Talk:Grunge music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grunge music is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Grunge music appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 6, 2005.

Grunge music has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been nominated for Selected article, at Portal:United States.

	This article is related to WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to cleanup and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.	Music Portal
FA	Grunge music has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth

This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.

To-do list for Grunge music:	edit · history · watch · refresh
To-do list further detail on lyrical content Recurring problems Post-grunge bands need to be kept off the prominent bands list; their list is in the article for post-grunge. Consult the list in that article before adding bands. Non-grunge & non-post-grunge bands such as The Smashing Pumpkins and The Presidents of the USA need to be kept off the list.

To-do list for Grunge music:

edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list

further detail on lyrical content

Recurring problems

Post-grunge bands need to be kept off the prominent bands list; their list is in the article for post-grunge. Consult the list in that article before adding bands.
Non-grunge & non-post-grunge bands such as The Smashing Pumpkins and The Presidents of the USA need to be kept off the list.

Archives
17 July 2005 4 January 2006

[edit] Fashion

I think that a separate article about the "culture" and fashion of grunge should be created and maybe the affect it had on the mainstream. I would do it but I wouldn't know enough to make a decent sized article. -- 72.166.213.113

Why? There's not enough info to justify a fork. Likewise, it isn't even a real fashion; as the article says, it wasn't meant to be a fashion. -- LGagnon 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

The conclusion of the dispute resolution is as follows: the template will be removed, and the category stays. Assertions that grunge is similiar to hardcore punk may be made as long as it is made explicit that there is no consensus on that. Leyasu and LGagnon are encouraged to avoid interaction in the future, and in case that is made necessary, it is advised that unless it is a trivial matter, they ask for an admin to proxy the discussion. The article will be unprotected ASAP and admin Sn0wflake makes a request that both editors stay away from the article for at least a few days, only reverting the occasional vandalism if it is necessary.

Now, other editors involved with the article, please abide by this resolution, it's not complicated to have two different views on the article, in fact, it happens in all articles, so this should be no exception. As for the presence of the category but not of the template, I think it actually makes a lot of sense, as it establishes a connection but does not put both genres on the same bag. Cheers, --Sn0wflake 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New paragraph, beta edition

As grunge came into being in a hardcore punk scene and was highly influenced by the genre, it is believed by some that grunge is a variant or subgenre of hardcore. In the documentary Hype!, there is a scene in which a guitarist implies that grunge is essentially the same as hardcore punk. He plays two riffs on his guitar, claiming one is "punk" (although the riff is hardcore)^[1] and the other is grunge, yet the two are only slightly different from each other.^[2] Still, .... (insert Welsey and/or Leyasu's contribution here)

For the Notes section: ↑ Though the word "punk" is used, it should be kept in mind that the term is often used to refer to any punk derivative. It is common for hardcore punk musicians and fans to refer to hardcore simply as "punk".

That probably needs a bit more revising, but that should be a good enough start for now. -- LGagnon 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks very fine to me. I'm sure the other editors will also find it very reasonable... you will, right... RIGHT? :P --Sn0wflake 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I made clear revisions to the paragraph, and posted it below. Its only minor, mind.

As grunge came into being from a hardcore punk scene and was highly influenced by the genre as a whole, it is believed by some that grunge is a variant or subgenre of hardcore punk. In the documentary Hype!, there is a scene in which a guitarist implies that grunge is essentially the same as hardcore punk. He illustrates this point by playing two riffs on his guitar, claiming one as "punk" (in reference to hardcore punk) ^[3] and the other as grunge. This has caused debate about the similarity of the two riffs. Some of the fans agree with the guitarist, believing that the two riffs are similar due to their sound ^[4], others argue this is wrong based on the musical composition of the two genres.

