, I would even call it pop-grunge or grunge-pop, but never pop-rock. when i hear the term "pop-rock" it reminds me of INXS or Bryan Adams: guys with fenders and marshals, sometimes with rock imagery (lets say leather jackets) but still very POP and chart-friendly. that was long before grunge--Chajeshukarie 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

REWRITE POST-GRUNGE

I am a big fan of 1990s post-grunge rock, but what im finding is that it is soooo hard to define as there is is just sooo much differences and similarities between the bands that are post-grunge. I believe that it should be noted that Post-Grunge has subgenres, namely as follows...

• Pop punk bands: Green Day, The Offspring, Blink-182

• Nu Metal bands: Linkin Park, SR-71

• 2000s Modern Rock bands:Nickelback, 3 Doors Down, Three Days Grace, Chevelle

• Original 1990s First Wave Post-Grunge: Dishwalla, Garbage, Matchbox Twenty, Collective Soul

This article should be modeled after the Alternative Rock article because Post-Grunge is so vast as a subgenre of Alternative Rock that it is just an umbrella term just as Alternative rock is. I all ready added the subgenres, but I think the introduction needs work and the history should mention more regarding the split into Pop Punk and Modern Rock in more detail. I will be working on trying to rewrite the article. (Tigerghost 05:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

There is absolutely no reason to place Nu Metal and Pop Punk under post-grunge. Nu Metal is a subgenre/fusion genre of alternative metal, and pop punk has nothing that's similar to the 2 eras of post-grunge. I say, leave those 2 in their own genre. Maplejet 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

List of post grunge bands

Why was the chronological list of post grunge bands removed? It was a useful list. The new article, is alphabetical, and gives very little information as to how the sound adapted and how this is reflected in the bands. The chronolical list gave the user an indication as to how this sound developed over time, for them to explore.152.78.124.250 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

this whole article should be deleted/changed

this is the most ridiculous article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. it's articles like this that will ruin the credibility of this site.

Agreed. This "genre" is completely retarded. If we had an article for every genre that newspapers and magazines invented, we'd be sifting through "Extreme Symphonic Black Power Metal" articles for the rest of our natural lives.Trendkill 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You may find the genre "retarded," but it has a large fanbase and is well documented as a seperate style of music. Yes, it does need some editing and rewriting, but it stays. Also, this is an encyclopedia, so genres must have articles. Also, since post-grunge is it's own genre, I highly disagree it goes along the lines of "every genre that newspapers and magazines invented." IronCrow 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to Grunge section needs a re-write.

Or a new title... The section is full of crticism of post-grunge rather than a comparison. A compasion and a criticism are two seperate things. Either re-title it to Criticism of Post-grunge or find some way to make it an actual comparison., because this will causes confusion. IronCrow 04:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy of post-grunge as a genre

I completely agree with this guy: "You may find the genre 'retarded,' but it has a large fanbase and is well documented as a seperate style of music. Yes, it does need some editing and rewriting, but it stays. Also, this is an encyclopedia, so genres must have articles. Also, since post-grunge is it's own genre, I highly disagree it goes along the lines of 'every genre that newspapers and magazines invented'."

It is a genre, but many of the bands on the "list" are just not post-grunge. Filter, Silverchair, Collective Soul, Bush, Foo Fighters, those are post-grunge, or at least they were when they released their first albums in that era. All of these bands except for two are still together and have changed their sound, but in the mid-90's they were indeed post-grunge. The soft/hard dynamic, heavy sludgy guitar riffs, stuff like that made them post-grunge. Take "Where The River Flows" from Collective Soul, for example. Guitar wise it could have been a Soundgarden song, same could be said for "Madman" from Silverchair or even "Everything Zen" from Bush. They sound like grunge tracks, but like the article states, are not as heavy music wise, and sometimes lyrically wise. A lot of these bands were not only influenced by the same bands that influenced original grunge bands, but they borrow sounds from the grunge bands themselves. While unlike others, I don't believe grunge died till 1997, post-grunge was indeed just as popular as it was and could be seen as the successor. It is definitely a definable genre, and the article should stay, although it needs a lot of editing to make it right.67.191.17.12 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Duder5k

Well, now we need to rebuild an accurate list of post-grunge bands WITHIN this article.

The overabundant and unreliable list of post-grunge bands article was deleted. Can we put a simpler list of bands based on the time period in this article? Just some examples? 4.157.2.132 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Influences

Gotta disagree with what the article says. All the post-grunge bands are just worshippers of the original grunge, no other influences. Godsmack is influenced by Alice In Chains, Puddle Of Mud off of Nirvana, Creed influenced by Pearl Jam, etc. I think that part of the article should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.13.73 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article

Why?

Because there is no such thing as post grunge. At least that's MY OPINION. And that's exactly what this article is... an opinion.

Forget the References section. allmusic.com should have never been sanctioned as an acceptable wikipedia source. Almost all their articles have no byline, you have no idea who wrote it or where the opinion comes from. Is it some rock music "expert" or some 17 year old with a friend at allmusic who got him an internship? And the other sources...a bio of Mark Tremonti from the creed site? That's biased PR. A genre description from the commercial music site rhapsody.com in which we no idea who wrote the thumbnail sketch of this supposed rock genre? And finally a 1997 article from the Atlantic Monthly on Collective Soul which makes absolutely no mention of Post Grunge. Sorry, that dosen't count. This adds up to a big pile of original research.

In the murky world of rock music genre labeling not all music needs to be niche labeled. Some music just is. The music that followed the Grunge Period was... rock music. Grunge changed rock music and bands that followed tried to catch up and make it commercial, some succeeded, some failed, some moved on.

Delete this bad article.