Talk:Grunge

Tin Machine discussion

I think there's an argument for at least a mention of David Bowie's band Tin Machine in this article. I've been doing some research for the band for their article and now have several articles that talk about how the band "explored alternative and grunge before the styles were even widely known to exist." (as one example) Please see Tin Machine#Band legacy for the list of references and statements. Of course there's an additional connection, with Bowie's influence on Kurt Cobain already being noted. Tin Machine were formed in 1988, released their first album in 1989 and disbanded in 1992. Thoughts? I didn't want to go change a featured article without some discussion first. If there's no immediate dissent, I'll figure out how to add something to the article without disruption. 87Fan (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The sounds of Tin Machine is reminiscent of Alternative rock, but not even close to grunge. I think when Cobain was influenced by Bowie it was his older albums (70s era.) I know Bowie is a genre chameleon, but grunge is something he never even came close to, not even with Tin Machine. Also you may want to consider that Bowie being an influence to 1 grunge band means nothing. Bands or artists who have influenced many grunge bands would qualify as notible for mention, like Aerosmith influencing Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and plenty of other grunge bands. Maybe consider adding something to the Alternative rock article instead. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was of interest that the band was called "grunge before there was grunge" so to speak, and with no less than 3 different sources mentioning it, which is why I brought it up here. I certainly don't think TM was truly grunge of course... but thought maybe it warranted a mention in the article. 87Fan (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea, you'll forgive me if I don't take the word of "Mojo Flucke" terribly seriously. I place much more stock on contemporary reviews as opposed to modern-day revisionist ones, where it is far easier to declare "X was singing Y way before anyone ever heard of Y" to make oneself look sage. Tarc (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, but that's just one source of three, and the earliest of them was published in 1995. The latter didn't appear until 2007. I'm also concerned about some bias here - nobody seems to care that there are in fact are multiple sources all making a similar claim. 87Fan (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because a music journalist says it, doest mean its so. Although Tin Machine's used the same basic chord structure and many of the patterns, their production was so polished, for instance, the comparison makes no sence. I think its grasping at straws to redeem a (unfairly) maligned project. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't make grunge with Bowie's money behind you. After a while, you couldn't even do it with Cobain's. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Er... ok. I'm glad I asked - clearly people are very protective of this genre. I don't need to add anything - was merely asking if it was appropriate. Consensus appears to be 'no.' Thanks to those of you who were constructive in your discussions. 87Fan (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's like asking if the Foo Fighters are grunge. They're not - they've got money these days, they do things right in studios. Now this is all fine and dandy, and they make great alt rock instead, but it's no longer grunge. No more than the Beatles of Sgt Pepper were the same Beatles who did things on scabby four tracks after the Cavern.

As to Tin Machine, then purely IMHO, but it's one of those bands/albums (cf much of mid-period Lou Reed) that shows why you should keep your successful rockstars away from the coke. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't so much "protectionism" as you're thinking, i.e. a "we own the article" kinda thing, but rather a desire to not see bandwagon-hopping so many years after the fact. For a brief blip of time, grunge was the "it" thing, grunge was cool, and there was a rush to make every scruffy alt-rocker out to be the next Big Grunge Thing. Sometimes the reliable sources out there do it to such an extent that the Wikipedia has no choice but to report it, as we are not an original creator of content but rather a reflection of what is "out there" in the world. That's why the Stone Temple Pilots are listed here IMO, even though outside of a few tracks of "Core", they aren't grunge in the slightest. But a lot of people out there think they are. Tin Machine, I just didn't see much out there for numbers or reliability. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful and articulate reply. Seriously. I totally understand - I see genre wars on pages all the time. That's why I asked. I certainly don't think Tin Machine was grunge. What I thought was interesting (and perhaps notable enough to warrant a mention somewhere on the page) is that, even in a reasonably contemporary review, some thought the band was dismissed because they explored the genre before it was known/popular. Grunge-ish, so to speak. Not necessarily proto-grunge or anything. You occasionally see this with bands who are dismissed because their genre isn't yet or is no longer popular. But I'm no expert, and, as I said, consensus seems to be "keep your rock star away from my article!" or more simply, "no." And I'm ok with that. 87Fan (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Blur? Why?

The page has limited pictures; why is one of them some British dude who casually mentioned he doesn't like the genre in an interview? Shouldn't the pics be of grunge musicians, or at least producers or record label owners directly related to the scene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.164.74 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, even if no one has a better picture at the moment, that one should be taken out. What is it supposed to demonstrate: So this, for example, is not Grunge? There must be better pictures you could just collect on Wikipedia: Soundgarden, Pearljam, the Nevermind cover...93.82.20.185 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, I never even noticed that in all this time. Natural aversion to vapid britpop I guess. The image has been removed. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Bands disdain of the grunge label

Should this be mentioned somewhere? recently Soundgarden's Ben Shepherd trashed grunge and said Soundgarden were never a grunge band www.alternativenation.net/?p=25233 Billy Corgan has also said "I think we've finally proved that we're not a grunge band, thankfully."

Here's a quote from Mike McCready from an Entertainment Weekly feature: ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Is grunge still a bad word? [Laughs] Yeah. But it's used so much. So I don't have the reaction I used to have to it. I used to be like, "NO. WE ARE A ROCK & ROLL BAND. WE PLAY ROCK. WE PLAY HEAVY ROCK. WE'RE A HARD-ROCK BAND." I call the big one bitey (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Origin of the term" section could use a bit of expansion, sure. Corgan has nothing to worry about, as no one seriously considered them part of the grunge scene back then anyways. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusing statement

All,

I have looked through the archives, but have not found a mention of this. The lead states "It emerged in the mid-1980's, particularly in the state of Washington, and its capital Seattle." The way this is written makes it sound as though the capital of Washington is Seattle, not Olympia. Can we rework this to avoid the confusion? I do not know how to do so. Svyatoslav (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)