From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Rock music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Post-grunge is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

This is not accurate[edit]

The Foo fighters are not post grunge. This is almost defamatory. You place them next to nickleback? They may have succeeded longer than other grunge bands, but just because grohl was in curts band doesnt mean grunge died that day. They are should still be considered grunge style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


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

        I tried putting it in grunge but people always take it off. 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
the biggest hang up people seem to have is they're not american. They may not say this but people just think they're a british copy of the seatle bands. 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Funny... I didn't know nothing about that Seattle copyright... "Grunge" is a genre (I hate those "genres" invented by magazines ; for me, it's only rock 'n' roll! and I know only two genres of Rock : good music and bad one...) and everybody outside Seattle was able to play "Grunge"!! 17:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That's like saying "If they didn't come from New York, they're not punk." That is a ridiculous statement, to say the least.Natt the Hatt (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A friend's knowledge of the genre would most certainly not be a reliable source. RKFS (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "wikipedian term," Allmusic uses it, too. The problem is, they tend to include every modern rock band (even Evanescence). Fallingthrutheroof (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

just scrap this wiki[edit]

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

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

Post grunge is a term used for bands that were influenced by grunge bands of the 90's. I don't see why people seem to have such difficulties with that, it's not true that "they are imitating them". However I miss the NPOV in this article: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV).

( the end of the millennium, with disappointing follow ups by most "post grunge" artists, only a few bands, like Creed, maintained continued commercial success.....

(...... Yeah, bush is grunge not post grunge because they were created in 92, and kurt cobain who is grunge, died in 94. so theres proof there not post grunge. Also notice that there guitar solos are simple, and there beats are simple, and the singer has that typical grunge voice lol.

.....but for the most part, post-grunge has been discredited as a vital musical genre by music afficionados with intelligence.)

Doesn't sound very neutral to me. And it's "aficionados" not "afficionados".

Haha, I think the point is that the bands included under the term suck balls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. There is no such thing as post-grunge. This genre doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

no information?[edit]

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

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

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

New template[edit]

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


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

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

Article name[edit]

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


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

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

~ Live was around long before Grunge and Throwing Copper was considered Alternative when it came out. Why play revisionist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


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

Audioslave,Foo Fighters,Ect.[edit]

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

Agreed. I came to this talk page to post about this and I am happy that someone agrees with me. Thoughts on this? Flyerhell 05:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
And Life of Agony? WTF? Also, I think Local H should be moved to the section with Bush, the Toadies and Silverchair and not with the Creed and 3 Doors Down section. If not for stylistic reasons then for the fact they had an album in 1995.


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

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

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


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

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

Reference or remove[edit]

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


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

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

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

Fourth paragraph under contents[edit]

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

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

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

Dudewhiterussian 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Godsmack Post-Grunge?[edit]

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

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

Alanis Morrissete?[edit]

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

Excessively Long Lists[edit]

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

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

Merge Pop Rock[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

There is no valid reason to include pop punk or nu metal etc in post grunge. They have a completely different sound and are sub genres of punk and metal not of grunge.

Also Greenday and The Offspring were in existence parallel to the grunge movement not after it and not influenced by grunge bands.

Post grunge is an after effect of grunge, where bands commercialise the sound to make it appeal to a wider audience to make money. Case in point, nickelback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

List of post grunge bands[edit]

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

this whole article should be deleted/changed[edit]

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

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

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

Comparison to Grunge section needs a re-write.[edit]

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

Legitimacy of post-grunge as a genre[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

Delete this article[edit]


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

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

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

Delete this bad article. Buster (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Busterdawg (talkcontribs) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether or not you believe should be recognized as a reliable source it is. It even appears ont he list of recomended sites on the music related articles' notability guidelines page. The staff of AMG are paid music critics many of which have their own wikipedia articles and are published authors. As such the articles they write on subjects count as relaible third party coverage.

