I was reading a thing with Nirvana talking about how In Utero would sell a lot less compared to Nevermind.

If Nirvana made another album or 2, how long do you think they would have stayed big? how long do you think grunge would have been marketable?

I mean 91-94 is seen as the height of the grunge explosion, and of course post grunge which is 96-00. What if Nirvana made another album? do you think grunge would have been as big going into the late 90's.

GREAT question

All the acts associated with that name hated it and most all were trying to disassociate it by '93, '94. That's the reason why Nirvana's In Utero was different from Nevermind because they wanted to just make a rock album without the subtitle of it being grunge. In fact they were in the process of going full into rock when Kurt died. Dave just took it from there, took Pat Smear and they created Foo Fighters. So it probably would've reached an expiration date anyway.

Grunge probably would have faded even sooner without the death of Kurt Cobain giving it a huge second wind of media attention that would never have come otherwise.

Timmy84 said:

All the acts associated with that name hated it and most all were trying to disassociate it by '93, '94. That's the reason why Nirvana's In Utero was different from Nevermind because they wanted to just make a rock album without the subtitle of it being grunge. In fact they were in the process of going full into rock when Kurt died. Dave just took it from there, took Pat Smear and they created Foo Fighters. So it probably would've reached an expiration date anyway.

Totally!, that is the funniest thing about grunge/ NONE of the big grune bands- Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Hole, Soundgarden etc. They never saw themselves as grunge... so it's strange that a genre of music is one the artists don't claim to

Even bands like smashing pumpkins where getting the grunge marker & they where like nah bro

Gunsnhalen said:

Timmy84 said:

All the acts associated with that name hated it and most all were trying to disassociate it by '93, '94. That's the reason why Nirvana's In Utero was different from Nevermind because they wanted to just make a rock album without the subtitle of it being grunge. In fact they were in the process of going full into rock when Kurt died. Dave just took it from there, took Pat Smear and they created Foo Fighters. So it probably would've reached an expiration date anyway.

Totally!, that is the funniest thing about grunge/ NONE of the big grune bands- Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Hole, Soundgarden etc. They never saw themselves as grunge... so it's strange that a genre of music is one the artists don't claim to

Even bands like smashing pumpkins where getting the grunge marker & they where like nah bro

Well, journalists needed some way to classify that Seattle sub-pop sound. But then again, there were so many differences in the bands and the sounds that the label "grunge" has never REALLY made sense. How do you distinguist the "grunge" bands from sounds like those of the Pixies or Sonic Youth? And what the hell is the difference in sound between the grunge and supposedly post-grunge bands like Bush??

Grunge was full rock

lezama said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Totally!, that is the funniest thing about grunge/ NONE of the big grune bands- Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Hole, Soundgarden etc. They never saw themselves as grunge... so it's strange that a genre of music is one the artists don't claim to

Even bands like smashing pumpkins where getting the grunge marker & they where like nah bro

Well, journalists needed some way to classify that Seattle sub-pop sound. But then again, there were so many differences in the bands and the sounds that the label "grunge" has never REALLY made sense. How do you distinguist the "grunge" bands from sounds like those of the Pixies or Sonic Youth? And what the hell is the difference in sound between the grunge and supposedly post-grunge bands like Bush??

EXACTLY

Bush, Sonic Youth etc. Where billed as alternative, so where bands like Candlebox. And idk why they couldn't all just be alternative, or all just be rock

you know, there's this funny moment of the action movie "The Rock", when Nic Cage says to the character played by Connery (sporting long greasy gray hair) that he looks like a grunge guy...Sean asks: " grunge?"

it's funny cuz even in 1996 a mainstream film still used the word "grunge", so at least some people in the business remembered the grunge explosion that had taken place five years ago (then), ending dramatically by 94-95...

of course, by 1996 grunge was already "conquered" by brit-pop, jungle, industrial-rock and the female singer-songwriter genres...for me, the grunge genre basically belongs to the Bush/early Clinton years...

my theory is that many bands (and many genres) are not truly meant to last more than, uh, 5-7 years, and grunge was no exception...Pearl Jam didn't disband, but they stopped being superstars by the mid-to-late-90s...Cobain blew his brains out, the guy of AiC slowly killed himself...Soundgarden broke up...STP stopped being relevant, etc...and the second-rate alt/grunge bands basically disappeared, thank God...so it was a GENERAL decadence, not just the death of the "leader" of the movement (Kurt)...

the exception is, sadly, shit-hop, which still rules the world, it seems

[Edited 5/3/12 19:52pm]

But Lilith Fair and all that grew out of grunge.

