The battle for Seattle!

[dangerbird]

Originally Posted by METALPRIEST

Yeah maybe "height of popularity" was a wrong choice of words , I'll give you that but you know what I mean. It was the teenage rage at the time as most rock music is when it's new...those fans grew up with them and have garnered some new teen fans as most bands do.

I'm only responding to the notion that rockers are "threatened" by Nirvana.

I was quite polite and nice about it and offered some postive points in their favor.

There is much more to my post than what you quoted. Rock on!!

ok gotcha

NDF:

If you were ask most Seattlites what the quintessential Seattle grunge band there's no way they carry that many votes over Pearl Jam and equal out to Nirvana.

Irrelevant. The only way Seattle enters into the picture now is that's the site I picked for this battle of the bands. The two finalists were Detroit and Seattle and I decided that Detroit had already suffered enough collateral damage from unrelated causes so I awarded Seattle the venue. The denizens of Seattle can pay their money and cast their vote same as anybody else but their opinion now counts for no more than does any other.

Originally Posted by Barnes and Noble

In many ways, Alice in Chains was the definitive heavy metal band of the early '90s. Drawing equally from the heavy riffing of post-Van Halen metal and the gloomy strains of post-punk, the band developed a bleak, nihilistic sound that balanced grinding hard rock with subtly textured acoustic numbers. They were hard enough for metal fans, yet their dark subject matter and punky attack placed them among the front ranks of the Seattle-based grunge bands. While this dichotomy helped the group soar to multi-platinum status with their second album, 1992's Dirt, it also divided them. Guitarist Jerry Cantrell always leaned toward the mainstream, while vocalist Layne Staley was fascinated with the seamy underground. Such tension drove the band toward stardom in their early years, but following Dirt, Alice in Chains suffered from near-crippling internal tensions that kept the band off the road for the remainder of the '90s and, consequently, the group never quite fulfilled their potential.

... in April 2002, the news that every Alice in Chains fan had been fearing for years had finally come to pass: Layne Staley was found dead due to a lethal overdose of cocaine and heroin.

Another pathetic waste of talent.



Well at least Layne outlasted Kurt Cobain by a decade - and that's why I cast my vote for Alice in Chains.

[NDF]

Originally Posted by Hepcat

NDF:

Irrelevant. The only way Seattle enters into the picture now is that's the site I picked for this battle of the bands. The two finalists were Detroit and Seattle and I decided that Detroit had already suffered enough collateral damage from unrelated causes so I awarded Seattle the venue. The denizens of Seattle can pay their money and cast their vote same as anybody else but their opinion now counts for no more than does any other.

Sorry, didn't know your titles mean nothing. Duly noted for the future.

[NDF]

Originally Posted by METALPRIEST

They had some good songs and I will not take that away from them. Nevernmind is a fine CD for what it is.

I caught that little backhand compliment.

From where I am it seemed they just had a cult following of popularity amongst high schoolers during their height of popularity while Cobain was still among us. But the entire "grunge" movement was that way.

The entire grunge movement was culty? Nirvana sold over 50 million albums. That's alot of culty high schoolers. You're proving my point for me.

I'd have to say he was far from a savior of music and could only be touted so by Nirvana fans.

I never said he was, yet you assume.

There was an interview in Guitar player where he made some statement similiar to enjoying playing out of tune and not practicing.

Whoahh! What does this have to do with anything?

But yes few of the old schoolers I know, regardless of the width of musical background were not impressed with Nirvana beyond anything more than interesting with a few "alright" songs.

Marginalization again. You've spent most of your post trying to dismiss Nirvana's influence with left-field comments.

If you knew just a little bit about Cobain then you wouldn't take everything he said so seriously. He was known for making bullshit comments during interviews. Yet you quote it as gospel when it makes him look bad and props your old school elitism up. Too convenient.

NDF:

Sorry, didn't know your titles mean nothing. Duly noted for the future.

Was "Rumble in the Jungle" meaningless? Was "Thrilla in Manila" meaningless? Hey, this is a big battle! Can you find any polls with more votes that are as close as this one?



I'm bewildered myself though by the esteem with which you and some other forum members hold Nirvana. Nirvana had a single or two that made the charts (admittedly a bit hard on the ears at first listen) and a couple of well received albums, but that's it. That's the kind of band that fits my definition of a flash in the pan. There have been many such bands in rock history. Nor did Nirvana record any classics such as "House of the Rising Sun", "Light My Fire", Satisfaction", "GLORIA", "Louie, Louie", "You Really Got Me", "Hard Day's Night", "Pinball Wizard", etc that will be remembered for generations to come. I mean even Tommy James & the Shondells had a lengthier history of success and left us with "Hanky Panky", "Mony Mony" etc.

[the roser]

I was 27 when Nirvana hit, hardly a teenager. Most of the people I knew loved it. Nevermind and Ten and Superunknown started showing up on the jukeboxes of all the nightspots I used to hit in those days, and the drinking age was 21.

But gee, don't some folks get defensive about the "threatened" comment.


I coulda been a contender.

[the roser]

Originally Posted by METALPRIEST

so how you been roser man??

Macadocious!

[hightea]

I'm so lost in all this I guess I never paid attention. If I get the rumblings its my understanding that many people think that Nirvana threatened, took away hair metal fans and ended hair metal? This makes no sense to me.

I was never a fan of hair metal and was actually listening to plenty of rock and rock lite(pixies, u2, REM,Throwing Muses,The Cure, Sarah McLachlan, etc) when the seattle scene hit I was in my late 20's. I like most of the masses enjoyed the seattle scene and explored it. Nirvana, PJ, Soundgarden, Screaming Trees, AIC etc.
All those bands had plenty of good songs just like bands from the 60's, 70's and 80's. The whole Nirvana sucks on CRF2 is so old if you don't like Nirvana move on. It's been 15+ years since Nirvana broke and they are still played on the radio, at parties and sell records. They are not a flash in the pan and will be remembered like it or not.