In my eyes, it reads a little better (minor gramma fixes), and sounds a little less POV. Suggest this has a template for whatever else is added. Leyasu 05:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair, I made three minor grammatical/flow corrections, in case you don't mind. Now it's up to you and Ramirez. Or we could just remove the "Still, ..." and leave it as it is. Whatever's best for you guys. --Sn0wflake 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we need such a paragraph at all. I really don't see that much of a debate on the nature of hardcore and grunge outside of this whole Talk Page discussion. I'd say we only integrate such a paragraph if further discussions are generated down the line. WesleyDodds 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, Ramirez. The paragraph will be included. End of story. Things need to be civil around here, and this is a fair solution to all. --Sn0wflake 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how I started the whole debate, I might as well comply, although I do feel it's a highly unnecessary addition to the article merely created as a reaction to the Talk Page debate:

Still, post-punk and alternative bands since the late 70's have refered to themselves as punk whether or not they shared the aesthetics of the style and its subgenres (including hardcore). More often than not they merely subscribe to the DIY ethics of the underground punk scene, which is viewed by some as just as important in defining punk as the music itself. Alternative rock (which grunge is a subgenre of) is not considered to be hardcore, even though it traces it developement to the hardcore punk scene, especially to bands such as Hüsker Dü. Also, the intergration of 70's hard rock and metal influences in grunge is seen by some (including artists from the scene) as a pointed rejection of the increasing rigidity of hardcore in the mid-80's. WesleyDodds 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:: Still, since the argument happened, its probally happening somewhere else as well. And in case it happens in future, weve answered it already. I also corrected the wording slightly more, as i made mistakes in typing myself. Post it as it is in my eyes. Leyasu 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some problems with Leyasu's new revision. "Video documentary" is a redundancy; "documentary" is enough. The part about the guitar player gives less information now; we don't know that the two riffs sounded similar with this wording. "This has caused debate" is factually innaccurate outside of this talk page. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to talk about internal debates as if they stretched outside of our talk pages; that is, in a way, similar to using weasel words. The "ref|hype5" citation is also out of place there, as Hype! says nothing about any such debate. This revision isn't less POV; if anything, it's more POV. -- LGagnon 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh fuck... not again... all right, before Leyasu answers, can we reach a middle point? Which of your complaints are you willing to discard? --Sn0wflake 06:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I just updated it to fit his 2nd revision. I'll discard the "video documentary" complaint if I have to give up something, but that's it. -- LGagnon 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with LGagnon's views regarding Leyasu's edits. His version is better, and the revised version is less effective. WesleyDodds 06:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm tired and really need to crash. I won't be around until much later today, so all I can say to all of you is stay civil, try to negotiate, be patient and don't underastimate eachother. I hope you guys can work this out. --Sn0wflake 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Try it now, it makes both our points adequetly i do so believe. Leyasu 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The same problems are there. It still refers to our debate, and it still makes it seem as if Hype! talks about it. If you want a counter argument mentioned it shouldn't be yours; it should be from an outside source. -- LGagnon 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of Snowflake's abscence, and the fact im tired of it, this is how its going to work.

That paragraph is fine. If WesleyDodds wants to give it a copyedit, he can. Once he has copyedited it if he wishes to do so, Gangon will put the paragraph in the article, as it was when Wesley finished with it, where he thnks best. If he changes the paragraph, or otherwise fails to put it in within one week of Wesley announcing he is done with the paragraph, i will put it in where i think best. If the paragraph is subsequently removed, it will be seen as vandalism and direct disobediance of an Admin, as well as distrubing Wikipedia to prove a point. That is how it will work. Wesley, edit away, or pass the ability to do so. Leyasu 04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Combining my paragraph with LGagnon's is fine; any further attempts to counterbalance the different views may lead to giving more time to this debate than the article actually warrants.

On that note, the paragraph should probably go into the Notes section rather than the body of the article. WesleyDodds 09:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Leyasu 10:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu, you are not taking over in the absence of an admin. You are on one end of the dispute resolution, and if you took over it would be biased in your favor. And you're not even an admin, so you can't enforce any of that.

And given that both Wesley and I disagree with your edit, I think you should leave it to Wesley to add in the new information. After all, he's closer to a neutral party in this dispute than you. -- LGagnon 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I reference you to WesleyDodds last comment, and the fact i agreed to it. This dicussion is now CLOSED due to CONSENSUS in favour of adding the paragraph below into the notes section. If not done by yourself or WesleyDodds by Monday, i will do it. End of, period. Discussion, closed. Leyasu 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Six: first?