Is it a some 17 year old "intern" or a convicted murderer behind bars who wrote love letters to somewhat at allmusic? RKFS (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

For Those Who Claim That Post-Grunge Isn't a Notable Genre[edit]

AMG isn't the only reliable source to have written about Grunge music. Rhapsody also has an article on the subject, and iTunes has hundreds of songs for sale that are labeled as post-grunge. If neither of those are good enough for you, then look no further than the following link. It is a list of articles printed in Rolling Stone Magazine which reference the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Post-Grunge should be noted as a genre and not a sub-genre, look at the list of Post-Grunge bands there are no bands who have only post-grunge as a genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomvasseur (talkcontribs) 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-existant subgenre. Please delete (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

According to you, a non-notable, non-reliable source. Please read the ACTUAL sources. --King ♣ Talk 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And jinkies, what happens in another 15 years when the bands influenced by post-grunge bands genrefies itself? Will they be post-post-grunge? or perhaps penultimate grunge, since there will be at least one more post-somethingorothernonsense before somebody comes back as official grunge, then you can have ultimate grunge, post-ultimate grunge and ultimate post grunge and post-ultimate post grunge, and won't you unimaginative pigeonholing lemmings be happy then? We can name the same retread music with four distinctly similar names! This is wonderful! I don't care WHO came up with the name post-grunge or post-rock, hell, even post-modernism is stupid and nondescriptive. These kinds of names were likely originated as placeholders until the music either became its own genre or simply became the rock of the day. How many Seattle bands described themselves as grunge? Um, yeah, mostly none. They called themselves rock bands or metal bands. Really. Its an promotions mechanism from the record labels to pass the same thing that was around before or its next logical conclusion off as something NEW and EXCITING because THE KIDS LOVE IT! Its friggin rock music, thats why you find it on rock stations, not post-grunge stations. Satellite radio might have a post-grunge station, but they also have a Howard Stern station. Stern is not a genre, at least no more than Post-anything is. Congrats and FAIL on doing the record companies work for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) thats not a valid argument. new wave is 35 years old you still call it new wave — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Alternative Rock"?[edit]

If post-grunge is 'alternative rock,' then what is 'mainstream rock'? K1da42 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

alternative is mainstream rock
I gather his point is, if the "alternative" is the default, what is it an alternative to?
"Alternative" came from when it was an alternative to mainstream rock in the 80's to early 90's it overtook what was the mainstream rock to become the mainstream rock confusing i know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Post 90's bands still thriving?[edit]

"Today there are a number of post '90s bands still thriving commercially in this genre, including Trapt, Hinder, Shinedown, Seether, 3 Doors Down, Staind, Breaking Benjamin, Puddle of Mudd, Hoobastank, Nickelback, Switchfoot, Cold, Incubus, Crossfade, Three Days Grace, and Saving Abel."

Was changed to

"Today there are a number of post '90s bands still thriving commercially in this genre, including Third Eye Blind, Incubus, matchbox twenty, Our Lady Peace"

So what exactly does the statement "Today there are a number of post '90s bands still thriving commercially in this genre" mean. Because the older list seemed more appropriate to me as those bands are newer (post 90's) and have had commercial success more recently than the other list who seemed to have had their heyday in an earlier time and seem more obscure now; not "still thriving". While Nickelback and co. have or are experiencing success after those bands faded. Did whoever made the edits remove the older list because they didn't consider those bands "true" Post-Grunge or something? Did they believe "still thriving" meant these had to be older bands or was this a statement about the genre itself? Does the newer list actually more closer resemble an older and less "currupt" version of the article? Could we just combine the lists? Should the statement be scrapped or revised as it could be ambiguous evidenced by these two contrasting lists? RKFS (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

i think the pupose of that statement was to show that there are not to many post grunge bands who had major success in the 90's i.e 94-99 ,who also had much success in the 00's ,i mean what happened to live or collective soul, candlebox ,bush, third eye blind, sliver chair , they have had little to no success in the 00's--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not true of Silverchair. They've had incredible success in the 00s, probably more than in the 90s. -xCaMRocKx- (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Definite differences between grunge & post grunge.[edit]

