Talk:Grunge/Archive 1

The Vines, recently added under Prominent Bands seem an odd choice to me (both in terms of being prominent and in terms of being grunge). The Cult are duly prominent, but I don't think of them as grunge. But maybe I'm just too old to know. Comment welcome (not on my being too old). -- Jmabel 05:02, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The Vines are too new to consider them as important to grunge as the others in the list (not to mention that whether they are grunge or not is quite questionable). -- LGagnon 06:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, Blue Moon and Company??? Prominent? Again, maybe I'm just too old to know, but I don't think so. Can anyone say something with confidence? -- Jmabel 06:32, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Again, someone added

• Blue Moon and Company
• Long Hind Legs
• The Love Junkies
• Marcy Playground

Since Blue Moon and Company were on the list, I assume this is the same anon as last time. I deleted all except Marcy Playground, who at least are a prominent band. I leave it to someone else to decide if they are grunge. -- Jmabel 18:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we need the definition of prominent pointed out for some editors. We keep on having obscure, unnotable bands added to the list. -- LGagnon 00:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just seen an edit in Killdozer that claims they were a pioneer of grunge. Don't really know enough about grunge to say if its so, I'd guess they were happy in their hardcore punk niche. Opinions? ---- Charles Stewart 17:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Almost certainly the early Seattle grunge rockers would have been familiar with them, since they played in Seattle several times and were pretty heavily played on KCMU. I can certainly hear anticipations of grunge in their sound. It's a fair guess that they were an influence. Not as strong a claim as the Melvins (whose influence was absolutely clear and direct), but if we are mentioning Neil Young (which I think we should), we probably should mention them, too. -- Jmabel 19:03, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK, you've persuaded me. I'm not the person to apply the edits, though... ----Charles Stewart 21:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll do it. -- Jmabel 23:13, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Same anon who recently re-added Sonic Youth (which I removed again) also added the Pixies. I think of them more as a precursor than as part of the grunge contingent. I think they should be mentioned, but in the same place we mention others who anticipated or influenced grunge, rather than listed as a grunge band. Other thoughts? -- Jmabel 18:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

As a Pixies fan, I must say I agree. Though they were a big influence on alternative music in general and especially on Nirvana, I'm not so sure they should be mentioned in this article as truely being grunge. Still, it is worth noting that some of their songs had a very grungy sound to them ("Planet of Sound" or "UMass" would be a good example of this). -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 22:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Proto-Grunge, definitely. MacRusgail 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Marcy Playground is definitely not grunge. Their musical style doesn't fit the genre and they formed a couple of years after the popularity of grunge had subsided. -- Bumhoolery 15:15 28 October 2004

Concur. Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Smashing Pumpkins were recently and anonymously added to article as grunge "mainstays". Good band, like 'em, guess they are about the right period, but I never really thought of them as grunge. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

They were considered Alt Rock when they debued in 1989 at the Metro in Chicago. Then when Siamese Dream came out with the song Cherub Rock they went total grunge or a mix. They were more civil in their playing but could go back and forth between Alt and grunge pretty well so they might have been a mix.

Would someone else take a look at the recent edits by User:24.13.183.57? They don't look to me to be on the mark, but I'm hesitant to roll them back without a second opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Some are inaccurate and others are POV. I suggest reverting back to Jmabel's last revision. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 22:29, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Based on that, and with no one chiming in to disagree, I've reverted. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good catch. GWO

I had to changed W.A.S.P. to Brittany Fox and Lillian Axe who were more superficial rock bands heavily pushed by large record industries to sell sex, hair, and style over music substance. People have to be careful when they step into the Heavy Metal area because we suffered along time in the 80’s not getting any of our music EVER played on radio stations and barely even today, unlike grunge. If you look at bands like ACDC, (The Razors Edge), Iron Maiden (No Prayer for the dying), Megadeth (Rust in Piece) and even W.A.S.P. this was not the case since they always stuck to their roots and actually got allot more fluid in their music approaches in the later 80’s allowing then to jam more and not be super-strict to a riff pattern. I’m not so sure that this looser style was pushed by grunge although I am willing to debate weather Alternative Rock helped influence more jamming. This more “earthy” play-style might have been influenced by Guns and Roses in 1988 since they were a Hard Rock band who mixed the genres well and jammed pretty good. Flannels Ripped Jeans and Leather Jackets were always contained with-in the Heavy Metal underground or even realms into Def Lepord. If it wasn’t for this the entire 80’s would have been a synth-pop nightmare if it wasn’t already. I might credit grunge for bringing bands like Black Sabbath, who had their stuff in bargain bins for years, to the mainstream though. Honestly, there was allot of Alternative Rock junk out there that was just as guilty. I think what happened is all the good bands from all genres started to open their sounds up more and jam and stay true to their music roots and that’s what is allowing a good musical comeback today in the industry. If you stay pure it always works. I just wouldn’t credit Grunge as the only band that wore these cloths and did these styles. It’s not true. Check out W.A.S.P.’s website. Their new stuff is real good and pure. http://www.waspnation.com/