"The first recorded document of a "Seattle scene" was 1986's Deep Six compilation, released by C/Z Records…": what can this mean? That this is the first document that some particular (unnamed) person thinks resembles grunge? Prior to that (just to mention a couple of examples of LPs documenting the Seattle punk scene) are Seattle Syndrome (Engram Records, 1981) and Seattle Syndrome 2 (Engram Records, 1983). Among the bands on the latter is Mr. Epp and the Calculations, Mark Arm's (then Mark McLaughlin's) band, the probable origin of the term "grunge" to refer to this scene. They were also on What Syndrome? (tape-only, Deus Ex Machina, 1983). I don't have that handy, but I remember it having some other proto-grunge on it. So I'm skeptical, to say the least, about the remark about Deep Six being first. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of them. If you could pull up more info on them we'd all be grateful. Although, Deep Six is generally viewed to be the impetus for the grunge movement, even if previous compilations of music from Seattle were released beforehand. And just because Mr Epp is on a comp doesn't mean it's necessarily a grunge comp. You're certainly welcome to edit the text as you see fit. WesleyDodds 11:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately—very unfortunately—most of my record collection is currently in boxes, as I am remodeling a hunk of my house. And I don't think I even own a copy of What Syndrome? anymore. But I will dig these up when I recover my collection.

I don't have too much problem with saying that Deep Six may have been the first compilation of the specific music that became known as grunge, but what I'm saying is that the "Seattle scene" long predates grunge, and this should be reworded. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Melvins be listed as a Grunge band? I know they are more than just one genre, but I think they are grunge too.--24.152.251.248 09:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Very tricky. In my view, their "heavy" sound is obviously one of the main influences on grunge, and they certainly came to wider attention because of grunge, but they generally lack the pop influences that are the other main current in grunge, and that made it more commercially acceptable than the Melvins' sound. They are mentioned here and we say that they and the Wipers are "considered grunge bands by some fans of the genre, although others classify them as hardcore punk bands". That seems about right to me on the Wipers; I'd consider the Melvins more of a transition between hardcore punk and grunge, but I think the current wording is basically on the mark. - Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangs

"However, famous rock critic Lester Bangs was known to use the term as early as 1972 in Creem magazine, where he used it to describe bands that sounded similar to The Stooges or the MC5." Bangs certainly used the word to refer to a ragged sound, but I'm not sure how relevant that is. Seems like coincidence to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; true or not, it isn't really about this form of music. -- LGagnon 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll contextualize the Bangs statement. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs context in the article. It really doesn't matter if someone used the word "grunge" to describe music unless it has bearing on the genre being described in this article as grunge. However, you can draw a link to the bands Bangs was talking about, since they did serve as influencs on grunge bands. If this info going to be in the article, that sort of connection should be made. WesleyDodds 06:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to see it gone. I just figured that if it's going to be there, it should be precise about his earliest use of it (at least the earliest I know), which happens to be in one of his best-known essays, also one of the earliest citations for the use of "punk" with reference to bands. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted info

"though several other independent Seattle-area labels gained recognition, including Olympia labels Kill Rock Stars and K Records"

This line was removed without explaination. If nobody gives a good reason for this, I'm adding it back in. -- LGagnon 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

They really had nothing to do with grunge. Kill Rock Stars wasn't even formed until 1991. WesleyDodds 00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pumpkins?

The article doesn't mention The Smashing Pumpkins, or were they not considered grunge? They gained popularity at about the same time as Pearl Jam, Nirvana, ect, and were probably listened to by much the same audience that listened to grunge. 207.6.31.119 07:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While they had a few of the same primary influences, the Smashing Pumpkins were not part of the Seattle grunge scene (even though they tended to be lumped in with it in the early 90s). Not only were the Pumpkins from Chicago, but they also incorporated AOR rock, gothic rock, dream pop, shoegaze, and a number of other influences the grunge bands went nowhere near. WesleyDodds 09:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. They sounded more like My Bloody Valentine than anything from Seattle. -- LGagnon 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

They didn't really touch on punk influences like grunge did. So no I don't believe they were considered grunge. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the pumkins like to be considerd grunge, especially as they were never part of the Grunge scene. Actually I think after a while non of the bands liked being called Grunge even Nirvana & Pearl Jam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs) 1 Feb 2006.

