Talk:Grunge

Template:Music Portal Featured Article

Archives
17 July 2005 4 January 2006

Headswim

Maybe we should add Headswim to Grunge Bands list? i am going to if you have anything to say about it, please write back. 81.96.254.143 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2010 (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)

Style, roots, and influences

In this section, the writes notes that

"The lyrics are typically angst-filled — anger, frustration, ennui, sadness, fear, and depression are often explored in grunge songs. These lyrics may have come from the feelings of angst that are common in adolescence; many grunge musicians began their careers as teenagers or young adults. However, other factors, such as poverty, discomfort with social prejudices, and a general disenchantment with the state of society may also have influenced grunge lyricism."

This is far too general I fear, and could be used to describe a huge portion of the music that has been listened to by youth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.35.62 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2006.

Doom was the most influential type of metal for grunge. Other than Black Sabbath, The Melvins and Soundgarden deliberately started playing slow after they attended a Saint Vitus show (see the Guitar World Magazine compilation book, which is entitled Nirvana and the Grunge Revolution). Soundgarden also recorded on SST the same label as Saint Vitus. Sludge and drone metal should be added as derivative forms of grunge.--Rivet138 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Rivet138

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)

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)

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)

Hole

Does anyone have a reference for Hole ever being a grunge band? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

HOLE? JUST LISTEN TO THE TWO ALBUMS "LIVE THROUGH THIS" AND "PRETTY ON THE INSIDE" IF TEEN AGE WHORE WASN'T A GRUNGE SONG, THEN NOTHING NIRVANA DID EVEN CAME CLOSE.204.213.246.144 (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic.-5- (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

hello: Hole is a grunge band because A) Hole is from PORTLAND,ORE and played Seattle on a regular basis in the late 80's , early 90's. They had relseased a GRUNGE ALBUM calleed 'PRETTY ON THE INSIDE' Also, Hole has shared some subpop split singles with bands such as sonic youth... I don't know why it's so darn hard to get the information accurate on this page. I am extremely frustrated at the wholesale inaccuracies included with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pronator (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale inaccuracies? The article is pretty well-sourced. You can look them up yourself. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

yes mr. dodds. I am addressing you specifically. whole sale inaccuracies.... grunge was dead, gone and finished by 1992.but you weren't there so you wouldn't understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.213.246.144 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you pretending that I told you to add those bands? You see the warning at the top of the section, it's been determined that those other bands shouldn't be listed. It goes by a case-by-case basis, okay, so if you feel those other bands should be added, discuss it here. I'm not the authority on this page, I'm just trying to maintain it. No other band in that section has a reference, so I don't know why you want some bands to have references while ignoring others.-5- (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hole belongs, but the others don't. Smashing Pumpkins aren't grunge, and Bush and Silverchair are post-grunge. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Allmusic a reliable source for Hole but not Bush, Silverchair, or Smashing Pumpkins? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Grunge" was a label given to anyone who put so much as a single distorted riff into a song back in the days of 90's media over-hype. I really don't think allmusic's categorizations are reliable for much of anything, and for any stray mis-label such as this, just as many reliable sources could certainly be found to explain the Pumpkins non-grunginess, e.g. "While Smashing Pumpkins were part and parcel of the grunge era, they were never entirely rooted in the sound that Nirvana broke" Boston Globe. And certainly we can find better sources to indicate the (former) grunginess of Hole and Courtney Love, e.g. "Courtney Love Says Goodbye To Grunge On New Hole Release" VH1. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Grunge is pretty well-defined, actually. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, damn, that comment came out completely wrong on my part, striking it out. Didn't mean to imply that that was the "only" meaning of grunge. Just that it was misused alot once the movement/scene became media hyped. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak citation for your point, since the relevant part of it is Smashing Pumpkins were part and parcel of the grunge era. 86.44.43.63 (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The meaning there is that the Pumpkins were popular at the same time that grunge was, but they were not a part of it. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2009 (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)

The Toadies

Wouldn't they be considered grunge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toadies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.26.242 (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No.--CAVincent (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• who the fuck are the toadies!??????? --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move to Grunge as the primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Grunge music → Grunge — 86.44.43.63 (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is the most common name, and Grunge already redirects here anyway. Jafeluv (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Most everything on the disambiguation page is related to the genre to begin with, and everything else has a disambiguated title. Although if I'm missing something about the finer points of article naming and dismabiguations pages, I have no problem deferring. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Looking at the incoming links to Grunge[1], it is clear that the genre is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --JD554 (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Grunge supergroups aren't...grunge?