Wasn’t Axel Rose wearing his trademark orange flannel well before Cobain or I might be wrong?

Just because you think WASP is a good band, doesn't mean they don't count with the rest of hair metal. They were still a shock rock group, which makes them amongst the superficial groups of the 80s. The other 2 you mentioned are too little known and are thus not as good for examples. And even if some alternative groups were fakes, that doesn't change the fact that people turned to grunge and alternative because they were sick of fakes. -- LGagnon 01:06, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

That’s a bunch of media hype. Alls this does is contribute to the hype the film Hype! brought out in 1996 to stop grunge from being considered the greatest form of music and some sort of perfect music type. There is no reason to pummel Heavy Metal as Heavy Metal doesn’t pummel grunge but cheesy pop bands. Meaning, bands that use style over musicianship. To call W.A.S.P. fake is childish. Listen to their music and it’s some of the most well written music of its time and today, regardless of weather you like it or not. Lillian Axe and the like where immensely popular for their short lived times at the time and that’s what should be gotten rid off; short lived phony rock. Grunge brought Alt Rock to the mainstream and they did it by blending genres.

That’s Ok that you don’t like Heavy Metal. but why is this a part of the grunge page? Does being involved in the grunge scene automatically mean you have to hate Heavy Metal? Most Heavy Metal dudes I know like grunge including me and we don’t pummel grunge on the Heavy Metal page. If you look at this grunge page and the Alternative Rock page they both state grunge barrowed heavily from thrash metal and heavy metal. This includes: Flannels, ripped jeans, and dark florescent colors like the cover of pearl jam’s ten as well as the heavy “superficial” riffs and all of the drugs and other stuff. I think the expensive designer clothing your talking about is more from POP music I don’t see how GnR wore expensive designer stuff regarding the fact that they wore ripped jeans and basic t-shirts on stage in the 80’s. W.A.S.P. is not total “Shock Rock” That’s more Metallica and Slayer Nirvana didn’t have Shock Rock elements like all the screaming and instrument bashing? How is this not superficial? W.A.S.P. is not categorized as Hair Metal but Heavy Metal. Hair Metal is like Glam Rock and emphasizes ballads and looks, mainly. Wasp may have had poofy hair at times but so did Ozzy in the 80’s and both of them are Heavy Metal and some of the greatest musicians of all time.

Whoa, calm down there. I never said anything about my opinion on heavy metal; I was stating the general public perception. No one is trying to pummel anyone either; it is simply a fact that heavy metal (and to a greater degree hair metal) fell out of favor with the general public.
And like I said, your opinion is not the same as the general public. Most people saw them as being no different than any hair metal band. Maybe it's not fair, but that is how it was, and you can't change the past.
From what I can tell, Lillian Axe was not really famous. Maybe amongst the metal fandom, but not amongst casual listeners. And there are no grunge fans that I know of who will say they were sick of Lillian Axe, but there is a significant amount that will mention WASP. Again, not a judgement of talent, just a matter of public perception.
And no, grunge fans aren't required to hate metal. It is just that grunge's popularity was a result of hair metal's downfall. And the casual listener doesn't know genres that well, so all metal genres are seen as one to them; thus, heavy metal was dragged down with hair metal (and after all, many metal bands had big hair, which just confused the casual listener even more). It's unfortunate, but that's what happened, and we are not changing the facts just to please heavy metal fans.
As for Nirvana et al being shock rockers, that isn't true. Shock rockers used more than screaming and guitar smashing to shock people; there was a complex elaborate stage prescence to shock rock, as apposed to grunge's simplified prescense. In fact, screaming and guitar smashing aren't even shock rock; Hendrix smashed guitars, and other totally unrelated musicians have screamed in songs. And neither is superficial because they weren't used to hype up the music, unlike shock stunts; the smashing and screaming were more expressive of the individual's feelings, while shock stunts were done just to shock people. After all, is screaming and smashing guitars even shocking to begin with?
And as I said, WASP had the hair, and they were shock rockers. That alone was enough for casual listeners to see them as the same as hair metal bands. Whether it was fair or not doesn't change the way the public saw them. -- LGagnon 02:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

