Grunge. Why?

[nomisofsiman]

First, the 'industry' doesn't choose what is popular. People do. They are presented by choices, and then industry latches onto it, and then everybody tries to get their piece of the pie. Its just like the movie industry. If there's a popular flaming mushroom movie, every studio will go and get a flaming mushroom script and make their version. They don't care how long a trend lasts, just that it sells. Grunge sold. But it sold in a way the industry didn't expect. It took off on its own, and then they latched onto it. It sold albums, t-shirts, and live events like crazy. You can't really blame it for dieing. Not when you had a lot of post-grunge bands starting to succeed, while the grunge bands were all facing internal issues (e.g. shotguns, and drugs). Bands like Bush, Foo Fighters, and then later Creed, made up for things.

It also wasn't until Nevermind became the #1 album that Grunge really started to get pushed by all studios full-ahead. But its not as if you didn't have popular altenrative music before then, such as REM, and U2. Grunge, and its offshoots, became a part of the larger alternative rock genre.

I think it's a bit of both. Industry or labels rather, sign a band and promote them and people buy the cd, yes. However, when these labels do find something new that works, they start pushing it down people's throats and abandon or minimize the bands/artists that they were pushing before.

 

[Corsair]

Big labels have tended to look for a particular 'image' that they think will sell; it doesn't always work, and typically it will only last for about 5-6 years at the very most. Hair metal, Grunge, then Nu-metal all had cohesive, marketable images, so it's not surprising that even though all these types of music actually had an underground at some point, the label looks for the most marketable groups and images, sucks them dry, then moves onto the next big thing. I havne't really been paying attention to what's popular int he last 5 or so years, but I know that they've -tried- marketing several sounds, but none have been able to last very long in the face of "MUST BE NEW! MUST BE FIRST!" internet culture mentality.

 

[Jasonic]

First, the 'industry' doesn't choose what is popular. People do.

Sorry, but no. At least not for commercial music.

How much in the past 20 years even has even had a morsel of staying power?

Mainstream music fans listen to what is on the radio. Period.

Few true music fans will latch onto the more credible mainstream bands, such as Dave Mathews, Jack Johnson, etc. Though when it comes to pop music, it has little staying power beyond a few albums / touring cycles.

Their fans aren't truly invested in the band's longevity. Once it's not the flavor of the month, they could not care less.

 

[Orion Crystal Ice]

I find myself asking 'why' of all the 'core' subgenres these days. I used to ask 'why' of grunge, thought it couldn't get worse, then there was ska, that was bad but that still sort of made sense, then there was a huge power pop/punk blowing up, I asked 'why' then and thought it couldn't be worse... my current state is being baffled at the aimless 'screamo' thing which gets bored and ventures into 'indie rock' and back into 'screamo' again.

 

[Corsair]

Everyone is trying to be part of the next 'big thing', and one of the problems is that they don't have the balls or the artistic integrity to actually try anything truly "new". Instead you just take an existing genre of music, change one or two elements, add post- or -core to it's description (Or as the case seems to be increasingly towards sub-sub-subgenres. Post-math-crab-jazzcore IS THE BEST MUSIC EEVAR!!!) and pretend like you're doing something totally new and fresh.

 

[Magius]

Image and panic had a lot to do with it. The stark contract of the "every day working guy" in jeans and flannel made the excessive "Glam" image look ridiculous. That look may have been winding down as bands like Guns N' Roses, Tesla, and Jackyl were getting their share of success without it, but it was too little too late. There were too many bands associated with the musical style. Poison was the chief propagator, but even bands like Motley Crue, who started out in leather and lit themselves on fire, adopted the pink spandex and fishnet gloves. No image conscious teenager and young adult would be caught dead being associated with Glam. Hence the reaction of J. Golden's girlfriend at the time.

The same phenomenon happened to Disco. The down to earth image of Kansas, Cheap Trick, and Journey made lime green leisure suits and platform shoes seem ridiculous. Same thing happened to New Wave. although that was more of a self-implosion. The public realized on their own how idiotic a foot tall blue mohawk or a flowerpot on your head was.

It takes a while for both the public and the industry to get past stigmatizing associations. Eventually they come to realize that you can't hear an image on the radio. Disco didn't truly die, it just went into hibernation. Britny Spears, and Backstreet are doing pretty much the same thing as Donna Summer and The BG's. They're just doing it without some extreme image gimmick.

I think that to a degree both perspectives on who drives the industry are valid. Sometimes the public gets spoon-fed by the industry, and sometimes the fad trend is picked up by the industry. In this case I have to agree with Cheiron. When the music industry saw people abandoning Glam in droves they panicked. That led them to over react and drop almost every single Glam artist they had, regardless of how well those artists may have been selling at the time.

