The band that tried to kill hair metal vs. the band that did. GNR or Nirvana?

[ReRushed]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

[Segue Myles]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

[ReRushed]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

If I recall accurately, before his death Cobain stated how much he liked Automatic for the People and how it represented the direction he wanted to take his songwriting. And, he had a burgeoning friendship with Michael Stipe and it was mentioned by someone, I don't recall who it was, that a musical collaboration between them was possible.

Edited August 31, 2017 by ReRushed

[The Cat 3]

I think "Nevermind" was the nail in the coffin for sure.

 

But it was "Appetite" that made all the other bands throw away their makeup and Aqua Net.

 

The swagger made men want to look like men again.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

 

I agree that they didn't need one, however that doesn't mean they didn't lack one.

Much in the same way the James Taylor has always lacked a "hardcore edge" (or any edge real, lol), as has REM. Now neither artist really ever needed such a thing to create wonderful, timeless music, but that doesn't mean they didn't lack it anyway.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

If I recall accurately, before his death Cobain stated how much he liked Automatic for the People and how it represented the direction he wanted to take his songwriting. And, he had a burgeoning friendship with Michael Stipe and it was mentioned by someone, I don't recall who it was, that a musical collaboration between them was possible.

 

Would've been pretty sweet. You have to wonder what Stipe and Cobain would sound like harmonizing together, or Noveselic and Mills, lol.

[ReRushed]

I think "Nevermind" was the nail in the coffin for sure.

 

But it was "Appetite" that made all the other bands throw away their makeup and Aqua Net.

 

The swagger made men want to look like men again.

I get the death of hair metal, but grunge and the popularity of Metallica and thrash also contributed to the throwing away of makeup and aqua net. I guess I just see Guns n' Roses as a small part of it.

[ReRushed]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

 

I agree that they didn't need one, however that doesn't mean they didn't lack one.

Much in the same way the James Taylor has always lacked a "hardcore edge" (or any edge real, lol), as has REM. Now neither artist really ever needed such a thing to create wonderful, timeless music, but that doesn't mean they didn't lack it anyway.

"Finest Worksong" crushes all in its path!

[ReRushed]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

If I recall accurately, before his death Cobain stated how much he liked Automatic for the People and how it represented the direction he wanted to take his songwriting. And, he had a burgeoning friendship with Michael Stipe and it was mentioned by someone, I don't recall who it was, that a musical collaboration between them was possible.

 

Would've been pretty sweet. You have to wonder what Stipe and Cobain would sound like harmonizing together, or Noveselic and Mills, lol.

All we can do is wonder.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

 

I agree that they didn't need one, however that doesn't mean they didn't lack one.

Much in the same way the James Taylor has always lacked a "hardcore edge" (or any edge real, lol), as has REM. Now neither artist really ever needed such a thing to create wonderful, timeless music, but that doesn't mean they didn't lack it anyway.

"Finest Worksong" crushes all in its path!

 

That's not even their most metal song! :P

 

Honestly though, Everybody Hurts makes my dad cringe the same way Metallica makes my mom cringe so.... :haz:

[Segue Myles]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

 

I agree that they didn't need one, however that doesn't mean they didn't lack one.

Much in the same way the James Taylor has always lacked a "hardcore edge" (or any edge real, lol), as has REM. Now neither artist really ever needed such a thing to create wonderful, timeless music, but that doesn't mean they didn't lack it anyway.

 

They didn't lack an edge. To say something is lacking is to suggest something is missing. And their is a lot of moodiness and darkness in the sound of REM that is more sincere than the majority of "edgy" artists.

 

REM had their own sound and it was complete. They lacked nothing.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

 

I agree that they didn't need one, however that doesn't mean they didn't lack one.

Much in the same way the James Taylor has always lacked a "hardcore edge" (or any edge real, lol), as has REM. Now neither artist really ever needed such a thing to create wonderful, timeless music, but that doesn't mean they didn't lack it anyway.

 

They didn't lack an edge. To say something is lacking is to suggest something is missing. And their is a lot of moodiness and darkness in the sound of REM that is more sincere than the majority of "edgy" artists.