JoeTyler said:

you know, there's this funny moment of the action movie "The Rock", when Nic Cage says to the character played by Connery (sporting long greasy gray hair) that he looks like a grunge guy...Sean asks: " grunge?"

it's funny cuz even in 1996 a mainstream film still used the word "grunge", so at least some people in the business remembered the grunge explosion that had taken place five years ago (then), ending dramatically by 94-95...

of course, by 1996 grunge was already "conquered" by brit-pop, jungle, industrial-rock and the female singer-songwriter genres...for me, the grunge genre basically belongs to the Bush/early Clinton years...

my theory is that many bands (and many genres) are not truly meant to last more than, uh, 5-7 years, and grunge was no exception...Pearl Jam didn't disband, but they stopped being superstars by the mid-to-late-90s...Cobain blew his brains out, the guy of AiC slowly killed himself...Soundgarden broke up...STP stopped being relevant, etc...and the second-rate alt/grunge bands basically disappeared, thank God...so it was a GENERAL decadence, not just the death of the "leader" of the movement (Kurt)...

the exception is, sadly, shit-hop, which still rules the world, it seems

[Edited 5/3/12 19:52pm]

This is true i think for exmple

When i wasin 8th & 9th grade crunk music was HUGE. Now..... yeah In my 10th & 11th grade year EMO was huge.. now it's made fun of.

Really tough to say. It may have made some difference but even ignoring Kurt's death most of the really popular bands circa 1991-1994 either broke up or became irrelevent to the mainstream by the late nineties.

Pearl Jam significantly eroded their audience with the album No Code.

Scott Weiland's drug problems hampered Stone Temple Pilots' momentum and ability to tour. The same can be said of Layne Staley and Alice in Chains.

Soundgarden split but even before that they were losing popularity.

The Smashing Pumpkins were arguably the biggest band of the post Nirvana era but like Pearl Jam they killed their mainstream audience with Adore.

It just seemed like the genre was fated to have a massive but brief impact.

The post 1995 explosion of mediocre bands with one or two decent songs certainly did not help any. Circa 1995-1997 it seemed like every week there was some crappy new "grunge/alternative" band that just wasn't very good. Unfortunately all of that mediocrity poisoned listeners against rock music. The genre arguably never recovered from that poisoning.

Would one band have been able to succeed where the rest failed? Maybe, but it seems unlikely. In Utero sold significantly less than Nevermind and a proper followup without the hype of Kurt's death probably would have sold even less. I think they would have had a similar trajectory to their peers: a slow descent into mainstream irrelevence and then a breakup.

[Edited 5/4/12 1:00am]

rialb said:

Really tough to say. It may have made some difference but even ignoring Kurt's death most of the really popular bands circa 1991-1994 either broke up or became irrelevent to the mainstream by the late nineties.

Pearl Jam significantly eroded their audience with the album No Code.

Scott Weiland's drug problems hampered Stone Temple Pilots' momentum and ability to tour. The same can be said of Layne Staley and Alice in Chains.

Soundgarden split but even before that they were losing popularity.

The Smashing Pumpkins were arguably the biggest band of the post Nirvana era but like Pearl Jam they killed their mainstream audience with Adore.

It just seemed like the genre was fated to have a massive but brief impact.

The post 1995 explosion of mediocre bands with one or two decent songs certainly did not help any. Circa 1995-1997 it seemed like every week there was some crappy new "grunge/alternative" band that just wasn't very good. Unfortunately all of that mediocrity poisoned listeners against rock music. The genre arguably never recovered from that poisoning.

Would one band have been able to succeed where the rest failed? Maybe, but it seems unlikely. In Utero sold significantly less than Nevermind and a proper followup without the hype of Kurt's death probably would have sold even less. I think they would have had a similar trajectory to their peers: a slow descent into mainstream irrelevence and then a breakup.

