I don't know that Nirvana made that much of a difference really...

After all, grunge came and went but shite hair metal bands like Twisted Sister and Poison have made comebacks..

I read a review of the Rocklahoma festival that said grunge killed off their music for a while but now they have made a return whilst no one holds a Grunge-ahoma, so that says something - even if all it says is "people have crap taste in music"

Same for punk "Oh punk came along and killed off all the dinosaur bands"..erm..nope! Pink Floyd carried on being a massive stadium band after punk had burned itself out. The Wall, 1979/ 1980 ish?

Nirvana was no different than any other great band. Bad trends always follow great bands.

Nirvana didn't wear flannel as a fashion statement, they wore it because it was cold in Seattle, and they didn't sing depressing music because it was cool, but because Kurt Cobain was a miserable sod. What was great was that they were not following a huge trend and it was refreshing. But it becomes popular and then it's in the Gap.

Same with Metal, Van Halen was great early on, but it led to Cinderella. Same with Hip Hop. Same with funk eventually fizzling out with disco. Same with The Beatles and ever other mop top group after them.

There can only be so many great artists, and the followers are just followers. What rock needs is another great artist, but when that person/band comes, what follows will most likely suck.

NDRU said:

Thank you for actually making sense.

Nickleback is one of the best selling acts right now, and those of you crying about it, think about this. Take any of their big hits and listen to it. You may not like it, but the songs have good hooks, are relatable, have good arrangements, and aren't whored out on every other commercial you see.

As for the grunge thing, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice IN Chains, etc were all excellent musicians. Everyone says that Nirvana made it cool to not be able to play, but what about guys like Neil Young telling people "You don't need to learn theory, it kills creativity" back in the 80s? For what Nirvana was doing they were excellent, and truth be told, Kurt DID have some chops, he just didn't use them most of the time (check out the Nirvana box set, there are some examples of this.)

Nickelback, Fall Out Boy, Puddle Of Mudd and all of those untalented hacks are killing it

BlaqueKnight said:

I don't think it's one or the other. There's great complex music and there's great simple music.

Grunge was stripping away the unnecessary complexity. An amazing guitar player like Eddie made everyone think they needed to tap out a solo, even if they sucked on guitar. The decent grunge bands simply put the focus on the song again, which is a different kind of proficiency (kind of like what you're saying about Neil).

But don't disagree about the state of rock. I do think it's the state of popular music, though, not just rock.

It's the listener/buying public to blame. We accept and celebrate mediocrity everyday on television, movies, and music.

Rock, rap, r&b, and even good singer songwriter radio pop is nowhere near the levels they once were. Look at the album charts from the 70's & 80's. You tell me our present top 50 can compete with those. Not even close.

There are exceptions and you can argue about those in another thread.

but sh*t someone is buying this crap and blasting it somewhere and thinking damn this is good otherwise MTV, FUSE, Radio, and TV would be forced to change.

Well i could go on for days about this one, but it all comes down to the fact that they slowed it down. I bought the new NIGHT RANGER album the other day and the first track "Tell your vision" is a blistering rock blast of guitars,solos, vocals, drums, everything, just SONICALLY will blow you away, and that is whats gone, also the whole YOUTH bullshit, sorry but Kids used to know how to rock, back in the 50's and 60's but the kids of this generation dont know shit about ROCK. First lesson, if you call Fall Out Boy or Gym Class Heroes rock bands, than you are contributing to the death of ROCK, and you need to go to class...Quickly.

And my point about slowing it down is not about "ballads" because lets face it, rock has many "Ballads", im talking more about bands like Nickelback and Daughtry, they are crosses between Grunge and Emo, and its scary that thats what the grammys calls ROCK at this point, sorry but that is Pure POP.