For those who don't believe that Post-Grunge should be considered a separate genre (or at least want to negate the differences between them)consider this: Grunge borrowed from a lot of genres (Sludge metal, original metal-ala black sabbath, punk bands like flipper, Bowie, hard rock, Devo style post-punk, and at times unabashedly borrowed from power pop). Post-Grunge borrowed from grunge (start/ stop guitar, quiet/louse singing, growling vocals, heavy distortion & use of feedback, but also incorporated heavy...very heavy..doses of hard rock (ala U2, R.E.M. & the alternative music of that time). It was much more polished as well. It wasn't something unexpected either, considering that all music that is relatively popular will eventually influence more mainstream music. It is VERY MUCH considered a separate genre (although some bands could be considered both...especially if they started out as grunge & incorporated a more hard rock sound). As someone mentioned earier, music encyclopedia books/websites (like All Music Guide), and even critiques (at the time the music was popular) considered these bands post grunge. Keep in mind too, that some bands borrowed less than others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What's up with morons trying to deny any difference between these styles? Seriously, whoever's doing that, knock it off. You can't notice anything that differentiates Three Doors Down and Mudhoney? Or Puddle of Mudd and Soundgarden? That's just fucking daft. I suppose Papa Roach and Iron Maiden shouldn't be categorized differently either. (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes i have made[edit]

  1. it is apparent to many liberties were taken with the source talking about the decline of Grunge aklso we dont want to get to deep into that being this is not about grunge,so i eliminated some of the OR.
  2. When referring to the early post grunge bands paving the way to cementing this a a long standing genre into the late 90's as other rock and pop genre's started to hit the main stream, i removed Audio slave and added live because that part eludes early Post grunge bands i.e bands from the mid 90's circa 94-96 and Audio Slave did not exist but Live was an early Post grunge band who had some big hits in 94 ,95 so i added them for examples.
  3. I know somebody who keeps editing here is a major fan of Breaking Benjamin which is a minor band when comparing their chart success to bands like Creed Nickleback and Puddle of Mud if we needed to add another band even 3 doors down would be a better fit but is it me or is showing 3 bands as examples for successful post grunge bands who continued the popularity of the genre into the 00's???Come on folks this aint plug your favorite band article.--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hash sign (#) FTW. Good edits, btw. --King Öomie 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry i have not been to this talk page for a while LOL--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

decline in Grunge[edit]

i think it should at lest be noted in the start of the article (when it talks about nirvana and Pearl Jam)to at least mention the break ups of Alice in Chains and Soundgarden and what the hell maybe even screaming trees —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedmyeyes (talkcontribs) 00:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Could anyone tell me about the differences of nu-grunge to post-grunge. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgreen19 (talkcontribs) 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


"...a derivative of grunge, utilizing the sounds and aesthetic of grunge, but with a more commercially acceptable tone."

What about bands that formed after the explostion and are not commercially acceptable? Are they still considered post-grunge, because they weren't in the initial wave? NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, post- type genres tend to cover exactly that sort of band, but obviously a source is needed before we add it to the lead.--SabreBD (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Scenes and origins[edit]

Not only are these unsourced, nothing in the article comes remotely close to verifying any of these locations. Which doesn't really surprise me since a) post-grunge appears to have begun as a universal phenomenon with bands like Bush, Silverchair and Our Lady Peace coming out in the very first wave of the genre in 1994. In fact, very few of the groups listed as post-grunge come from any of the "scenes" (except the intentionally vague "upper midwest") or, really, from the supposed places of origin. Further, most genre articles don't list specific regional scenes unless there are articles on them or they were highly influential or slightly different from each other (see post-punk). Considering how much of this article was removed in striving for verifiability, I'm stunned this has been allowed to remain. I'd remove the regional scenes altogether and change the cultural origins to "Mid-1990's, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia", again taking the cue from the post-punk article. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is probably one of the things I didn't change when I cleaned the article up. Although in my defence this is really not the worse crime in a Wikipedia infobox. You make a fair point: its not like grunge, there is no obvious local scene. I think the suggested change would be a good one.--SabreBD (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You're right that it's not a huge crime, and I can understand just leaving it be. I just think it's something we should change at this point. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Since no one objected I have changed it. Good catch.--SabreBD (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Artical lead in[edit]

the second paragraph leads in that in 1995 that the foo fighters helping to popularize post grunge while undoubtedly true i just wanted to point out that the movement roots really go back to 1994 when bands like bush, Candlebox, collective soul really helped lay the pipe work, candlebox and bush in particular help show how the genre could appeal to mainstream (see: (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to put this in.[edit]

During the mainstream era of grunge, many bands like Bush, Candlebox, Collective Soul, as well as others were formed to gain the popularity. Unlike most grunge bands of the time, these bands had more of a acceptable sound, with bands more from other parts of the United States ratehr then seattle (e.g. Soul Asylum from Minneapolis, MN, and Local H from Zion, Illinois)).

