Talk:Grunge music/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Lyrical content 2 "independent-rooted" 3 grunge as a fashion 4 Redd Kross 5 Non-trivial Edits 6 Grunge Backlash 7 Blues as a stylistic influence 8 clumsy sentence 9 m dashes 10 Fad category 11 Important read for “Grunge” Fashion 12 A Couple of Points 13 Nu-metal? 14 New bands on the list 15 Heavy metal and garage rock 16 Footnote #5 17 Thrash Metal backlash 18 Grunge Is Dead? Where Did It Go? 19 Grunge's relation to hardcore 20 Leyasu, stop it 21 Civility 22 Revert war 23 Protection 24 Current evidence 24.1 LGagnon 24.2 Leyasu & WesleyDodds 24.3 Current proposed resolution 25 Request for summary

Lyrical content

I was thinking of adding something about the lyrical content, but thought it would be better to run it by youse for comment. I'm not really sure how to encapsulate some of this stuff -

• Surreal/stream of consciousness lyrics are common.
• Songs about sex and love do occur, but often in a more offbeat way than cockrock or pop music.
• Themes often try to be unusual.
• Drugs are occasionally mentioned.
• Political content does occur, but is often incidental/not so overt.
• Songs about fantasy/science fiction are avoided like the plague.
• Melancholy themes are often chosen, as are mental states.

What could be added/taken away do you think? --MacRusgail 14:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Those sound like good ideas and I wouldn't mind more info on what the songs are like, but you'll need to be more detailed than what you mentioned. For instance, specific examples of songs would help to point out exactly what you mean by each of those points. Run some by me and I'll let you know what I think. -- LGagnon 17:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to look up a few of the lyrics... examples off hand, from individual bands:

1) stream of consciousness - lots of this in Nirvana's music, probably another influence from the Pixies, e.g. "the water is so yellow, I'm a healthy student", and Something in the Way is a good example of this, 2) drugs galore in Alice in Chains' music, 3) melancholy e.g. "The Day I tried to live" by Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains again, 4) fantasy/SF - I can't think of any grunge examples - maybe there is one, but they were two a penny in trad. metal. 5) political themes, very hard to pin down but I suppose this is of passing interest [1] - except not completely relevant. Pearl Jam's Bushleaguer counts maybe. --MacRusgail 14:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, again, grunge or post-grunge depending on how you view them, but Foo Fighters are heavy into Science Fiction, which the album art for their first two albums reflect. The song "Floaty" was supposed to be about aliens coming down to earth. Again, I want to throw in here, three LA bands, Tool, Rage Against the Machine and L7 had very political lyrics in the grunge era (RATM through out), but for Tool, Hush and Opiate in particular. L7 (who was on the Sub Pop label), thier biggest song was "Pretend that We're Dead", which was very political, and also "American Society" and "Wargasm" are very overt. Nirvana had one overtly politcal song "Downer", but songs like "Smells Like teen Spirit", for example, were about a youth revolution (and I do mean an actual violent revolution, not figurative as many have claimed). The oringal idea of the Teen Spirit video were going to include more violent imagery witht he janitor being a militant handing out rifles to the kids. Soundgarden's "Rusty Cage" was a political song but more subtle, and "Fourth of July" could be seen as social comentary on America, although with very poetic and metaphorical lyrics. Pearl Jam's "Why Go" and Nirvana's "Been a Son" were very feminist in nature. Cobain and Vedder were very out spoken on various issues, particualrly feminism and being pro-choice. Cobain was also against homophobia as shown in the liner notes in Incesticide's original release. The Nirvana video "In Bloom" the band dressed in drag and Krist and Kurt kissed on SNL reportedly to "piss homophobes off". Pearl Jam also did fund raising for Nader and later Kerry. Lastly, Temple of the Dog's (members of Pearl Jam and Soundgarden) song "Hunger Strike" is overtly political. Alice in Chian's "Man in the Box", uses the metaphor of veal, and how they are kept in a cage in which they can't move or stand and only know what they are fed from the outside world, as a discribtion of our place in society. The video takes place in a farm and has a mushroom cloud going off at the solo. Off course, I regard Rage's first album as grunge, maybe even the second, and every song is political.