If grunge fans were required to hate metal, Alice in Chains would have played to a lot of empty bars. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Alice in Chains was kind of borderline metal, but was still definitely a grunge band. My point is that grunge fans still turned away from metal regardless. And like I said, our opinions can not change the past; the public opinion was that way. Even if you see it as hypocrisy, it doesn't change the facts about how grunge gained popularity at metal's loss. -- LGagnon 02:58, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I changed the W.A.S.P. and GnR to two hair metals bands popular in the late 80s/ early 90s. W.A.S.P. was a cheesy metal band, but not a hair metal band, and they were never terribly popular. And why the hell would someone who is making the argument that grunge "killed" hair metal mention GnR, who had massive hits at the peak of grunges popularity? And who weren't hair metal? -- 65.207.129.252

Those changes are acceptable, but GnR's popularity did die off in the grunge era. In fact, many critics believe that GnR fell apart because grunge bands were way more popular than them. And yes, GnR does count as hair metal in the eyes of most people. They had the looks, the sound, and the additude. -- LGagnon 18:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

GnR's popularity died off because they didn't release anything of significance after Use Your Illusion due to Axl Rose's personality problems, and nothing to do with grunge. I don't know who "most people" are, but GnR had a bluesy "hard-rock" sound quite distinct from hair metal, and didn't glam it up close to the degree of your Poisons, et. al.

GnR were often called "Glam metal", and I don't think grunge killed them off. I wouldn't put Iron Maiden in the same subgenre as Poison etc. Iron Maiden were NWOBHM. Poison are more cock-rock, i.e. lots of sexual content and macho posturing. Iron Maiden were never big ones for such sexual content, despite the "hair". MacRusgail 6 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Someone recently and anonymously added to the lead paragraph, "The origin of the term "grunge", as used in this context, is unclear, but many believe Seattle rock critic Veronika Kalmar was the first writer to use the term on a regular basis." I find this very unlikely: Google gives only 13 hits for "Veronika Kalmar" + "grunge", though I suppose that due to sites mirroring us it will soon give more. It probably doesn't help that the main place she published her criticism, Seattle's Rocket, is long gone, but still...

As far as I can tell, none of the pages Google finds make this assertion; some are just conicidences of an add for her book appearing on the same page as the word grunge. This is a topic likely to be much-discussed on line, so "many" is very suspect. Unless someone has a relevant citation, this clearly does not belong in the article. All due respect to Kalmar, she's been a very good writer especially on DIY culture and might deserve a Wikipedia article of her own, but this particular claim doesn't seem to pan out. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:52, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, since we've had the Foo Fighters removed from the prominent bands list over and over again, can we please just discuss this first before doing it again? -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 00:53, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

• L7
• Babes in Toyland
• Candlebox
• 7 Year Bitch

I guess Candlebox is grunge; don't think any of the others are. Fine bands, from what I know of them, but grunge? I haven't heard enough of Babes in Toyland to say for sure, but I know 7 Year Bitch's music thoroughly and am pretty familiar with L7. 7 Year Bitch: right place, right time, overlapping social circles, very different sound. Very precise guitar and bass attack even if there is a lot of fuzz and distortion. Very original band, love 'em to death (so to speak), but grunge? L7: just being on Sub Pop isn't enough to make a grunge band!

As usual in these things I'll wait till at least one other person weighs in rather than reverting unilaterally. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with 7 Year Bitch, but I would say no to BiT and yes to Candlebox and L7. Honestly, I have only passing familiarity with any of these groups, so my opinion may not be worth much.