 

[Cheiron]

Sorry, but no. At least not for commercial music.

How much in the past 20 years even has even had a morsel of staying power?

Mainstream music fans listen to what is on the radio. Period.

Few true music fans will latch onto the more credible mainstream bands, such as Dave Mathews, Jack Johnson, etc. Though when it comes to pop music, it has little staying power beyond a few albums / touring cycles.

Their fans aren't truly invested in the band's longevity. Once it's not the flavor of the month, they could not care less.

So allegedly 5% of all albums released by major labels make a profits. 5%. Labels have no idea what will stick. They will put millions of dollars into artists that end up selling less albums than a ProgPower headliner.

I don't know about your friends growing up, but most of mine, not only changed the type of music they were listening to every few years, but they loved whatever they were listening to at the time. Sure, radio gives you about 50 bands to listen to, and you might choose 3-4 that you really love. They provide you with options, you pick them. They can't figure out which of those 50 on regular spin will really take off. They especially can't predict which one on Q101s cage match will win. Nobody knows when bands like Local H and They Might Be Giants will just take off into being a steady band for a few years. Sometimes it takes radio stations believing in bands to get them going. Sometimes it comes from the college stations, and certainly sometimes payola and other schemes to get bands on top of the billboards is a factor. No doubt. But, by and large, the bands, and more importantly (in this conversation) trends, are chosen by people who listen and look (aesthetics are important of course) at music and its performers. The record industry enables trends, creating bubble after bubble, but all they do is see a demand, and inflate it.

If you want to see how often things change, look at heavy metal. How often are bands talked about on here one year talked about 3 or 4 years down the line? There are a few, but many get abandoned, some get their few diehards to keep bringing them up, but many of the one-time-fans have moved on. Trends occur at this level too. OMG thrash metal! No not thrash, groove metal! No death metal! No melodic death metal! No! Power metal! No Progressive!

 

[TribunalRecords]

So what was the music industry thinking? They managed to make it uncool to listen to hair bands, yet the alternative they put forward was never really as popular as it was supposed to be, and pretty much died out by 1995.

i am confused, as you are talking about the lack of "singles" on the billboard charts being a way to figure out what was popular. the grunge movement was a movement AWAY from "singles" and single sales. i only googled ONE album from the movement and not even "Nevermind" but here are sales figures of "Ten"

>>>
Ten stayed on the Billboard charts for more than two years, and has gone on to become one of the highest-selling rock records ever, going 13x platinum.
>>>

so 13x platinum isn't popular or big? how many "popular" hair metal bands went 13x platinum? Bon Jovi and Def Leppard...maybe.

i can spend more time looking for Alice In Chains and Soundgarden and Nirvana sales, but that genre made it's impact in record sales and honestly was the last musical movement to actually generate record sales of that magnitude. well, except for Eminem.

just my thoughts, naturally.

 

[TribunalRecords]

Labels even put together bands like this to make a buck. Remember that crap band GOLDFINGER anyone???

I love GOLDFINGER and their mainman John Feldmann has become a HUGE producer now. also before GOLDFINGER he was in the ELECTRIC LOVE HOGS who have members now in Velvet Revolver and Orgy. they were fun too.

Also GOLDFINGER wasn't an industry formed band, he is a songwriter and he built a band around himself like ALL bands do.

from WIKI:
He has also done production work/songwriting for Good Charlotte, Mest, The Used, Story of the Year, Ashlee Simpson, Hilary Duff, The Matches, Atreyu, City Sleeps, Anthony Green, Lostprophets, Cute Is What We Aim For, Escape the Fate, No Motiv, Foxy Shazam, All Time Low, and Panic at the Disco.

 

[Diamond45]

here's one thing that jumped out at me: the record companies and MTV screwed up in 1991 when they switched their focus away from straight ahead melodic rock and towards alternative and grunge.

And American music has not been right since. I've said this before and I'll say it again - this so-called "modern/alternative" rock sucks. Never liked it never will. :zombie:

80's hair metal was running out of gas really fast (Winger was an example of how bad music had gotten by the end of the 80s... anyone ever hear their horrible cover of Radar Love?). Something had to come in. Kurt Nobrain, the nut of the Seattle band Nirvana came out with something that the record execs liked, marketed the living shit of it, made grunge famous, and drove Kurt to kill himself. Wish grunge had died with him..

In the last 20 years, there has NOT been anything coming to save the day. Rock music is dead. Metal is dead. Shitty pop bands like Nickelcrack think they're rock music.

The most popular music on the radio is not rock - it's rap crap and hip hop shit. Until rap goes down in popularity (highly doubtful), rock will always take a back seat. Metal will be deadder than a doornail in the US.