Darwin's Bulldog seems pretty insistent on removing Mad Season and Temple of the Dog from the group list. Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with either group being considered grunge, please see below. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on definitions

The point has been made that supergroups do not constitute as the definition, they are the result of. To list grunge “supergroups” such as Mad Season and Temple of the Dog as “prominent” grunge acts is a fallacy. Both groups released one album each, and that was after the members of their respective groups had participated in culturally defining the grunge sound as it was known, so neither group can be logically listed as being prominent to the grunge sound. Yes, both the Mad Season and Temple of the Dog albums sold well, but that was because grunge had appealed to mainstream audiences, not the other way around. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. We're simply talking about classification here. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, factually wrong in the case of Temple of the Dog, which was not a "supergroup" in the normal sense because none of the members were well known to the mainstream at the time it was released. They were no more a "supergroup" at the time than, for instance, Mudhoney was (ex-Green River, ex-Melvins, ex-Mr. Epp, and if memory serves ex-Bundle of Hiss). And, Temple of the Dog was important in popularizing grunge, almost as much as Nevermind and Ten. Finally, the list in this article is not restricted to those bands which were highly important to defining the grunge sound. Such a list would need to eliminate several other bands.--CAVincent (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. If someone can also defend Mad Season, by all means do. I never cared for them.--CAVincent (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Supergroups can only be considered "super" if they are composed of at least a few prominent/well known figures from already established acts. In this particular case, I’m arguing that since both Temple of the Dog and Mad Season were composed of musicians from prominent/established acts (Chris Cornell, Eddie Vedder et al. in the former, Layne Staley, Mike McCready et al. in the latter), that each group was the result of grunge having taken off and not the cause to its rise/brief stay in prominence. Neither group would have been known, or could have been known, if grunge hadn’t come into the mainstream consciousness by their members’ parent acts. Therefore, neither group can be considered "prominent" to grunge.

This is common sense here fellas, who has listed either group as a major influence? While groups like Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains have been listed as influential. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in response to CAVincent, this is lifted directly from the Temple of the Dog page {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_the_Dog_(album)#Release_and_reception)

“ Temple of the Dog was released on April 16, 1991 through A&M Records and initially sold 70,000 copies in the United States. The album received favorable reviews, but failed to chart. In the summer of 1992, the album received new attention. Although it had been released more than a year earlier, A&M Records realized that they had in their catalog what was essentially a collaboration between Soundgarden and Pearl Jam, who had both risen to mainstream attention in the months since the album's release with their respective albums, Badmotorfinger and Ten." ”