 

REM had their own sound and it was complete. They lacked nothing.

 

It seems we're arguing more over the definition of lack here than anything particularly musical. Can we agree that a Nirvana and REM collaboration would've brought something new to both bands?

[ReRushed]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

 

I agree that they didn't need one, however that doesn't mean they didn't lack one.

Much in the same way the James Taylor has always lacked a "hardcore edge" (or any edge real, lol), as has REM. Now neither artist really ever needed such a thing to create wonderful, timeless music, but that doesn't mean they didn't lack it anyway.

 

They didn't lack an edge. To say something is lacking is to suggest something is missing. And their is a lot of moodiness and darkness in the sound of REM that is more sincere than the majority of "edgy" artists.

 

REM had their own sound and it was complete. They lacked nothing.

 

It seems we're arguing more over the definition of lack here than anything particularly musical. Can we agree that a Nirvana and REM collaboration would've brought something new to both bands?

I want to point out that I remember it being a possible collaboration between Cobain and Stipe only. No bands involved.

[Rick N. Backer]

I enjoy Nirvana, although I have to be in the mood for them, because I'm not generally a punk fan, and I think they were very close to being a punk band.

 

GNR were my favorite band from around 1987 to 1993. Nirvana simply doesn't have any songs that reach the heights of GNR when the latter nailed it, as they almost always did until Slash left.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I'm gonna defend Nirvana a bit. I always found Guns n' Roses to be a calculating and manipulative band aware of how every chord, howl, hair and stance affects the audience. A big derivative and calculated cliche, albeit, at times, an entertaining and good cliche. But, overall, been there done that. Recycled music, image and attitude. I guess you can say that about Nirvana, but Nirvana did push away from corporate backing and made a less commercial second album. And all evidence. at the time, pointed to Nirvana changing their music and pushing past their limitations. But, we'll never know.

 

And, to this day, Axl Rose and his band mates are riding the wave of a limited repertoire of music. Ain't much changed in three decades. Unless you count joining AC/DC.

 

I can get this. GNR will never compare to Aerosmith or AC/DC in my mind for the reasons you listed. And I know I read somewhere that Kurt was actually hoping to collaborate with REM after In Utero, which might've been supremely awesome as Nirvana could provide REM with the hardcore edge they'd always lacked, and REM could provide Nirvana with the more acoustic dynamics and ambitions they'd yet to master.

 

That said, I'm still more a fan of GNR. Night Train is better than half of Nevermind IMO.

 

REM didn't lack a "hardcore edge". They didn't need one.

 

I agree that they didn't need one, however that doesn't mean they didn't lack one.

Much in the same way the James Taylor has always lacked a "hardcore edge" (or any edge real, lol), as has REM. Now neither artist really ever needed such a thing to create wonderful, timeless music, but that doesn't mean they didn't lack it anyway.

 

They didn't lack an edge. To say something is lacking is to suggest something is missing. And their is a lot of moodiness and darkness in the sound of REM that is more sincere than the majority of "edgy" artists.

 

REM had their own sound and it was complete. They lacked nothing.

 

It seems we're arguing more over the definition of lack here than anything particularly musical. Can we agree that a Nirvana and REM collaboration would've brought something new to both bands?

I want to point out that I remember it being a possible collaboration between Cobain and Stipe only. No bands involved.

 

Ah, I had heard it was between the bands, but either way would still have been awesome.

[Lucas]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

 

Nirvana changed what became sellable, and with that in mind, how different were they compared to Green Day ??

 

Being at the forefront of a natural cycle in the music business doesn't necessarily mean the music is groundbreaking - change is relative ..

 

 

Guns - with Appetite and Lies - brought fans of bands like The Faces, Aerosmith, The New York Dolls, Iggy And The Stooges, Dead Boys, etc together with contemporaries like The Georgia Satellites, Jason And The Scorchers, and The Black Crowes to name a few ..

 

In hindsight, it might not seem groundbreaking, but I can remember as a fan of Guns being ecstatic about the new wave of simple rock and roll bands ..

 

They all may not have hit it big, but bands like Flies On Fire, Dogs D'Amour, Jason And The Scorchers, The Black Crowes, Rock City Angels - even the change The Cult went thru was a part of what Guns brought to the table ..