However, I'm so glad that grunge didn't make it's way to Germany, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Norway and Finland. Cuz they still make GREAT music up that way!

 

[Met-Al]

Before touching upon the main topic, I must correct Diamond45's post. White Lion covered "Radar Love," not Winger. That said, Winger is easily one of the best bands of that genre, especially when you consider what other bands were getting a good deal of attention at that time (Poison, Motley Crue, L.A. Guns, Faster Pussycat, Bulletboys, Bang Tango, etc.). Winger was able to mix some seriously understated musicianship with memorable hooks and catchy songwriting.

I don't think the music industry has known what to do with their artists for decades now. As long as things are run by men in suits who couldn't be further from reality, the world will be inundated with these ever-changing trends. That said, I have to disagree with Cheiron's post to a small degree. Though I do agree that it's the consumers who ultimately determine a musical artist's success, I couldn't tell you how many times I've gotten into a musical debate with someone from "the masses" only to hear them ask, "If the bands you like are so good, why haven't I heard them on the radio?" These people do have a choice as to what they want to hear. However, they choose to let mainstream media choose for them. It's a vicious cycle that leads to this ongoing debate within our small cultural circle. To side with Jasonic, I have to say that good music is just that, and such music will always exist as long as there are musicians and fans who actually care about the craft.


Stay metal. Never rust.
Albert

 

[nomisofsiman]

I don't think the music industry has known what to do with their artists for decades now. As long as things are run by men in suits who couldn't be further from reality, the world will be inundated with these ever-changing trends. That said, I have to disagree with Cheiron's post to a small degree. Though I do agree that it's the consumers who ultimately determine a musical artist's success, I couldn't tell you how many times I've gotten into a musical debate with someone from "the masses" only to hear them ask, "If the bands you like are so good, why haven't I heard them on the radio?" These people do have a choice as to what they want to hear. However, they choose to let mainstream media choose for them. It's a vicious cycle that leads to this ongoing debate within our small cultural circle. To side with Jasonic, I have to say that good music is just that, and such music will always exist as long as there are musicians and fans who actually care about the craft.


Stay metal. Never rust.
Albert

Amen to that.

 

[Magius]

It works both ways. The industry has a keen eye for trends and fads. Initially the industry notes what's becoming trendy, then they latch on to it and cram it down the mainstream public's collective throat.

 

[TwizstedJesus]

With all the accusations of people following trends, jumping from metal to grunge to alt etc...what makes you or I different? I've been a diehard metal fan since 1984, never following a trend or jumping ship. Out of the 9500 CD's I own, I guarantee that there is less than 500 cd's which are not hard rock/metal, and most of the non metal titles are blues. In the mid to late 90's I did alot of special ordering my cds from overseas and into the early 2000's I used magazines like BWBK to "discover" bands that were not prominent anywhere.


. There is always going to be a "Winger" or a "Poison"(both of who wrote damn good songs, BTW) whose image takes away from the music, but that doesn't mean that the scene had "run out of gas". There are countless bands who had one shot and done because of the new trends on the market. Bands like Roxy Blue, Tora Tora, Wildside and Collision were incredible talents that got caught at the end of the trend. Their discs still sold in the upper hundreds of thousands but they were unceremoniously dumped to make way for the grunge brigade.

The industry never had a chance with me. I've stayed true to what I like for all of these years. Metal didn't die in the early 90's because of a lack of talented artists, it died because it was abandoned by fair weather fans and poseurs

 

[grilled_cheese]

I don't think the music industry has known what to do with their artists for decades now.

Yeah...

Bon Jovi releasing a country album?

Not too long ago many of the country artists dissed hard rock, yet now those same artists are embracing bands like Skynyrd and Def Leppard (except for my man Travis Tritt who from the beginning said "put some drive in your fucking country!"

Country music as run its course as well, so here in a bit I guess we will find out what the labels will start pushing.

 

[TribunalRecords]

Kurt Nobrain, the nut of the Seattle band Nirvana came out with something that the record execs liked, marketed the living shit of it, made grunge famous, and drove Kurt to kill himself. Wish grunge had died with him..

for the record Nirvana are from Aberdeen, not Seattle. and the same could be said for any one of the "nutjobs" in metal and how some would like to see it's death with theirs.