This emphasizes my point that had grunge had not of entered mainstream consciousness, that this group/album would have never received the amount of attention that it ultimately did as its sales didn't pick up until a year after it was released. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Who lists Green River, the U-Men or Skinyard as a major influence? All were important, as was Temple of the Dog. You are trying to claim that only platinum selling bands whose members weren't in other platinum selling bands are notable. And who lists Gruntruck or Love Battery? If you keep this up, I'm gonna campaign to include Cat Butt. (Kidding, but they did record for SubPop.)--CAVincent (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, you obviously didn't read anything I just posted. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to list them. "This emphasizes my point that had grunge had not of entered mainstream consciousness, that this group/album would have never received the amount of attention that it ultimately did as its sales didn't pick up until a year after it was released" has no bearing on the fact that they are still grunge acts. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This has no bearing on whether or not either group is considered grunge. This has bearing on how prominent either group was to popularizing the genre. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No it really doesn't; you're trying to make a simple list of well-known grunge bands into something more than it is. Time to move on and stop edit warring with everyone. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't twist what my argument here is about. I have stated that the grunge acts Temple of the Dog and Mad Season do not belong on the list of "prominent" grunge acts. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Tarc has repeatedly shown that he has no clue to what this discussion is/has been about. He seems to think that I'm arguing that Temple of the Dog and Mad Season aren't grunge, when that has never been a point of discussion. Since he obviously has no clue to what all this is about, I fail to see how anything he’s contributed here can logically be considered. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the attacks and I'll put in a block request for you at WP:ANI. In other words, chill. I have a pretty good grasp on the English language and understand quite clearly what your point is; that these bands should not be listed here since they came after grunge was already widespread, and were not a part of its rise. What I (and others, I believe) are telling you is that you are reading far too much into what the list is and what it is about. It is simply a list of "prominent", i.e. well-known and widely recognized, groups of this genre. You are trying to narrow the list parameter to "important in the rise of grunge", and we are rejecting that narrow interpretation. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me if you feel so necessary, I have made no such attacks. I had simply point out that you had made it clear multiple times on this page that you had no clue to what the argument was about and was being careful to make sure that no red herring occurred. Whether you feel that I'm tying to narrow the interpretation isn't important. I pointed out a major contradiction here on wiki: One article (grunge) stats that the band was prominent to grunge, while another article (Temple of the Dog) states that it gained ground due to grunge's popularity. Which should be corrected. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no contradiction; this is simply a list of grunge bands which you are blowing out of all logical and sensible proportion. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I have made very logical points defending my argument on this. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Darwin's Bulldog has started a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Prominent_Grunge_acts. --JD554 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (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)

Heather Dawn

As you yourself have cited in the paragraph below. There is no woman named Heather Dawn. This information is WRONG and HAS NOT been VERIFIED. This is a disservice to wikipedia, it's readers and is rather insulting to native Seattlites that you cannot get this one simple fact straight. I am going to change the name to reflect the actual FACTS. You can even Google Dawn Anderson's name. I have a back issue of backfire right here on the table next to me. "Dawn Anderson , editor"....

The journalist quoted as Heather Dawn in the "Early Development" section of this article is misidentified''''Bold text'; the editor-in-chief of Backlash (and also Backfire) was Dawn Anderson. See: http://10thingszine.blogspot.com/2009/02/dawn-andersons-backlash-fanzine.html 68.107.139.59 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've long wondered about that line in the article, but I haven't seen the movie Hype. Either Dawn Anderson is misidentified or there is some other music journalist named Heather Dawn whom I don't recall, but none the less existed in the Seattle grunge scene (which is possible, but I suspect it should be Dawn Anderson). --CAVincent (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've collected a few more links concerning Dawn Anderson:

http://cycletheory.tripod.com/history/3.html

http://myhairsprayqueen.blogspot.com/2009/04/sgms-aggressionthe-metal-punks-are.html

http://www.sliver.it/nirvana/test/pages/memorabilia/magazines.html

I know Dawn personally and I would really like to correct this error. May I do so? TimFister68.107.139.59 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the article history, it seems Ms. Heather Dawn joined the article here, in September 2007, added by one WesleyDodds. As I think is clear, Dawn Anderson really was a reasonably well known music journalist in Seattle during the early grunge period, and the zine Backlash was hers. Again, never heard of Heather Dawn. Short of watching the movie, I can't be 100% certain, but it sure looks like this should be changed. Anyone seen the movie recently who can comment? Wesley? --CAVincent (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

She was credited as such in the video. I distinctly recall pausing my DVD so I could cite her name. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The woman in "Hype!" is Dawn Anderson, not Heather Dawn. Dawn was married to Jack Endino when Jack recorded Nirvana's Bleach album, and since Dawn was editor of Backfire (and later Backlash), she asked Jack to help her set up an interview, and was the first jornalist to write about Nirvana. This is a photo from the inserts to the "Hype" video:

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=433137512&albumID=74838&imageID=241380

If you look carefully at the text below the photo, you can make out Dawn Anderson's name.