Allmusic calls L7 and Babes in Toyland grunge, and calls Candlebox both grunge and post-grunge. So, 7 Year Bitch seems unanimously not-grunge -- as to the others, allmusic has lots of stupid opinions on these things, so their opinion may not be worth any more than mine. Tuf-Kat 22:05, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I talked to Clark Humphrey on this. His take:

• L7 - yes
• Babes in Toyland - probably, barely
• Candlebox - no, too poppy
• 7 Year Bitch - no

He also remarked that post-1992, Mudhoney were the only major band that still embraced the word grunge. I guess that means:

Mudhoney is to grunge rock as Irving Kristol is to neoconservatism.

It also means we should certainly drop 7 Year Bitch, and that BiT are hanging by a thread. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:31, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, googling reveals lots of hits for Candlebox and grunge, but many appear to be calling the band post-grunge, likely following allmusic's example. I'm not really sure if that means they should be removed or not. Babes in Toyland gets almost as many hits, but many appear to be talking about grunge and BiT at the same time, and not actually calling them grunge. L7 gets lots of hits. 7 Year Bitch gets far fewer than any of the others, again many (perhaps even most) are not calling them grunge. So, given all this, I will boldly remove BiT and leave L7 in. Candlebox I could go either way on, but I suppose I'll leave them in for now. Tuf-Kat 03:27, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Candlebox's sound could easily be considered grunge, but not by those who regularly listen to it. As mentioned above, they have a very poppy sound which is too "clean" in the opinion of most grunge fans (thus the large amount of grunge fans who hate them). I don't know if "prominent" is the right label for them, but "imfamous" sure does fit them well. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 04:31, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could deal with this in the article not by having them in the list, but by adding a paragraph contrasting their sound to grunge? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, we can't just single them out. Other "post-grunge" bands also had the same kind of negative feedback from grunge fans, such as Collective Soul; even such big successes as Silverchair weren't 100% well received. And negative feedback is very common with the later post-grunge bands, such as Creed and Days of the New. So I think it would only be fair to make a paragraph about the overall negativity towards post-grunge rather than just Candlebox. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 05:48, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Candlebox doesn't really belong here, nor the Stone Temple Pilots for that matter. Just because these bands fit into a particular time period and played "hard" alternative rock doesn't mean that they musically shared a genre with the likes of Nirvana and The Melvins. What exactly do we mean by "grunge" here? Is there anyone else who sees a similar distinction in this case? I agree with many of the inclusions in the list, but those two in particular struck me as not belonging--depending on your definition of grunge.

I 've always thought of Stone Temple Pilots as watered-down grunge. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

what do you think about nirvana?

The talk pages are not a chat room. Please use them only to discuss issues with the article. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 20:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I love the Fastbacks and all, but "evolved out of local punk bands like the Fastbacks?" They aren't particularly punk (like what punk band covers Queen and Mott the Hoople?) and they don't seem to me to have been particularly influential on grunge. If you want to single out a local band as an influence, I'd certainly pick the Melvins (who we already mention in a different context). What is the nature of the supposed influence? Just that Kurt Bloch uses distortion on his guitar? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to mention a punk band from the region that existed when grunge first appeared, and they were the only one that came to mind at the moment. If you'd like to replace them with another, more appropriate punk band, then you can. -- LGagnon 02:28, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mad Season? One (good) album, lots of people who did notable work in other bands, but no hits that I recall, and only a few live gigs. Certainly far more reasonable that some that have been on the list in the past, but it really seems to be stretching things to call them one of the prominent grunge bands. Other opinions? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