Well, in all fairness, they were a part of the grunge scene in as far as Grunge fans tended to like them, and made up a large amount of their fanbase... While I still hear them called "grunge" today, they're far too musically diverse and call on too many disparate influences to be classified as grunge. --Switch 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though they do play gothic rock,alternative and shoegaze, I think they could also be called grunge because certain songs are very grungy.--B o b b y 4 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. I can't think of a single song by them that was definitely grunge. -- LGagnon 16:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I would group them with the grunge movement, and I would argue that they were one of the more popular bands of the movement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.235.225.20 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006.

[edit] Portal?

I think grunge could have its own portal...What does everybody think? - The Great Gavini... ^{...smells like teen spirit!} 09:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a thing would be more appropriate for the more general classifications of alternative rock or rock music. WesleyDodds 10:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. But even then... - The Great Gavini... ^{...smells like teen spirit!} 18:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further to Green River Split?

Wow. Great article. Having been part of the Seattle scene in the period in question, I expected this to be cringe-worthy, but it has clearly been in the care of someone(s) who knew are cared about the scene. Kudos. One thing that might be worth mentioning is that the tension between punk attitude and commercialism entered the scene long before the post-grunge cash in. The break up of Green River was the result of the Mother Love Bone / Pearl Jam faction's move for commercial appeal, with the Mudhoney faction going the punk anti-commercial route. I recall it being discussed in the local music press; among Mark Arm's complaints was that they wanted him to take singing lessons!

And for all that's holy, do please keep the Smashing Pumpkins out of this! - Bert 171.159.64.10 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nine Black Alps

The info on this band seems suspect. They were put into both a section on post-grunge and into the grunge band list. All Music Guide says they are alt/pop.[5] I'm reverting the article until someone can confirm what genre they belong in. -- LGagnon 02:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think pretty much by definition a band formed in Manchester in 2003 is not grunge, even if they are a Pearl Jam/Nirvana/Soundgarden cover band. (Though I might make an exception if they managed to kick Jason Everman out of the band.) Regardless of Nine Black Alps' sound, I'd think putting them on the list would incite many Pumpkins/Collective Soul/etc. fans who want them listed here instead of as post-grunge. - Bert 171.159.64.10 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Paw and STP were both started after 1991 (or at least didn't release an album until after '91) they should both probably be moved to post-grunge or somewhere else. I haven't really listened to Paw, but STP really has a different sound than most grunge bands anyway. Grunge was more about guitars, drums and simple compositions, while STP had almost spoken word interludes and song breaks that very much veered from grunge. --Torsin 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Paw shouldn't be there; they weren't really prominent as far as I know. STP stays as their status as a grunge band is debatable (this is aforementioned in the article). -- LGagnon 02:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Paw is pretty grunge, and from what I know they were considered grunge at the time rather than post-grunge, which was a term yet to be coined.

On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily called Stone Temple Pilots grunge, or even post-grunge. Just a hard rock/alternative band that happened to sound like certain Seattle bands (although they must have been aware of the grunge scene, because there's a flyer at my radio station where they played a show with Sonic Youth and Nirvana from the time they just called themselves STP). WesleyDodds 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No they should stay Cyanofix 04:18, 11 June 2006

STP should stay because Core and Purple were definatly grunge albums, even though their later albums weren't grungy.--B o b b y 4 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style, roots, and influences

In this section, the writes notes that

"The lyrics are typically angst-filled — anger, frustration, ennui, sadness, fear, and depression are often explored in grunge songs. These lyrics may have come from the feelings of angst that are common in adolescence; many grunge musicians began their careers as teenagers or young adults. However, other factors, such as poverty, discomfort with social prejudices, and a general disenchantment with the state of society may also have influenced grunge lyricism."

This is far too general I fear, and could be used to describe a huge portion of the music that has been listened to by youth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.35.62 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2006.

[edit] Timeline of bands

It should be taken in to consideration that although Nirvana finished in 1994 and at that point only had 4 major releases. There have been no less than 6 major releases from Nirvana between 1994 and 2005: MTV Unplugged in New York (1994), Singles (Nirvana album) (1995), From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah (1996), Nirvana (album) (20022), With the Lights Out (2004) and Sliver: The Best of the Box in (2005). Maybe there should be a different colour on timeline chart to bring Nirvana up to 2005.