But for the most part its youth, sorry kids, but you dont know what you are doing and the listeners dont know what it is. The older artists are still making the better albums NOW, doing better Tours, everything, they just arent getting played so you never know about it anymore.
[Edited 7/16/08 13:42pm]

anybody who knows the history knows that Nirvana didn't make it cool to not be the most technical or proficient player, punk did. And at the heart of the matter Nirvana was a punk band influenced by underground punk acts. regardless of weather Kurt knew how or was even interested in incredible guitar work note for note, he was a great song writer. Nirvana was a punk act with a enough pop sensibility and beatle influence to know how to write a catchy tune. This is why he often rejected the fame and many of the trends that followed Kurts success, he was a punk rocker at heart and he felt that he sold out to the masses.

BlaqueKnight said:

Hit dogs howl Blaque.

Like Meloh said, PUNK was what made anti-proficiency cool. Nirvana sort of came out of that tradition, but like I said before, Kurt had some chops, he was just self conscious about using them. That, and the songs were actually ABOUT something. Give me that over some "let's get drunk and puke on each other all night baby" hair metal song.

As for Nickelback, they're almost a Mellencamp for a new generation. They're regular guys who happen to write and play music that a lot of people care about and can relate to. They know their audience and their audience (from what I can tell anyway) is similar to them. You don't see Chad Kroeger dating models, going to Hollywood premieres, and showing up at exclusive parties. Why? Because they walk it like they talk it. They're REAL! And when did being real become such a crime? You may not like their music, but you can't say its contrived.

How is the Neil Young example weak? As far as I know, he said this in the 90s.

Rock is a wide spectrum but too bad the playing field isnt open the way it was, the funnel of record label to the mainstream has no clue at this point, no one plays, no one gigs, no does shit anymore. Its all like the REAL WORLD on Mtv, everyone is given their deal now, big advances and all that shit and the music is coming from someone else's head. Rock is dead, who killed it? the same people who killed every other genre.

Sorry but i totally disagree with the Mellencamp - Nickelback comparison. Nickelback's music may "sell" but they are not relevant in terms of writing songs that are going to be around, its just that simple.

Cinnie said:

though i think people NOW see how silly it all looked, while back THEN most people took bands like this dead serious.

i mean, look at that clown on the right with the sunglasses. people at one time thought that was the look of a ROCK GOD.

now it's considered campy and nostalgic. i agree that people miss it. but i don't think the same level of earnest fervor exists. that ship has sailed.

guitarslinger44 said:

There is nothing remotely good about anything within 100 miles of Nickelback's sphere of sucktitude!

Moonbeam said:

nickelback = exactly what i was saying about safe, sanitized, bloodless disneycore.

Anxiety said:

I agree. Some people probably took the look to be hilarious, but sort of in the vein of how some people find Li'l John's look to be hilarious, while many others are emulating it as cool.

NDRU said:

Sometimes I think that at least image-wise, hip-hop is the new 80s hair metal and it has been for quite some time.

lastdecember said:

Night Ranger - HELL FUCKING YES. Those guys know how to ROCK. I saw them last month and they literally blew the roof off the sucker.

At the end of their set, I yelled out, "Let's see Fallout Boy do THAT!" and I got a standing ovation.

Here, enjoy. And let me tell you something else: Kurt Cobain and his buzzkill bandmates couldn't EVER hold Night Ranger's jocks. EVER.

BlaqueKnight said:

[img][/img][img][/img][img][/img]

RodeoSchro said:

Its gotta be a generational thing.
First off: Dave Grohl. That alone should be enough to end this discussion.
2nd: Night Ranger has a gaddamn KEYBOARD. Which disqualifies them.
3rd: In Utero. The tones make NR's brand of mid and hi-treble rock seem wimpy.

Here's my video response. I doubt NR would ever have the rock BALLS to jump into their crowd.

SexGod said:

LMFAO, what the fuck was THAT?!? Two versions of a crappy song? That song was so bad it couldn't even be sold to Guitar Hero. It's only 8:30 AM but I need a STRONG drink to get that mess out of my mind!

Cobain got punched because he clocked that dude in the face with his guitar. You can bet that if Jack Blades or Brad Gillis went into the crowd, they wouldn't get into a fight!