1) Timo Tolkki
2) Dave Mustaine
etc, etc, etc

not sure why there is the hatred for grunge, but that era of music did have it's shining moments (i have dozens of albums that i still love because of it) it seems too many people only see the death of one genre leading to the rise of another and hating a whole genre because of it.

it's not the musicians fault for making music they loved and the record company thought they might be able to make something out of it and they were right.

the same thing can be said about any genre and if you haven't notice power metal is becoming that same boring, tired, stale, totally uninspired genre that labels keep trying to force down our throats.

whatever face you want to put on it music history is the same from generation to generation. one thing comes along to replace another. grunge was a great time for music whether you want to see it or not regardless of the fact that its rise lead to the death of hair metal. they were ROCK bands playing a form of ROCK music, the fact that is became popular was a bi-product.

MY TOP GRUNGE ALBUMS (no order):
1) Pearl Jam - Ten
2) Soundgarden - Badmotorfinger
3) Tad - Inhaler
4) Mother Love Bone - Apple
5) Mudhoney - Mudhoney
6) Sprinkler - Sprinkler
7) The Fluid - Purplemetalflakemusic
8) Alice In Chains - Dirt
9) Nirvana - Nevermind
10) Afghan Whigs - Gentlemen

 

[adaher]

Grunge didn't just lead to the death of hair metal. It led to the death of melodic hard rock and heavy metal in general, at least for a decade, and took hard rock from a widely popular and diverse fanbase to a niche market.

Today, in 2010, rock songs almost never get anywhere close to the top 10, whereas from the 70s to about 1993, hard rock regularly topped the charts. It's an incredible failure to market the music.

And it wasn't really too little, too late. In the middle of the grunge era, freakin' Meat Loaf managed to have one of the biggest albums of the year and a #1 hit. There was still demand for melodic rock. So what if the kids were only interested in alternative? SOMEONE was buying melodic rock CDs, and requesting them on MTV. The demand didn't dry up, the supply did.

So what ended up happening is that almost every melodic rock fan just went back to their old CD and tape collection and gave up on new music. I'm sure most of you have dealt with this before, a metalhead who listens to Iron Maiden and Motorhead and Metallica, but as hard as you try, you can barely convince him to try listening to something new, because he gave up on new music 20 years ago!

 

[Diabolik]

Grunge didn't just lead to the death of hair metal. It led to the death of melodic hard rock and heavy metal in general, at least for a decade, and took hard rock from a widely popular and diverse fanbase to a niche market.

Today, in 2010, rock songs almost never get anywhere close to the top 10, whereas from the 70s to about 1993, hard rock regularly topped the charts. It's an incredible failure to market the music.

And it wasn't really too little, too late. In the middle of the grunge era, freakin' Meat Loaf managed to have one of the biggest albums of the year and a #1 hit. There was still demand for melodic rock. So what if the kids were only interested in alternative? SOMEONE was buying melodic rock CDs, and requesting them on MTV. The demand didn't dry up, the supply did.

So what ended up happening is that almost every melodic rock fan just went back to their old CD and tape collection and gave up on new music. I'm sure most of you have dealt with this before, a metalhead who listens to Iron Maiden and Motorhead and Metallica, but as hard as you try, you can barely convince him to try listening to something new, because he gave up on new music 20 years ago!

very very true. I know lots of older metal heads who were fans of Kreator and Destruction and have no interest in getting any of thier new stuff or seeing them live but they still love the band. Some people are stuck in a certain era and after that music was dead for them.

 

[Corsair]

2) Soundgarden - Badmotorfinger

Fuckin' right.



... I will just never understand the hair metal love, period. I don't get why anyone complains about it losing airplay, it was generally pretty asinine, debased and a lot of 80's Hard Rock is laughably bad, perhaps even awful. But maybe I'm just too young to 'get' it? That being said, all of the music in my library between the years of 1980 and 1985 take up roughly 3 days worth of playing time, with much of that being occupied by Judas Priest, Motorhead, and Tom Waits.

WE have to keep in mind that one of the (if not THE) best selling albums of all time is an Eagles compilation. So maybe we shouldn't be too angry about the music we like not getting airplay or being popular; I've never heard of a band getting -better- as they become more popular/get more airplay.

And I really fucking hate the eagles.

 

[nomisofsiman]

not sure why there is the hatred for grunge, but that era of music did have it's shining moments (i have dozens of albums that i still love because of it) it seems too many people only see the death of one genre leading to the rise of another and hating a whole genre because of it.

it's not the musicians fault for making music they loved and the record company thought they might be able to make something out of it and they were right.

Exactly what I've been saying through the years. People seem to blame what's ever popular for the demise of their beloved genre. You CAN'T blame the bands. You can blame the fans, the record labels and you can even blame MTV even, but for crying out loud grunge did not kill metal. Sorry, this thread is really starting to get to me, and I'm sick of people making grunge to be the scapegoat when there were many other factors that contributed to metal's downfall moreso than bands that were creating something new and fresh at the time.