Same with the other bands who have posthumous releases.

no it cleary states that the chart ends for the band when the band is defunct, meaning when it broke up, not when it stopped releasing merchandise.

People are going to try to make money off of defunct bands forever. The Beatles are not techincally around still, but they have a never-ending flood of merchendise. There's no point in adding info to let people know that capitalism is still up and running as usual. -- LGagnon 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grunge music genre dispute

If you want my opinion there is no such thing as a grunge music genre. The bands that everyone lables as "grunge" sound nothing alike. To have a genre of music do you not have to have some kind of definition of its sound? Take grunge's two most popular bands, Nirvana and Pearl Jam, how can one say that these two bands are labeled as the same kind of music? Yes grunge bands dress similar and are all from Seattle, but I think grunge is just a name people came up with for a fad, it's not a music genre. soccerfrll July 1, 2006

Your argument's biggest weakness is that you don't cite any sources. Thus, you have given us nothing useful for the article itself. We're not claiming there is no such genre just because of one person's opinion. References are what counts in writing an article, and you have given none. -- LGagnon 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1st of all, does anyone else agree or disagree with what im saying? second, im not trying to write an article. third, you are right, i dont have any sources, but neither does this article in supporting grunge as a music genre. I have looked at the cited pages and nowhere does it suggest any kind of grunge-like music sound. Based on what your saying this entire article is based on a mass opinion. the second article even agrees with me, that its impossible to put these bands in the same category. It states that the media invented this term just to label the bands from Seattle and their fasion trends, not the music. I challenge anyone reading this to give me a clear cut definition of a "grunge" sound. soccerfrll, july 1, 2006

If you are just here for discussion, you're in the wrong place. Wikipedia's talk pages exist for the purpose of ficilitating editing of the article, not for message board-style discussion of the subject. If you aren't interested in helping with editing the article, don't bother posting to this page. -- LGagnon 03:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

so then you admit that im right? i am trying to help, anywhere it talks about grunge as a style of music should be removed. the bands can be kept because of their style and influence, but not because they are in the grunge music genre. -- 68.191.119.57

No, you are not right. You have not proven anything at all. Furthermore, even if you did properly point out a source supporting your view, we are not going to change the article entirely based on one source alone when there is a multitude of sources that say otherwise. -- LGagnon 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

did you not read what i just said? This ariticle has N0 SOURCES that say otherwise. -- 71.52.228.35

Yes it does. And even if it didn't, it's a well established fact that the genre exists, which is beyond what any source can change. You're not going to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by changing the article around to fit your opinion whether you like it or not. -- LGagnon 03:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

i will be quiet if you could point out sources that support your opinion -- 71.52.228.35

AMG, for one, considers it a genre. There are tons of other sources out there that will tell you the same. Like I said, this is a well known established fact that doesn't actually need a source. Don't argue the sky is plaid when every source says it's blue and none back your opinion. -- LGagnon 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed list of "influential musicians"

I think it might be helpful to have a list of "influential musicians" or "significant musicians" or something along those lines... something that lists individual musicians who had a big impact on the seattle music scene. I am aware that there is already a list of grunge bands. I am also aware that the "grunge music" article is kind of long as is. But even so, I think a section concerning individual musicians would help as well just because grunge is one of the few rock subgenres where there were overlaps of people playing in multiple bands over the years (gossard/ament, mark arm, matt cameron), and there were also many collaborations between musicians (cobain+lanegan, the "mad season" supergroup album, the "temple of the dog" supergroup album, chris cornell + alice in chains + mark arm on "right turn," alice in chains + eddie vedder on "alone," the "No WTO Combo"), and there were also some subsequent solo albums (chris cornell's "euphoria morning," jerry cantrell's 2 albums, mark lanegan's bunch of albums). The list could include:

And whoever else people might be appropriate. Can I get some feedback as to whether or not this would be a good thing for the page? -- 65.195.133.120

Kim Salmon needs to be at the top of that list. --Chops A Must 07:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to write something about these factors rather than just add a list to the article? The list, on it's own, would not be very well justified, as these people were already in the bands listed. It'd be more useful to add more writing than another list. -- LGagnon 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Put the Melvins on the timeline?