As far as generational, you have a point. My generation took what the dudes from the '30's '40's and '50's did and made it better throughout the '60's and '70's. Hell, the next generation did pretty damn good in the '80's. Not as good as us, but OK.

But the wastoids that followed went backwards in the 90's, and the losers that followed THEM have completely ruined rock today.

I would love to see a bill that had someone like Fallout Boy, Good Charlotte or any other crapola "rock" band of today follow Night Ranger.

The Fallout Boys would not get booed off the stage.

They would get LAUGHED off the stage.

What we need is a new not a copy of, but something with the same impact as:

GNR Appetite

RATM- 1st album

FNM- The Real Thing


Something that hits you in the head like WTF, combining elements of old with something new.
[Edited 7/17/08 7:21am]

It's not and never will...what an ignorant question.

Very true. It goes from R&B to rock to even television. They have sold a "simple" and "everyday" image to people and have raised a whole new generation that is actually entertained by "simple" things. When I was growing up, it was boring as hell to see someone that looked and acted like the average joe on TV. Nowadays, they take four or five average joes, put them in a house together, and film it. The entire plot for one episode can be that Jimmy tripped over his untied shoe lace. Then, the rest of the cast members will take turns going into a private room and telling the camera about Jimmy tripping over his shoe lace. And if that ain't enough, then the cast members will call a meeting to discuss Jimmy tripping over his shoe lace and whether or not he should be thrown out of the house for it. And these dull asses today actually find that shit entertaining.

And it's the same with music. On the R&B side, these dull asses have been raised to like music that is stripped of all music and just have some either singing or talking over a slow beat. They even dress the artists up like average joes so the audience can relate. The same with rock, as far as image goes. They find folks that look like your next door neighbor that you can relate to. Well, hell, my neighbors are boring and always have been. And average joes are boring, always have been, and always will be. That's why they are called "average". Freaks, weirdos, sluts, and whores are entertaining. Let's get back to those images. And I said "whores", not "ho's". There's a difference. Nobody has their own image anymore because they don't know anything else other than "normal". That's all they have been raised on for so long.

NDRU said:

Thanks for posting that. I was just about to state that rock and all other musio trends go through cycles and pendulum swings, and that you have three different groups of artists that latch on to a trend.

The Innovators: These people are at the forefront of a musical trend and often set the sound, look, and feel of the trend that blows up in front of them. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, and The Who come to mind in the early 1960's; Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Black Sabbath did this for guitar rock in the late 1960's and early 1970's; Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, and Motley Crue did this for 80's metal; Prince, Michael Jackson, and Madonna did this for 80's pop, Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, and Smashing Pumpkins did this for grunge in the 1990's; Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey set the tone for all future American Idol wannabes in the 1990's; and Public Enemy, NWA, 2Pac, and Biggie Smalls laid the foundation for all gangsta rappers in the 1990's.

The Copycats: These people often follow the innovators. They are often quite good musically on a technical level (play good instruments, play catchy hooks, write decent songs), but they play it safe and don't make anything that stands out. Scorpions, Night Ranger, Sammy Hagar, Lenny Kravitz, Stone Temple Pilots, Bush, Creed, and Nickelback come to mind here

The Wannabes: These artists often aren't very skilled and take onto a trend towards the end of its lifecycle. They usually focus more on image to cover up their lack of skills. Poison, Cinderella, White Lion, Winger, and Trixter come to mind from the hair metal days, and Seven Mary Three, Tracy Bonham, and Candlebox come to mind from the grunge period.

I've been trying to figure out exactly where the current emo bands stand out, but if seems like the biggest emo bands like Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, and Fall Out Boy actually stole from other bands that were previously grunge wannbes or nu-metal acts like Linkin Park. Linkin Park was considered Nu-Metal since they had a hip-hop guy on board, but a lot of their lyrics were emo based.