[

that's funny cuz I think it would have been the opposite: by 98-01 all the alt/grunge bands being dead or selling very poorly (like PJ) but Nirvana still selling a couple of million per album...certainly not the world-changing megastars of 91-93, but still stars...and who knows? the dark post-9/11-Irak War world could have re-ignited Kurt as the anti-conservative/anti-bullshit leader he always was...Kurt was the closest thing of a modern late-60s rock star, and equally revered...

[Edited 5/4/12 4:38am]

JoeTyler said:

rialb said:

Really tough to say. It may have made some difference but even ignoring Kurt's death most of the really popular bands circa 1991-1994 either broke up or became irrelevent to the mainstream by the late nineties.

Pearl Jam significantly eroded their audience with the album No Code.

Scott Weiland's drug problems hampered Stone Temple Pilots' momentum and ability to tour. The same can be said of Layne Staley and Alice in Chains.

Soundgarden split but even before that they were losing popularity.

The Smashing Pumpkins were arguably the biggest band of the post Nirvana era but like Pearl Jam they killed their mainstream audience with Adore.

It just seemed like the genre was fated to have a massive but brief impact.

The post 1995 explosion of mediocre bands with one or two decent songs certainly did not help any. Circa 1995-1997 it seemed like every week there was some crappy new "grunge/alternative" band that just wasn't very good. Unfortunately all of that mediocrity poisoned listeners against rock music. The genre arguably never recovered from that poisoning.

Would one band have been able to succeed where the rest failed? Maybe, but it seems unlikely. In Utero sold significantly less than Nevermind and a proper followup without the hype of Kurt's death probably would have sold even less. I think they would have had a similar trajectory to their peers: a slow descent into mainstream irrelevence and then a breakup.

[

that's funny cuz I think it would have been the opposite: by 98-01 all the alt/grunge bands being dead or selling very poorly (like PJ) but Nirvana still selling a couple of million per album...certainly not the world-changing megastars of 91-93, but still stars...and who knows? the dark post-9/11-Irak War world could have re-ignited Kurt as the anti-conservative/anti-bullshit leader he always was...Kurt was the closest thing of a modern late-60s rock star, and equally revered...

[Edited 5/4/12 4:38am]

I just think it is likely that they would have split by the late nineties. Would Dave have been content to keep playing second banana with the odd song of his being released as a b-side? Even before he died Kurt seemed to be losing interest in the band. Also, keep in mind that before his death Pearl Jam had surpassed Nirvana as a commercial force. If Pearl Jam, arguably the biggest of the "grunge/alternative" bands, saw declining sales I think that Nirvana would have too.

A more interesting question may be what would the post Courtney Love breakup album have sounded like? Would it have been the grunge eras Blood on the Tracks?

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

that's funny cuz I think it would have been the opposite: by 98-01 all the alt/grunge bands being dead or selling very poorly (like PJ) but Nirvana still selling a couple of million per album...certainly not the world-changing megastars of 91-93, but still stars...and who knows? the dark post-9/11-Irak War world could have re-ignited Kurt as the anti-conservative/anti-bullshit leader he always was...Kurt was the closest thing of a modern late-60s rock star, and equally revered...

[Edited 5/4/12 4:38am]

I just think it is likely that they would have split by the late nineties. Would Dave have been content to keep playing second banana with the odd song of his being released as a b-side? Even before he died Kurt seemed to be losing interest in the band. Also, keep in mind that before his death Pearl Jam had surpassed Nirvana as a commercial force. If Pearl Jam, arguably the biggest of the "grunge/alternative" bands, saw declining sales I think that Nirvana would have too.

A more interesting question may be what would the post Courtney Love breakup album have sounded like? Would it have been the grunge eras Blood on the Tracks?

I guess Foo Fighters is all we have left! lol

JoeTyler said:

I guess Foo Fighters is all we have left! lol

Dave seems like a nice enough fellow, lots of other musicians seem to appreciate his talents, but his music is kind of boring. Maybe he should have joined the Heartbreakers circa 1994/1995.

I saw Nirvana's last LA show in December of 93 at the Forum.

I remember it being VERY different from my expectations.