Does anyone think it would be appropriate to include the career span of the Melvins in this page's timeline of grunge bands? -- 65.195.133.120

The Melvins were originally a hardcore band, and their status as a grunge band is debatable. They came some time before grunge began, and were more of an influence than an actual grunge band. -- LGagnon 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Melvins are the original Pacific Northwest grunge band, and they never quit. 'Houdini' and 'Stoner Witch' are perfect examples of the grunge sound. They have the look, too. They should be included --- a long, fat band of orange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.177.37 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.

I love the Melvins, and I personally am happy to see them counted into the genre, but the critics have been divided on this. They certainly are the archetype of the heavy side of grunge, but they don't ever seem to have that lighter pop touch which is what gave this music international popularity. - Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Coming of Grunge Music

This section looks alright for a gossip, or a fan website but for an encylcopedia I can't shake the feeling that this is just a review for a new trend. (an awsome trend mind you) -- User:Bill102

I've removed it; it was just speculation and POV, and most of the bands mentioned were post-grunge instead of grunge, so it had to go. -- LGagnon 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Salmon and The Scientists

Any article on grunge NEEDS a mention of Kim Salmon and The Scientists. He actually coined the term "grunge" (the first person to use that word), in the mid to late 80s, as a description of the type of distortion he and the Perth punk scene in general were experimenting with. Kurt Cobain himself, noted Kim Salmon and The Scientists as one of the key influences of their music. So it is wrong to conclude that Seattle was the birthplace of Grunge, although it was obviously its focal point. --Chops A Must 07:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There's one problem with your argument: a lack of sources. If they are so important, where's the proof? -- LGagnon 00:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How hard did you look? You can't have looked at all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Salmon

"Salmon's work in the 1980s was influential in the development of grunge music, first recognised around Seattle, USA, before impacting on popular music in the early 1990s through bands such as Nirvana and Soundgarden. The Scientists relied on unorthodox bass-heavy rhythms and distorted guitars, the latter being a direct precursor for grunge. In fact the term itself was coined by Salmon in the mid 1980s to describe The Scientists' sound, as noted in a documentary on Australian music, “Long Way to the Top” (2001)." --Chops A Must 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It could also be argued that the term was first used in 1981, far before Mark Arm:

http://www.citadel-records.com/mailorder/600/discs/ks.html

But it is a contentious issue, maybe just a more thorough look at the possible origins of the term being mentioned may suffice. --Chops A Must 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reference; that's a Wikipedia article that doesn't provide a reference. When I say give me a reference, I mean one from outside Wikipedia, which is the proper way to add references to the article. -- LGagnon 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about, "Long Way to the Top 2001"? --Chops A Must 05:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a notable source as far as I know, and there's no way to check it to varify such (as you did not make a citation of it). Additionally, I think you should be able to give me a written source claiming such as well, given that Kim Salmon has never been mentioned in any major source about grunge before. It's kind of hard to trust some obscure documentary as a primary source for such a debatable claim (especially given that only a tiny group is actually making this claim). We aren't giving undue weight to any extreme minority view. -- LGagnon 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I don't think it is a minority view. Mark Arm conceded the point in an interview in 2002, after all he was The Scientists biggest fan:

http://www.ocweekly.com/music/music/dont-say-the-g-word/21621/

That article never says "The Scientists" specifically. He just alludes to "some band" which he never names. This is not sufficient evidence. -- LGagnon 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Salmon and The Scientists are what he is referring to there, and given that he does concede that point, then it is already in contradiction with the article. I'm not really sure what more you want.

"CLINTON WALKER: Just finally, another perhaps hypothetical, but, perhaps, and as you say sometimes you have luck and bad luck, and timing I mean the group broke up in 87 or thereabouts, really not long after that we see a lot of the kind of pure grunge I suppose you could call it, really starting to break through.