Anxiety said:

I'm not saying you have to like them, but they're writing songs that people care about and are real, as opposed to these media fed "in music just to be famous" acts. The press won't touch them, and to me, that's almost reason enough to like them, because if the press likes you, chances are, you suck.

vainandy said:

The things is, and I forgot to mention this when i quote Blaque's post, is that rock has ALWAYS been about average joes being elevated to god-like status. Look at U2, Coldplay, Springsteen, Mellencamp, Bill Withers, Black Sabbath, etc. I could go on forever. All of these folks were regular joes before they got their contracts. They weren't rich, they weren't famous, they WERE your next door neighbors. Granted they had a modicum of talent but they were still regular.

Freaks and sluts are what we have right now with all this evanescent pop garbage that's all over the radio and internet. Give me regular people with talent over some freak who thinks he can sing but can't any day.

I have another theory too. Back in the 70's and even the 80's people (musicians) listened to a lot of different things. Blues, jazz, classical, rock, Indian music....Nowadays, you get guys that ONLY listen to Zeppelin or other rock bands and it waters the music down a bit.

728huey said:

Quoted for the truth!

I have a soft spot for 90's era grunge. I don't think it was true their musicianship is bad. As someone else said, a lot of those bands had excellent playing. Nirvana, SoundGarden, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins and Hole.
I have read there's a mini revival of grunge and 90's alternative style influenced bands in terms of bands in the undergroud scene that will be coming up soon. It's coming back. I'd rather listen to grunge any day than a Nickelback record. There are pretty much the worst band in the history of the universe.

vainandy said:

that is because like you mentioned people want artist they can 'relate to'. when hip hop came along it killed the hero worship with the "get of my dick" mentality. I think generation x represents that, I am just like you, no need for hero worship. kurt cobain and 2pac had songs that there generation can relate to and that impart is a key factor of their success. I respect integrity and music that comes from the heart over technical skill. skilled musicians are impressive but I have heard virtuoso musicians that have played with little heart and feelind, and in the same regard I have heard punk bands that lacked technical skill that played with heart and are very passionate about their music.

I don't think this generation of rock is about the average Joe that anyone can relate to. They get bands with a look and pretty boys who would have been in boy bands and give them a "emo" sound. Or bands like fall out boy with slick baby face production, that if you strip away the fuzz you would basically have a pop boy band track with catchy hooks. At least we can say Nirvana's music was from the heart and that is what matters most, at least to me.

If we go back blues itself which birthed rock it was about the average joe, it wasn't about being a star or else it would not have been the blues.

Van Hunt replied to me on myspace about a similar thing, I was responding to his latest interview where he stated

'I think people do a lot of absurd things to keep them from the real issues, which is, ‘How good are you?’ Are you as good as you want to be, and if not, then your ass needs to be practicing. To me, if you’re going to pick up the guitar, you need to be as good as George Benson. If you’re gonna sit down and play the piano, you need to be Herbie Hancock or better, and of course I sit there, and it’s good, but it ain’t Herbie Hancock. I’m caught in this weird world where I really want to practice, but I have records that are out there. I have to make a living. The next statement I make has to be me as a musician on par with the masters.'


when I express that this is why I don't put out music becuase I am not technically proficient he clarified what he meant, and I agree with his over all response..

i'm glad you understood where i was coming from. but, the problem with interviews is that they don't capture everything. embellishments, body language, inflection, etc. what i was trying to say is that i am striving for mastery WITH EACH AND EVERY NOTE. but, you can only give as much as you have RIGHT NOW; and, if that effort reaches satisfies you then let it go. let someone hear it. the truth is that an artist's talent may lie elsewhere - vision/concept, singing, dancing, writing. James Brown, George Clinton, Fela Kuti, Muddy Waters - none of them were virtuoso musicians.

so, man, please express yourself. and, don't allow my words or your insecurities to lock you down. if you are sitting on some music that makes you feel good, go with it. and by the way, i will listen to some MC5 and The Stooges and Neil Young all day long. . .simply because they meant that shit.

V H .


not everyone is going to be technically materful and you dont have to be to be good, not everybody is going to have the look and the sound like Jimi Hendrix and Prince. if we set the same standards for everyone there would be no Cure and a host of other great artist