Jump to content

Talk:Grunge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.53.24.135 (talk) at 17:23, 2 February 2013 (→‎the swans influence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Music Portal Featured Article

Featured articleGrunge is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 6, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 24, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 8, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:United States SA nom

Napalm Beach

I would like to add Portland band Napalm Beach to the grunge band list. Live video: http://www.youtube.com/napalmbeachpdx OK? Live video: http://www.youtube.com/napalmbeachpdx Do I need to make a case for this addition? Thank you. Napooi (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Leeds Grunge Scene"

I refer to http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jan/30/leeds-grunge-scene and http://www.thecamdencrawl.com/artist/pulled-apart-by-horses. Should this be added to the article, before perhaps mainstream media fully adopts the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomvasseur (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash?

We should add Ash to the Grunge band list? im adding them, if you have a problem with it talk to me and not just change it back! 81.96.254.143 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hole

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Why is Allmusic a reliable source for Hole but not Bush, Silverchair, or Smashing Pumpkins? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Grunge is pretty well-defined, actually. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd agree with that. Ceoil (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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) [reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I'm going to give my thoughts on this matter. I agree with what Bulldog has said in his original post - Mad Season or Temple of the Dog are not prominent bands in the Grunge scene. I see there is a bit of arguing here over whether they are supergroups. Temple of the Dog at the time the released their self titled album was not a supergroup as Cornell was technically the only "Famous" member (Yes Ament and Gossard played in Green River and Mother Love Bone but they are hardly well known musicians) and even that is debatable. I would say at the time they were not famous. However by todays standards they should now be regarded as a supergroup. I don't see the debate about Mad Season - all members had performed in famous bands.--Alowishus321 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Way to assume good faith there, sport. You're a credit to the project. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ash?

We should add Ash to the Grunge band list? im adding them, if you have a problem with it talk to me and not just change it back! 81.96.254.143 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash? I just looked up a few videos on youtube and it sounds like pure Britpop to me, even the early stuff. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Britpop for sure - they're definitely not grunge. --Yankees76 Talk 15:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sludge metal

Shouldn't this mention that Melvins' work helped shape sludge metal? Gothbag (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seaweed

Seaweed - shared a lot of grunge's characteristics, but with a more straightforward uptempo punk/hardcore treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.34.232 (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, grunge has very little or no distinguishable characteristics which define it hence why all the bands sound different.--Alowishus321 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution issue

There is an issue concerning the line "in 1993 Bruce Pavitt said that in the city, 'All things grunge are treated with the utmost cynicism and amusement [. . .] Because the whole thing is a fabricated movement and always has been.'"

The quote is attributed to Bruce Pavitt in 1993, yet the source article was published on November 15, 1992. Article: (http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_topdoc=1&p_docnum=1&p_sort=YMD_date:D&p_product=NewsBank&p_text_direct-0=document_id=%28%20122A761718286AF0%20%29&p_docid=122A761718286AF0&p_theme=aggdocs&p_queryname=122A761718286AF0&f_openurl=yes&p_nbid=C5EE62LVMTI5MTgxMjIxNi43Nzg1Mzc6MTo1OjE5NTc2&&p_multi=NYT3)

Also, the quote was made by Jonathan Poneman, the second founder of Sub Pop Records.

So the general attribution and the date are both incorrect. Jgreening072 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)jgreening072[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

grunge bands

add Willard "The Sound of Fuck" now there's some Grunge for ya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.120.206 (talk)

I vaguely remember them. Think they tried to be anti-grunge to counter the MTV effect of having a Seattle band on 24/7, though they still had that kinda sludgy metal sound. Either way, the band article is shit, surprised it has lasted as long as it has in such a poor state. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing pumpkins

thank you very much to the editor who sent me this message and i would like to let whoever it is that i respect their opinions on this matter. For the matter at hand i grew up in the era when grunge was popular and Smashing Pumpkins was always considered a signature band of the style. Although their style was more experimental and veered from the style at certain points. The sam could be said of bands of other genres such as deftones(considered nu-metal despite their experimentalism), as well as led Zeppelin themselves (they created hard rock but added [psychedelic influence to their sound). These bands all had experimental sounds but they are all considered part of that genre. Smashing pumpkins uses the hard rock mixed with hardcore punk along with guitar distortion and apathetic lyrics. they experiment with shoegaze and goth, but bands like soundgarden experimented with pschedelia and acid rock and are considered grunge. Add a discussion point to this and we can decide the fate of this issue. I look forward to what you have to say and thank you once again for the understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.201.79 (talk)

Just because MTV had the Pumpkins in rotation alongside Soundgarden and Pearl Jam, that doesn't make them a grunge band. I was a DJ throughout much of the 90's and do not recall them ever being lumped in with "grunge" at any time...and apart from that, I doubt any credible, reliable sources classify them or their sound as grunge either. My personal opinion is that the Pumpkins sound was rather unique, a kind of arena rock + punk. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the pumpkins are weird in this context. if you're going to talk about alternative rock, the larger movement of the period, they're absolutely central. however, there are a lot of important bands from the late 80s and early 90s that fit into alt. rock but don't fit into grunge - the red hot chili peppers, weezer, my bloody valentine, REM....this list could get huge. i'd classify the pumpkins as fundamentally psych rock, with influences across the spectrum, but i would restrict their grunge influences to 70s arena metal - sabbath, queen - and a lot of what we'd now call 80s indie rock - mbv, sonic youth. they even started off as a cure or joy division type 80s new wave act, which was on the opposite end of the alt. rock spectrum. gish wasn't close to being grunge, it was mostly upbeat and with a fast tempo and glossy production. but, on the other hand, siamese dream was heavily influenced by sonic youth. so, again, it's weird. they were maybe on the very fringes of grunge, at the most. but, oddly, they *did* start to explore a grunge aesthetic later on, with corgan's delves into "cyber-metal" on mellon collie and, more blatantly, the ransom soundtrack. but, that was after grunge had largely collapsed as a scene. so, you could definitely say that corgan was influenced by grunge and worked grunge themes into the overall presentation, but mostly in the mid 90s. that's probably the best summary. so, yeah, i agree that the pumpkins don't really belong on this page.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm seeing something there that is now much shorter. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What I believe Tarc meant is that Wikipedia is not in the advocacy game. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

forget it, i figured it out.
  1. ^ http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/PostGrunge.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grunge&oldid=536214845"