[the roser]

I don't even buy the notion that Nirvana or "grunge" killed hair metal. It crumbled under it's own weight. To many bands, not enough ideas. Nirvana was just in the right place at the right time.

[NDF]

Originally Posted by METALPRIEST

I only questioned how is it that you thought Nirvana "threatened" classic rock fans??

I don't know, maybe you can answer that question. That's just the impression I get from incessant derogatory commentary from yourself (Nirvana vs. Nirvana for example) and incessant polls pitting Cobain and Nirvana against every classic rock staple.

that was my opinion (elaborating) in regards to his rank in rock history

I didn't know a 'rank' existed and if so how could a 'alright group' with a mere cult following make their way on it?! Outrageous!

Was it 50 million sold?? Cool!! I tried that argument once about a band I liked but it didn't work... I was told so did Hannah Montanna (sp)...what are you gonna do...right??

No my argument wasn't the same as yours. It was in response to you calling them a band with a mere cult following of high schoolers. 50 million is mainstream.

...but yeah...my question lied with how the classic rock fan is "threatened" or how the popularity of AIC at CRF2 relates with these "threatening" feelings.

How? Probably because there's resentment when magazines rank them higher than your favorite classic rock band. Or they get credit for something you feel they shouldn't. There are alot of possible hows. My point is that it certainly does influence opinion.

I think Alice In Chains would have done just fine with Man In The Box regardless if Nirvana ever existed or not. The difference in sound between the two bands are day and night.

They wouldn't have had the same exposure or success, hands down. AIC weren't catalysts. What they were was a really good rock band.

[Slip'nn2Darkness]

Originally Posted by the roser

I don't even buy the notion that Nirvana or "grunge" killed hair metal. It crumbled under it's own weight. To many bands, not enough ideas. Nirvana was just in the right place at the right time.

Did ya ever notice that every 10 years there seems to be a turn over in the music world?? Like it's time for a fresh new start..
The 90's were just the next phase as far as "What" the NEW generation wanted to hear..
The hair bands did there job and as it has been pointed out.. "Nostalgia" rockers still enjoy those bands..
Isn't it fair to say that you connect more with the bands you knew when you were in High school or College?? Isn't that like the times you consider the bands of that era in your life hold some of the best memories to you???
I think it's pretty plain considering all the polls and votes and topics discussed on here. It looks like there is a majority of people who migrate towards the bands they grew up with..
As for the talk about Nirvana and cults and millions sold.. Maybe just a wrong phrase to use.. They had a following.. So does Cinderella and Poison and Motley Crue.. and.. Bob Dylan.. Zeppelin.. Pearl Jam.. etc.. etc.. etc...
We all are a cult.. Following our likes and belief in music...

Originally Posted by the roser

I don't even buy the notion that Nirvana or "grunge" killed hair metal. It crumbled under it's own weight.

I think Guns 'n Roses had a hand in killing hair metal myself.

[That 70s Guy]

Originally Posted by Hepcat

I think Guns 'n Roses had a hand in killing hair metal myself.

[white_lancer]

Originally Posted by Slip'nn2Darkness

I think it's pretty plain considering all the polls and votes and topics discussed on here. It looks like there is a majority of people who migrate towards the bands they grew up with..

Save for those weirdos among us who are into the music our parents grew up listening to.

[Sister Ray]

Originally Posted by Slip'nn2Darkness

Isn't it fair to say that you connect more with the bands you knew when you were in High school or College?? Isn't that like the times you consider the bands of that era in your life hold some of the best memories to you???

Man, I don't know. If I connected more with bands from my high school and college period then I'd still listen to rap music 24/7. Which now that I think about it... explains why I like a lot of early 90's rap

Why are there so many kids then that connect with the Beatles... and Floyd and Zeppelin? I see teenagers here that prefer music from the 60's over today's rock bands. Plenty from each generation discover "classic rock" and love it.

It's an interesting thing you bring up though, slip and I think it's more about the fact that "hair metal" whatever that means is polarizing. You either love it or hate it. No grey area. Same goes for rap music, or Nirvana or Kiss or thousands of other bands.

[Slip'nn2Darkness]

Originally Posted by Sister Ray

Man, I don't know. If I connected more with bands from my high school and college period then I'd still listen to rap music 24/7. Which now that I think about it... explains why I like a lot of early 90's rap

Why are there so many kids then that connect with the Beatles... and Floyd and Zeppelin? I see teenagers here that prefer music from the 60's over today's rock bands. Plenty from each generation discover "classic rock" and love it.

It's an interesting thing you bring up though, slip and I think it's more about the fact that "hair metal" whatever that means is polarizing. You either love it or hate it. No grey area. Same goes for rap music, or Nirvana or Kiss or thousands of other bands.

I myself like the early rapper like Snoop and Dre, Cypress Hill. Juvinile.. Nelly.. plus a slew of R&B singers that were in the 90's.. But I don't go for most of the new rap.. I pretty much don't listen to Rap any more..
But as for your question about why kids like the Beatles and older rock.. Well I like what my parents listened to. But I still hold my bands from my own era as what I connect to. If you think about how much kids are influenced by peer pressure then they just all keep in touch with bands that are apart of their generation and speak out for their plite in life.. That's my guess this early in the morning!! What's this got to do with Seattle..

[butch]

IMO grunge in general didn't "kill" hair metal. But it offered consumers a choice and hair metal lost in a big way. So it did threaten hair metal by making it less profitable.