What is also interesting is lyrics which take the point of view of disturbed individuals. Nirvana's "Polly" takes the point of view of a kidnapper and rapist. Thier song "Lithium" takes the point of view of a person going crazy and "Mr. Moustache" takes the position of a redneck bigot. Tool's "Prison Sex" takes the point of view of a child molester.

Also, lyrics are about disturbing subjects, like Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" which is about a neglected youth who shoots himself in front of his classmates. Nirvana's "Floyd the Barber" is about a town of murderers and rapists.

What might also been seen as political is the anti-organized religion stance by many bands of the era. Alice in Chains' "Get Born Again", Tool's "Opiate", Temple of the Dog's "Your Savior", Soundgarden's "Jesus Christ Pose", all attack religion. And Nirvana's song "Stay Away" nade the very interesting theological position that "God is gay".--128.59.143.41 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There's potential here, but to keep it NPOV we'd really have to find critics, etc., who talk about this. That said, we might want to contrast (for example) the Screaming Trees' evocative lyrics to Pearl Jam's much more narrative lyrics. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. We should make sure we have some sources that can back this up. -- LGagnon 18:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pearl Jam's lyrics tend to be more narrative (not a band I'm much into, so I don't listen to them much! But those who are more familiar with them can help), but their most famous song Jeremy deals with a perhaps "unusual" theme (not weird, but unusual) for rock music perhaps - or at least deals with an everyday situation in an unusual way, that mainstream heavy metal bands wouldn't. I've been chewing this whole thing over, and there certainly are common threads, although it's very hard to pin them down. Grunge isn't ponderous like prog rock, but it does try to put some thought into its lyrics I reckon. --MacRusgail 14:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This is all very tricky, though. On the whole, grunge was a music of disaffected youth, although its appeal went beyond that. Andrew Wood, Kurt Cobain, and Layne Staley were literally self-destructive; Mark Lanegan, when young, was probably almost equally so but happens to have survived. They all were the main lyricists of their respective bands. Many of their bandmates were a lot better balanced people. As for politics: Mark Arm of Mudhoney, very political. Krist Novaselic: probably not all that political in his Nirvana days, but certainly so now (he has seriously considered running for public office). Pearl Jam (the lot of them), too.

It would seem to me, though, that the themes most running through grunge lyrics are alienation, suffering, and resistance/survival and/or anger/vengeance. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is good stuff, JM. Although it is wrong to stereotype Grunge lyrics in any way, I think that there are certain recurring common themes. I would like to condense our ideas into something we can put in the article itself. All the best --MacRusgail 15:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"independent-rooted"

"independent-rooted music genre" - what an odd phrase. What does it mean?

The genre became popular in the mainstream, but its roots were in the indie rock scene. -- LGagnon 00:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's a very awkward phrase. Is that how genres with roots in indie rock are described among enthusiasts? Might a better, more "encyclopedic" phrase be used?→Encephalon | T | C 11:49:52, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

• Perhaps a phrase such as "music that reflected punk rocks "do it yourself" (DIY) ethos..." would have been more lyrical prose. Hamster Sandwich 23:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like a "genre rooted in the Indy scene" - Indy makes some sense. --MacRusgail 16:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Label of “Grunge”

I played the Seattle original scene from 1990 to 2001. I can tell you for fact that “Grunge” WAS NOT A TERM SEATTLE BANDS LABLED THEMSELVES. In fact the more Seattle’s music was labeled “Grunge” the more bands ditch the heavy black work boots and flannel shirts and changed their music style. Read interviews and articles of most Seattle bands, get some old issues of the “Rocket” (Seattles music scene magazine back then) and you will understand that the Grunge label was put there by the commercial music industry. It was a label that most Seattle bands at the time despised…

Of course, every week we would see bands coming from all over the country trying to be in the middle of the “Music Hot Spot” of the time… Record companies were passing out contracts like it was going out of style…

The local bands changed almost immediately after this… More aggressive music became the norm in Seattle… (Some would call it “Angry”)

Just my insight of the Seattle “Grunge” scene —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grilledcheezy (talk • contribs) 17 Oct 2005.