"River of Deceit" made #2 on the Mainstream Rock Tracks and #9 on the Modern Rock Tracks, so they had at least one song you could call a hit; there's also "I Don't Know Anything", which made it to #20 on the Mainstream Rock Tracks.[1] -- LGagnon 02:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Huh. I must have not been listening to the right radio stations at that particular time. Surprised. Guess it stays. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:18, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need this timeline? It takes up a lot of space and doesn't say much other than the lifespans of some bands (a few of which may be inaccurate) and categorizes them. The lifespans aren't really needed (that can go in the bands' own articles), and the rest of the info can be put into a few paragraphs. -- LGagnon 23:59, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't care either way. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a while for someone else to give another opinion on this; in the meantime, who is this "Kane" mentioned in the graph? I've never heard of them (wouldn't add them to the Prominent list), and can't find any info on them. -- LGagnon 00:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of Kane either. The timeline does seem kind of irrelevant, but I don't think it would be out-of-place if a history of grunge article were to be spun off. Tuf-Kat 02:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Between this article and the Timeline of alternative rock article, I think we have enough written about its history (or at least should with time). -- LGagnon 20:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to support media hype with the "godfather of grunge" thing? That whole concept came from the media going nuts over Pearl Jam playing with Young; it wasn't even debated before the media made up the concept. I'm not even sure "widely debated" is accurate; not many people bother debating such a pointless concept. It would probably be better to just change the paragraph into one talking about Young as an influence on the genre rather than leaving it as it is. At the moment, it just seems like a weasely way to force an opinion that one person deserves to be put on a pedistal above all other grunge musicians. -- LGagnon 02:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear to me exactly what change you propose to make. Maybe its best that you make your edit, leave a summary that indicates you know it may be controversial, and then we can take it from there with something substantive to discuss. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the edit has been made. -- LGagnon 00:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I don't know who Cell is. I assume if they were that famous they'd have an article by now. I'm removing them from the list for now; if anyone has a good argument in their favor I'll put them back. -- LGagnon 19:16, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

From the article "Independent record labels, which used to rarely have success on level with major labels, were able to sell albums with equal or similar success as the major labels (most notably in the case of Epitaph Records)." Most notably? More notably than Sub Pop? Admittedly Sub Pop eventually sold out a 50% interest to a major, but how is Epitaph more notable? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Epitaph had Smash by The Offspring, the best selling indie record of all time. Plus several other bands from the label became big (Rancid, Bad Religion, Pennywise, etc). Now if you want to change that to say "most notably in the cases of Epitaph Records and Sub Pop" then that's fine, but Epitaph was still just as big if not a bigger success than Sub Pop. -- LGagnon 13:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of weasel words in the article, things like "most fans think", "many people said", stuff like that. Someone would well to look for the words "most" and "many" in the article and see what might need a citation vs. what is so blatantly true as to deserve outright assertion, but it's time to go weasel-hunting. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody added a new article on this as well as a paragraph on it to this article. However, I have found no information whatsoever on this genre that the submitter mentions. Without any proof, it doesn't sound too authentic to me. Until we've got some concrete proof, I think this should be removed. -- LGagnon 19:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

And now we have grunge metal. Cite some sources people, because these look like dubious "genres" to me. -- LGagnon 00:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

grunge:"post-grunge"::heavy metal:"false metal"

get rid of it. (anon 6 May 2005)

Hey why got to put down ol' Neil? Maybe "Godfather of Grunge" is questionable, but there's no doubt he was one of the biggest antecedents, particularly for Cobain and Pearl Jam. The article should give this its due. JDG 18:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand alot of grunge followers don't count these two bands as "grunge" per se, but how can you include STP as one of the most prominent grunge bands at the bottom, when there is a contradiction in the middle paragraphs that say STP and Bush are NOT considered to be grunge, because they aren't from the Pacific NW?

Bush is post-grunge, and is thus listed in the post-grunge article. STP is more of a hard rock band with some grunge leanings, but to remove them would be POV. Many casual music fans who don't have an ear for grunge consider them to be grunge (especially since they were sold as such), so it might be best to leave them in the list for the sake of being NPOV. -- LGagnon 16:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

A recent edit mentions Morrissey and The Smiths as influences on grunge. I haven't seen any such comparison before. Can we have some proof of this? Just because one person thinks they sound similar doesn't mean they are an influence. -- LGagnon 17:12, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Frankly, hard to imagine. Speaking as a Seattleite, they were not even very popular in the scene from which grunge emerged. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I find it plausible, from the style, but I don't think they were so popular in the states. The main similarity I can think of is some of the melancholy lyrics etc. MacRusgail 12:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They certainly had fans here, but mostly not in the circles where the grunge sound emerged. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to section every one or two paragraphs. This doesn't improve the readability; it just makes the article look ackward and oversectioned. Some of the new section names were very ambiguous too; the "Knock-on effect" one makes no sense, and "Beyond the Pacific Northwest" doesn't explain what is supposed to be beyond the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, new info added to the article was wrong. The part about grunge becoming a national success in the 90s was specifically about how it hadn't caught on in the US yet; remember, it was a British magazine that exposed it during the first wave of its popularity. And the media did not view grunge as being like the British punk of the 1970s; they saw it as another hippie culture. The media was (and to some degree still is) very Boomer-centric, and tried to see grunge through a Boomer point of view. I have reverted these changes, and I don't think we should bother reverting them again without any discussion. -- LGagnon 15:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