 

What Guns did - albeit briefly - cannot be underestimated

 

It was - and still is - as much about the attitude as it is the music ... After witnessing just about every band I loved from the 70s and 80 nosedive, the attitude Guns resurrected was like seeing an old friend after so many years ..

 

So in that respect, they were influential and important

Edited September 1, 2017 by Lucas

[Segue Myles]

Nirvana were better.

[bluefox4000]

i'm rueally not a huge fan of either. but i go with Nirvana on the grounds that Axl's not in that group.

 

Mick

[goose]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

Maybe. Those bands (PJ, etc) you listed didnt really come after Nirvana, other than radio play maybe. They were all part of the same Seattle underground scene, with acts like Mudhoney, etc.

[ReRushed]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

Maybe. Those bands (PJ, etc) you listed didnt really come after Nirvana, other than radio play maybe. They were all part of the same Seattle underground scene, with acts like Mudhoney, etc.

I know. But Nirvana was the band that spearheaded the commercial acceptance of the Seattle scene. Same thing with the Beatles and the British Invasion.

[Segue Myles]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

Maybe. Those bands (PJ, etc) you listed didnt really come after Nirvana, other than radio play maybe. They were all part of the same Seattle underground scene, with acts like Mudhoney, etc.

I know. But Nirvana was the band that spearheaded the commercial acceptance of the Seattle scene. Same thing with the Beatles and the British Invasion.

 

Exactly.

 

Funny how it took Nirvana to do it, considering Soundgarden were already making ripples on a major label.

 

That raw sound that defined "grunge" remains timeless to my ears. Something about it leaves every hair metal band sounding very dated. Nevermind could have come out yesterday. Appetite For Destruction sounds its age to my ears.

 

Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains released the very best albums, in my opinion. Soundgarden for me were wonderful, but the albums are all too long for me to listen too and keep interested in for the entire duration.

[Ancient Ways]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

To say that GnR isn't as important as nirvana because a bunch of bands were incapable of emulating GnR isn't fair to GnR. Nirvana brought nothing new to the table they just took what was there, mashed it up and made it commercial. That's not necessarily a good thing. IMO the 90s sound/movement started rolling in the late 80s and it was a matter of time.

 

[ReRushed]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

To say that GnR isn't as important as nirvana because a bunch of bands were incapable of emulating GnR isn't fair to GnR. Nirvana brought nothing new to the table they just took what was there, mashed it up and made it commercial. That's not necessarily a good thing. IMO the 90s sound/movement started rolling in the late 80s and it was a matter of time.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing to make a genre more commercial. If Nirvana brought nothing new to the table you can certainly say that about Guns n' Roses. I find Guns n' Roses to be far more derivative of their influences than Nirvana is to theirs. All rock music ever was is a mash up of genres and influences. And to be timeline accurate, Nirvana is most definitely and band that started in the mid to late 1980s.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

Maybe. Those bands (PJ, etc) you listed didnt really come after Nirvana, other than radio play maybe. They were all part of the same Seattle underground scene, with acts like Mudhoney, etc.

I know. But Nirvana was the band that spearheaded the commercial acceptance of the Seattle scene. Same thing with the Beatles and the British Invasion.

 

Exactly.

 

Funny how it took Nirvana to do it, considering Soundgarden were already making ripples on a major label.

 

That raw sound that defined "grunge" remains timeless to my ears. Something about it leaves every hair metal band sounding very dated. Nevermind could have come out yesterday. Appetite For Destruction sounds its age to my ears.

 

Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains released the very best albums, in my opinion. Soundgarden for me were wonderful, but the albums are all too long for me to listen too and keep interested in for the entire duration.

 

Yeah, one would've really though Soundgarden were going to hit first. Nevertheless, Nevermind is what took the world by storm.

 

However, to my ears, GNR don't sound dated at all. They sound like rock and roll, and rock and roll will never die!

[bluefox4000]

Yea i can't agree that G N R sound dated. if anything.....grunge sounds very of it's time to my ears. great stuff don't get me wrong. but very of it's time.

 

Mick