KIM SALMON: Yeah, we hung in there just long enough to be planted on the other side of the world." http://www.abc.net.au/studio22/programs/s298531.htm

But there is credible literature on the topic! http://www.dcms.mq.edu.au/perfectbeat/reviews/html/v6n4/v6n4Homan.htm --Chops A Must 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are relying on ambiguous statements for proof and are using your interpretation to decide what they mean. That is POV and against Wikipedia policy. I'm not going to do the work of checking that last source, given the previous states of your other sources; give me a quote from it and then we'll discuss it. -- LGagnon 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if you want to make a serious case for this, the first thing would be to source the Kim Salmon article decently. I'm sure it is correct in its general outline, but it's really hard to evaluate if you only slightly know his work (in which I presume I am not alone). - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any point, because anything that is put up as evidence will be tagged as "obscure" because the author of this article seems to disagree with this standpoint outright, even thought there is a lot of material on the topic. --Chops A Must 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you stick to the argument and not make ad hominem attacks on me? I'm not going to tag anything as obscure; I'm just asking that you uphold academic honesty instead of pushing your standpoint without proper proof. If there is a lot of material on the topic, you should have no problem finding a very reliable source that agrees with you. If you can't, then you are just lying to avoid verifiability (which is absolutely required in editing Wikipedia articles). I'm just upholding Wikipedia's policy; I suggest you do so yourself by not relying on personal attacks anymore. -- LGagnon 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Long Way to The Top Episode 6, Written by Tina Havelock Stevens. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2001.

Michael Azerrad, Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes From the American Indie Underground 1981-1991 (USA: Little Brown, 2001).--Chops A Must 10:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the page number. -- LGagnon 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just skimmed the book, specifically the chapter on Mudhoney. Neither Kim Salmon nor the Scientists are listed in the index, I can't find any mention of them in the chapter, and the first time the term "grunge" is mentioned in a historical context is on the page I cited in the article that describes Green River as "ultra loose grunge". It's followed by the sentence "Although the word 'grunge' had been used to describe various kinds of rock music for years, this was the first known application of it to the grinding, sludgy sound of Seattle." (Pg. 420) WesleyDodds 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found one brief mention: "On a fall '87 tour, a stylistic rift in Green River widened to a canyon. Arm says the rest of the band was playing things like Whitesnake and Aerosmith's wretched Permanent Vacation in the van, while he was vainly trying to turn them on to garage-inflected Australian underground bands like Feedtime and the Scientists" (Pg. 422) WesleyDodds 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But what does that say of their influence? Just because Arm listened to them does not mean they were influencial. -- LGagnon 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from them covering them?--Chops A Must 06:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? WesleyDodds 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just that he listened to them. Certainly not that the Scientists are some sort of progenators of grunge or anything like that. That line is all I could find. WesleyDodds 06:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Kim Salmon article is still completely without citations or references. Some of what has been mentioned here could probably go there. - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image bloat

Do we really need all these images in this article? I was fine with the amount we've had until today, but now there's hardly any break between one and another. -- LGagnon 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Pearl Jam TIME image could stay, at least. Maybe replace the Ten image. WesleyDodds 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. -- LGagnon 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency?

Its claimed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunge_music#Decline_of_mainstream_popularity) that "Pearl Jam released their last album that topped the charts, No Code." however didn't their latest self-titled album acheive chart success? 194.149.79.218 09:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not an inconsistency; it's just out of date. That info was added before the self-titled album was released. Just update it to fit current events and it should be fine. -- LGagnon 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Grunge and Grunge Band

Can a band be a Grunge band and a Post-Grunge band at the same time? -- User:Matthew Husdon 07 October 2006

I highly doubt so. Post-grunge was meant to be more radio friendly. Grunge wasn't. I don't see why a band would do both at the same time, as either style alienates the other's audience. -- LGagnon 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably few bands say "we reject all that grunge is - we want to be post-grunge". The terms are applied by critics. So there are likely to be bands that fall in a grey area between the two ? Bush are referred to as both grunge and post-grunge. The post-grunge page implies that the first post-grunge group was Foo Fighters. -- Beardo 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grunge Metal

Could there be a cross over between grunge and metal? -- User:Cronus (band)

Well, it already is a cross between punk and metal, with some acts being more punk (Nirvana, Mudhoney, TAD) and some being more metal (Soundgarden, Alice in Chains). But beyond that there's no such thing as "grunge metal". WesleyDodds 07:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wipers

If someone has a copy of Cobain's Journals, they could find a comment from him stating something along the lines of "If there is a Seattle sound, it comes from across the river in Portland with the Wipers". If someone could find where that is, it might be a useful thing to mention in the history section (particularly in showing Oregon's role in the grunge scene.) Owen 20:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/u/Talk%7EGrunge_music_b876.html"