For one thing it was FAR from sold out. I had not paid attention to mainstream music much in the few years prior, but I had the idea that Nirvana was like, bigger than Bon Jovi, bigger than AC/DC, but in truth it was not hard to get tickets and once inside not hard to get to within ten rows of the stage. I was afraid there would be massive violent slampits on that open floor, but people barely moved.

I also had the idea kids would respond to Kurt like a real rock star - the Dylan/ Jagger/ Page/ Plant of our times! In reality they mostly looked kind of sullen. Too cool to act like screaming fans. It was the weirdest vibe at an arena concert ever.

I think as far as being a mass movement with a huge audience, they were on the way down. They could never be as important as they were in 1991 again. Pearl Jam were a lot more suitable for the rock radio crowd and they effectively took over that scene.

Today Pearl Jam still plays to good size crowds, still puts out a respectable new albums every few years,but the mass media doesn't pay much attention. I think Nirvana would have had a similar career path in the late 90s if they kept going. They might not even done as well as Pearl Jam because their stuff was less radio friendly. I guess it would have depended on how satisfying the records were. But their moment as a fashion icon for America had already passed before he died.

Gunsnhalen said:

lezama said:

Well, journalists needed some way to classify that Seattle sub-pop sound. But then again, there were so many differences in the bands and the sounds that the label "grunge" has never REALLY made sense. How do you distinguist the "grunge" bands from sounds like those of the Pixies or Sonic Youth? And what the hell is the difference in sound between the grunge and supposedly post-grunge bands like Bush??

EXACTLY

Bush, Sonic Youth etc. Where billed as alternative, so where bands like Candlebox. And idk why they couldn't all just be alternative, or all just be rock

I tend to distinguish Sonic Youth from Bush by setting the Bush record on fire and then smashing it into a million little burnt up pieces.

If you had come up from the post-hardcore punk underground/indie scene in the 80s, it was NOT hard to tell which of those bands were Rock Stars In Training.

And having come from the underground myself I tended to hate those bands.

Today the division seems silly but at the time, it was a real "what side of the fence are you on" kind of issue. As Ed Vedder so memorably sang on Mike Watt's "Against The 70s":

Stadium minds with stadium lines gotta make you laugh

Garbage vendors 'gainst true defenders of the craft

THE KIDS OF TODAY SHOULD DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THE 70s!!

Tha song was funny... Watt was a paragon of the underground, a real hardcore guy who had risen to minor fame. Vedder was the cover of Time magazine. In fact it's all Seattle guys on that track! Grohl on drums, Novoselc on keys, Gary Lee Conner from Screaming Trees on guitar. And they're doing a song that basically says "beware of rock stars." I found that really interesting.

Grunge would have lasted forever and ever and ever!

Actually, it would most likely have burned itself out. It peaked around 1994, about the same time Kurt Cobain killed himself, and a bunch of bands were already beginning to copy its style and sound, most of which were poor imitations. While a lot of the grunge/alternative rock at the time was ironic, it overwhelmingly was dark, and while dark music can be very compelling to listen to, it becomes overbearing over time.

Nirvana was the vanguard of the grunge movement, yet other bands who were listed as grunge contemporaries (Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins) didn't start out as grunge bands and in fact were never entirely grunge to begin with. It seemed like every musical act that came out of Seattle during that time outside of Sir Mix-A-Lot was slapped with the grunge label. While it may have been appropriate for Nirvana, both Soundgarden and Alice In Chains started out as metal bands, and Pearl Jam was going for a straight-up classic rock sound. Smashing Pumpkins got lumped in with them, even though they came out of Chicago and were stylistically different from their Seattle peers. Even Green Day was casually lumped in with the grunge/alternative moniker, despite the fact they were a punk band from the Bay Area.

There were a few female bands that tried to go the grunge route, most notably Courtney Love and Hole, but there were also Belly, The Breeders, L7, and Letters To Cleo, but it took Alanis Morissette to make the grunge/alternative sound safe for the masses. By that time, however, the grunge/alternative scene was already waning, and a little more than a year later it was usurped by a new generation of bubblegum pop.

It's possible had Kurt Cobain lived that Nirvana would still be around and influential in the rock scene, but they would be in a similar situtaion to the Foo Fighters today, where they would be the only bonafide super-popular rock band alonside a bunch of teen pop superstars and hip-hop stars.