"The part about grunge becoming a national success in the 90s was specifically about how it hadn't caught on in the US yet" - then it should specifically say so. But this is an international encyclopedia, and "national" can be interpreted in different ways. Grunge DID have international success in the 90s. Especially in Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. (I think it may have even penetrated parts of western Canada before most of the USA)

"media did not view grunge as being like the British punk of the 1970s" - Maybe not where you are, but they did in other places. More than hippydom anyway.

The main reason for the "ackward (sic) and oversectioned" thing is because it's currently undersectioned. The "style" section talks more about the origins and history, rather than specifically what they became. MacRusgail 12:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the national thing a little to make it a bit more clear. As for the media view, I'd like to know which specific media you are referring to. I'm assuming you mean the British media, who may have said such, but the American media only compared grunge fans to hippies as far as I remember. As for the style section, it tells of the origins and history of the style along with details about the style. I think that is perfectly reasonable, since readers would want to know not just what the style is but how it came into being. -- LGagnon 13:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The first para goes into the distinctive features of grunge, and then the second says how they came about. I see these as two slightly different things. MacRusgail 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are slightly different. That's why they are in the same section: because they are so close to each other that there's no justification for another section. -- LGagnon 03:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Scottish understatement. When I said "slightly", I was using the term in a much stronger sense than you seem to have picked up. They are different enough to merit separate sections. MacRusgail 8 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Well, at this point you aren't giving any real reason to section them other than the fact that you think they should be. It's your word against mine, and I'm the guy who wrote most (or at least half) of this article. Maybe you should wait for a third opinion to come into this debate. -- LGagnon July 8, 2005 18:10 (UTC)

• Silverchair? I'm on the fence about whether I'd call them grunge. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Definitely. And Bush too. When I first heard them I thought they were Grunge. However, it is possible for a band to play in more than one genre, so perhaps some of their music is not grunge. I would consider them grunge all the same. MacRusgail 6 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)

Both Silverchair and Bush are post-grunge. Their sounds are too "clean" to count as the genuine article. -- LGagnon July 6, 2005 21:00 (UTC)

Their sounds aren't "clean" at all, compared to most mainstream commercial rock, or the likes of Nickelback. Listen to Silverchair's cover of "London's burning" on the CLash tribute album, it is certainly not a "clean" sound, with lots of buzzing, and a "dirty" finish.

I suspect they're not included because a) they're foreigners, and b) this idea that grunge fizzled out. I don't see why there has to be a time limit on genres. You still get glam rock and disco bands, yet according to some, these died out well over 20 years ago. MacRusgail 8 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

• The Vaselines? I'd say no. Kurt Cobain was a fan, and Nirvana covered them, but from what little I've heard of them they don't sound grunge to me. What do others think? Is there someone out there who's really heard their music? -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 17:25 (UTC)
  • I just reverted it. We already decided that Babes in Toyland doesn't belong, Silverchair is post-grunge, and The Vaselines were just an influence on Nirvana which doesn't make them grunge (they are far from it). -- LGagnon July 3, 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Can the person who added Loser: The Real Seattle Music Story to the references section please add a citation for it? It kind of looks out of place without one, and it would be nice to know what info originates from it. -- LGagnon July 6, 2005 19:55 (UTC)

• I'm the person who added it. The book is probably the best source of straight out facts about the Seattle music scene in this period, although it's not a particularly compelling piece of prose. It would function as an additional verification on a lot of what is here; I promise to look at some point to see where we can use it for citation, but I have things to work on right now that are more pressing. -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 06:17 (UTC)
  • I've now cited it for the anecdote on Mark Arm originating "grunge" as a term. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need a new template for the genre box? It's only used here, and the other article it is linked to (Post-grunge music) is innapropriate for this album box (it should have its own). -- LGagnon 03:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)