DOES IT LOOK ANY GOOD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy (talkcontribs) 17:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically you need to find reliable sources before adding anything like this.--SabreBD (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


Seether lacks the angst and anger of grunge groups? Really? Has the writer listened to Remedy, Gasoline, Truth, Fake It, or (really) anything by Seether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


  1. "The death of Kurt Cobain of Nirvana in April 1994, the Alice in Chains' period of inactivity after Jar of Flies (January 1994), as well as touring problems for Pearl Jam, marked a decline for grunge that year."
"The band was scheduled to tour during the summer of 1994 with Metallica and Suicidal Tendencies, but while in rehearsal for the tour, Staley began using heroin again.[32] Staley's condition prompted the other band members to cancel all scheduled dates one day before the start of the tour, putting the band on hiatus.[33] While Alice in Chains was inactive during 1995, [...]" (en.Wp itself). The death/decline of grunge in 1994 was due not only to Nirvana and Pearl Jam problems. Staley and AiC problems were important as well. Is it wrong? Is the Wp article about AiC wrong?
  1. "By the mid 2000s, the term post grunge began to be used less, instead being replaced with neo-90s rock, or neo-grunge, because some bands like Puddle of Mudd have eliminated all the romantic lyrics in some of their songs, and replaced it with the angst and anger of the original movement, and a similar style to earlier bands".
"Puddle of Mudd's aggro-rock sound is indistinguishable from every other Alice in Chains- and Tool-influenced band to come along in the past few years. The opening, "Control," milks the loud/quiet formula that's been done to death since Nirvana's demise, but adds some interesting stop-time changes during the break, while the acoustic balladry of "Drift & Die" sounds so familiar, Layne Staley should get a portion of the songwriting royalties." ( --Mauro Lanari (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a bit hard to understand exactly what you are saying here and anyone who does not look through recent edit histories will probably be very puzzled, but here goes. On the first point above about 1994: I reverted this because your original change added something that happened in 1995 to a sentence that referred to 94. This is not an objection to the addition itself if it is relevant and sourced. It took me a while to work out your quote is from the Alice in Chains article. There are two issues with this as proof. First, that Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself, so what we need to discuss here are the actual sources not the Wikipedia article (because yes they could be wrong) and the second one is that we cannot infer from an event that something else happened, in this case that because Alice did not tour that grunge stumbled. What we need is a source that already draws this inference. However, there may be a way around this as, from memory, I think that when I originally wrote this sentence a reference to Alice was in here: I will go back and check what the source was when I get time later today. On the second point about what Puddle of Mudd have done, there is a similar problem, you seem to be drawing an inference from this source that is not clearly in it. Basically, if we want to add something controversial we need to find a reliable source that says just that as per WP:OR, so I think that the addition as it stands is a non-runner and perhaps you should think about a new source or framing something close to what the source says if that is significant. Hope that helps.--SabreBD (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, do you know this image or do you think it's photoshopped? For Cobain, grunge was dead before his death. "I Hate Myself and Want to Die": 1993. This performance: 23/01/93. The MTV ("Empty TV": Cobain) Unplugged, 18/11/1993, was the show of grunge already dead: Seattle sound acoustic isn't Seattle sound anymore. "Grunge is dead in 1994": ok, let's believe it. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The Seattle scene is almost the Seattle sound, which is almost the sound of "Nevermind", which is almost the overproduction of Butch Vig, then rejected by Cobain as his diaries and biographies say. Grunge was born already dead. So simple, so difficult to admit. Nevermind, precisely. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope, not a clue about what you are saying here.--SabreBD (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
How old are you and where were you in the early 90s? Perhaps you would like a statement from Steve Albini, the artistic producer of my former bandmate ([1] & [2])? Never mind, again. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Three of those link to Google searches and one is a website in a language I do not read. If you have a point please state it clearly and then give clear links to reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Creed & Matchbox 20[edit]

there's no denying that these bands with their debut albums made a huge impact in this genre so i guess some lines should be included about them as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to indicate that?--SabreBD (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
YUP!! CERTYIFIES HUMAN CLAY CREED 11 times platinum cerifies Yourself or someone like you diamond
These two albums created more interest for the post grunge music aand a huge impact on the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but do you have anything that indicates they are post-grunge?--SabreBD (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

but yy need sources search on any music site you get em as post grunge search on google this requires no sources