May I change the article to correct this error? Tim Fister 68.107.139.59 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the filmmakers made an error. Not sure the best way to deal with a small, likely-but-not-provable error in a reliable source. I asked the question here.--CAVincent (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC) p.a. my suspicion is that we are stuck immortalizing a fictional Heather Dawn... --CAVincent (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I just checked imdb.com. The credited cast is listed here and includes "Dawn Anderson ... Herself - Local Music Critic", with no "Heather Dawn" in sight. Does that count enough for a reliable source to make the change? --CAVincent (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It would if IMDB was a reliable source, unfortunately it isn't. --JD554 (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I watched the video of Hype! last night, at Dawn Anderson's house no less. Nowhere in "Hype!" is she credited as Heather Dawn. I also have additional accreditation:

http://www.pcasacas.org/SPC/spcissues/22.3/kahn.html

The article is published in Studies in Popular Culture by Popular Culture Associations in the South, and is academic in nature. I hope this is considered a reliable source. This is a link to the association's information page:

http://pcasacas.org/SiPC/SIPC%20Pages/spcover.htm#General_Description

Tim Fister 68.107.139.59 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can check out the lengthy article yourselves, but this is the relevant part:

Dawn Anderson, editor of a Seattle fanzine called Backlash, says in Hype: "If you say the word ‘scene’ everybody rolls their eyes and laughs at you . . . so a lot of people thought it had reached its peak and by the end of the year we were all going to go back to doing what we were doing, go back to our little small-town utopia. In about 1990, we all went, ‘Oh good, it’s over.’"

I hope this is enough. It not only identifies Dawn Anderson as the editor of Backlash, but also quotes the part of Hype! that is paraphrased in the wikipedia article we're referencing here. Tim Fister 68.107.139.59 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to find this IP's links and explanations a bit more reasonable than the other side. Is there any support or citation for "Heather Dawn" beyond one user's "I saw it when I hit pause" rationale. This needs to be settled before it makes the WP:LAME Hall of Fame. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, in the closing credits of Hype, [2], I clearly see "Dawn Anderson". Tarc (1:23 in) (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since no-one has written anything in a while, may I assume that I can change Heather Dawn to Dawn Anderson with reasonable certainty that it won't be changed back? 68.107.139.59 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reasonable objection at this point. CAVincent (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much68.107.139.59 (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Heather Dawn is back for some reason. Did I miss something, or should I refer to this page when I indicate the change? What do I need to do? SIR: PLEASE REFER TO THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON AS HEATHER DAWN. NONE. IF YOU CAN PRODUCE EVIDENCE, I SUGGEST YOU DO SO. SINCE YOU'VE HACKED UP THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MY HOMETOWN TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL GOOD. THE LEAST YOU CAN DO IS GET THIS ONE FACT CORRECT OK? JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.. (EPIPHYSIS) 68.107.139.59 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Soul-Crusher, consideration

I believe the album should definately be mentioned under "Roots and Influences." Piero Scaruffi, a man who has been used as a source in other articles like in Coheed and Cambria's, does call the album proto-grunge and Kurt Cobain himself has said it was one of his biggest influences.Rockgenre (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an exceedingly weak reference to support White Zombie as an influence on grunge. Compared to obvious influences like Black Flag and Flipper, I seriously doubt any reasonable references can support this. I'm removing from the article. --CAVincent (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Same ole story here,AllMusic is a fine source when people agree with it but when they don't it is a weak one, there is so much POV at these alternative music pages it is a serious problem funny when a lot of these people editing these pages were sucking their thumbs in grade school when Grunge and Alt rock/pop was dominate force in the early and mid 90's!!--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AllMusic is a much better source when the reviewer is Erlewine, Raggett, or one of the other mainstays, and not the unknown pointed to in the above link, making an unsourced (and previously unheard of by me)claim that Cobain considered White Zombie an influence. By this same logic, a vastly stronger claim could be made to citing Celtic Frost as a grunge influence (and no, I'm not making that claim). I'll ignore the ad hominem thumb sucking bit. --CAVincent (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (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)

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--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.