I am afraid it does. Please see WP:Verifiability.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  2. (not collapsed),
and so on. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously: how much is Allmusic/Rovi a reliable source?[edit]

[3]=[4]: COLDPLAY? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic is generally considered reliable where there is text, but list of genres are not generated by identifiable critics, so are not considered reliable.--SabreBD (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, Sabrebd. Nice work. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity now with All Music since it is now a commercial site which it was not previously,and commercial sites are not considered reliable if my memory serves me right on that policy or perhaps i am wrong ,so all music may present a problem especially for music articles--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sub-genre of hard rock not alternative rock[edit]

Post-grunge should be listed as a sub-genre of hard rock not alternative rock, like nu metal, post-grunge is too far detached from the punk roots of alternative rock to be considered a sub-genre of it, and band's like Nickelback, Creed and Matchbox Twenty have very little to do with punk music. I call the big one bitey (talk) 30 October 2012 5:16. (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources supporting that view?--SabreBD (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Omg i totally agree Post-grunge has little if anything to do with Alternative rock. Also most of the Post-grunge bands like Nickelback, Creed and three doors down have a hard rock sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The wiki looks to small, I am going to change it[edit]

I think the Post-grunge wikipedia should be more larger and should give more details. This wiki doesn't even talk about the singles of post-grunge bands. Also they it doesn't talked about the similarity of grunge and how grunge fans bashed it. I am going to edit this whole wikipedia and add way more details and put a more section and the wikipedia needs to be more like the nu metal wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding materials based on reliable sources is probably fine, but please resist the temptation to add unsourced or poorly sourced material. Also major changes to the structure of the article should come here first to get consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Post-grunge is a sub-genre of Alternative rock, NOT POP ROCK[edit]

Okay, so I saw the Post-grunge wikipedia and around this time, I saw that the main stylistic origin and it says pop rock. Post-grunge have nothing to do with Pop rock. Post-grunge is grunge but more radio-friendlier. It doesn't add pop hooks or anything like that. It is just a more radio-rock music. Really, I find that hilarious because Post-grunge is a sub-genre of Alternative rock, not Pop rock. They don't called post-grunge pop grunge or glam grunge for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecalling2002 (talkcontribs) 23:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed I think some users have pop rock confused with Popular rock. I don't understand why Post-grunge would be "a commercial friendly version of Grunge" anyways, Considering albums like Nevermind ,Vs., Superunknown, and Jar of Flies topped the Pop Charts. If anything I think trying to sound more grungy would be the apporiate apporoach. Post-grunge is barely a genre and DIFFINITLY has nothing to do with pop rock besides being popular.-- (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

I know recent additions are a good faith attempt to expand the article, but it is now full of unsourced statements, dubious sources, bare ULS, poor English and MOS issues. Moreover, my experience of music articles strongly suggests that a long list of releases and chart positions is not of benefit to the reader. This is not a list of all post-grunge releases, but is meant to supply a concise and accurate guide to the topic. I do not even know where to start to sort all this out.--SabreBD (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've been trying to clean it up, but there's just so much to fix. Would it be easier to revert back to the original state, before the recent major additions? I feel like that's pretty much where I'm heading if I keep this up, but when I do it piece by piece like I've been trying, it's hard to see how the article was originally supposed to flow. Right now, it's just all these random ideas without any flow. (and as you say, riddled with formatting and MOS issues.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys, there is something we can do instead of complaining about it. I think the Post-grunge wikipedia needed a section, a lot of genres I know here have sections, just take a look at the nu metal, glam metal or even the original grunge wikipedia. Also, I got my influence from the nu metal wikipedia, if you take a look at that wikipedia, if you looked at it there are random ideas with so many different bands talking about commercial success. Also, what do you mean about how the article was originally supposed to flow, it was dull and boring before and it was a tiny wikipedia with very little information compared to the other genre pages of wikipedia. Also, some of the sources were fine. I understand not all of them were right but some were. Also, there are a lot of post-grunge albums and post-grunge artists, I never add all of them in here, I add just the important ones and the important bands, there are a lot of post-grunge bands but I only add the mainstream ones because those are the ones that people realize about the genre. Also, the second wave of post-grunge from 2000-2009 is not really good, well to me, I don't know about others because I don't think a second wave can survived the whole decade. I think we should split them into appropriate sizes, don't be that worry about the sources, some of the sources are already fine if we are talking about the bands and their commercial success. Hopefully I helped. You guys should give me some good advice, I think I should need it on this one. This post-grunge page wasn't really reliable to begin with, it was all a poor page with little information. Hope I helped by the way and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeis1996 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sergecross73. I do not think it is possible to fix this from here. I propose that we go back to the version before the additions and then consider here what we might add and then do it carefully and according to Wikipedia guidelines. It is not worth losing the quality of the article for the sake of volume.--SabreBD (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Mike, here's an example of 2 edits that you made, and all the issues you introduced into the article. The is seen here

  • You added six short paragraphs, all 1-2 sentences long, with zero connection to one another.
    • The first 5 of the paragraphs are in regards to band's releases, but are completely disconnected, and don't seem to be organized in any particular manner. (They do not go by chronological order of release or anything. Completely random.)
    • The last one is talking about the breakup of Nirvana and formation of Foo Fighters. That's already mentioned earlier in the section. It doesn't make sense to say this again, and so far away from the original mentioning of it.
  • Neither the source given, nor the album's article, refers to Silverchair's Frogstomp as post-grunge.
  • Rate Your Music is not a reliable source, it operates on information contributed by random people, not journalists, so it fails WP:USERG.
  • Album titles aren't italicized like they should be.
  • You've overlinked items over and over again.
  • Every entry is merely saying their chart placements, not anything actual about the music.
  • The writing is informal. Its supposed to read like an encyclopedia, not a blogger or a press release. Exceperpts like one of the most dominant rock records of the 90s, a slow-building success story that spawned four hit singles, sounds like something out of the band's biography or a sticker on a CD or something.

There are just so many things like this to fix, and this is only a sample 2 edits. This is why it may be necessary to start fresh. You can keep working on it, but I recommend you start off much slower, and/or familiar yourself much more with Wikipedia before you try making such radical changes again. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving it like it was before. I feel like that was the best we can do, yes, I still agree the post-grunge wikipedia page looks dull and boring and I do feel like that most of the artists did talk about the chart performances instead of the actual music but, the sources that I found were probably the best sources that I really could find. Unless, if you give me some good sources that talks about the actual music, I would probably post that there but I think it's good to start fresh. I see pages like the nu metal wikipedia, glam metal wikipedia or the original grunge wikipedia and that gives me a influence on how I want the post-grunge wikipedia to be. The sources to me are what really stops me but I think it's best to leave like you left it. I hope one day in the future we can re-built it and try to make more supportive than it originally is.
Thank you.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC) )
I do agree that the article could use some expansion, I don't deny that. But we need it looking more like the state of the article for hard rock. It's a Good Article, so its probably a better model to follow in regards to writing, wording, structure, etc, because it's been through an extensive peer review.
I don't usually write a whole lot at these genre type articles; I personally find the massive scope of things to be covered overwhelming, but I can see if I can try to dig up some good sources or content to add sometime... Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and oh, the hard rock wikipedia is such a amazing article. The pictures and stuff and has a lot of information. In fact, I was just reading that and was amazed on how good the article was, it has a lot of information and it's very supportive. I would try someday in the future or near future to make the post-grunge wikipedia similar to those of the hard rock wikipedia. If you have anything good for the post-grunge wikipedia, please put them down, It's good to paste it than just to waste it. Thank you for your information and it's okay if you don't like adding up genre information articles, I know it gets too long but it's good to try. Also, if I ever re-do it again, the first thing I am going to put are easily sections, most of the genre articles have sections so that is easily a good start to go. Thank you though.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC) )

I was contacted a week ago about this article, but I was in the process of fixing my computer, so I didn't have much time to consider what was going on. But from reading this discussion, I can see that you all have come to a sensible, respectable conclusion. I think it's what I would have concluded too. Cheers everyone! Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)