• "despised": Except, of course, Jack Endino. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

grunge as a fashion

I'm surprised to see that there is no mention of the controversy surrounding this perported music genre. Many people, including those in bands commonly considered "grunge", denied that the genre existed at all. (Now yr gonna make me remember who said it. huh?) It was never entirely clear what, apart from playing rock music in Seattle, qualified a band for the moniker. In fashion however, the style was clearly defined (think homeless lumberjack). In terms of music, when reviewers saw a flannel shirt, they called it grunge. This was never more obvious then when I first saw the Jeff Buckley video, in which he wore a flannel shirt and crooned in a high falsetto. Mtv was branding him a new grunge artist. I think it has far more to do with clothing than music. I'm not saying the article is pointless, but I feel it's a perspective worth addressing. Sadangel 15:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because there are fakes doesn't mean the genre doesn't exist. We already took that into consideration when we separated post-grunge from this article to show the difference between it and grunge. And whether or not some musician said the genre doesn't exist (and yes, if you want to mention it in the article, you do need to know who said it) doesn't change the fact that it is well established as existing. As for fashion, we have already explained in the article that it was nothing more than a superficial detail of how Seattlites just happened to dress. -- LGagnon 16:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It was commonality of sound; plus who were their fans; plus many having played in bands together (e.g. Green River as progenitor to both Pearl Jam and Mudhoney), been fans of the same bands (especially of The Melvins), released on the same independent labels, even rehearsed in the same studio spaces. There was plenty else going on musically in Seattle at the time that no one anywhere mistook for grunge (Sky Cries Mary, Sir Mix-a-lot, The Posies, and the Presidents of the United States of America, to name some obvious examples) and plenty even that came out of the punk scene that no one locally mistook for grunge (The Fastbacks, 7 Year Bitch, The Gits who ought to have an article but I see that all we have is Mia Zapata). -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on that last comment. The Gits deserve their own article. -- LGagnon 23:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the clothing side of it can be denied. Bear in mind that punk fashion evolved unconsciously too, and that rockers gained their leathers through their enthusiasm for motorbikes, not consciously. --MacRusgail 18:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Redd Kross

This band should be incorporated.

They are punk, not grunge. -- LGagnon 18:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the ambiguity I referred to in my previous post. What makes Readd Kross any less grunge than Nirvana? Where is the line between Punk and Grunge? Redd Kross was even part of the same scene. They just came a few years earlier. If the only distinctions are location and timeframe, I hardly think it an adequate basis on which to distinguish a genre of music. Frankly, I don't care enough to pursue the matter further. I think it would be worthwhile to present an alternate viewpoint about the term, but I'm not going to war over it. Sadangel 21:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Same scene? California's scene is a bit far from Seattle (2 states over, but not close enough). They are generally not considered grunge, and you'd be hard pressed to find a source that calls them that, so they are not included. -- LGagnon 22:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Non-trivial Edits

Hi there. First, congrats to all contributors who shepherded this article to FA status (from the Talk page it looks like LGagnon in particular has done a lot of work here - kudos). It's richly deserved. I've just edited the article quite significantly. No factual changes, just copy-editing to tighten up the prose. I did quite a bit; I mean no disrespect to the editors of this article, I just thought I'd add a contribution. Feel free to critique. Much thanks. →Encephalon | T | C 17:15:19, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

Some of your edits were good, but unfortunately you changed some things significantly; for instance, the first citation makes no sense now because you deleted the line it referred to. I'm going to go through the article and change back a few things you altered too much. -- LGagnon 18:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- LGagnon 18:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Redd Kross is frequently mentioned as a significant influence to the grunge scene.

Prove it. Give me some references. -- LGagnon 23:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's good. My problem was with the fact that someone wanted to "incorporate them" (whatever that meant) without explaining why we should add them. I just wanted to make sure they would be listed as an influence, not a grunge band (as too many bands have been wrongly given that title). -- LGagnon 13:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: Allmusic, Interview and Redd Kross

• there are a lot of POV phrases in the article, ie. "Hüsker Dü are also believed by some to have been an influence" and "(Melvins are) considered grunge bands by some fans of the genre, although others classify them as hardcore punk bands." Are the those the only two choices I get for the Melvins? I wonder what they would think? Next time I see them I'll ask. Nice article, by the way. I appreciated the work you put into it. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 23:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

That isn't POV. The Melvins are considered to be either grunge or hardcore punk by just about everyone; we aren't going to throw in, for instance, disco just because someone thinks they should count as it. It's not POV, it's just the general consensus; if you could find citable proof to the contrary then you might have a point. -- LGagnon 23:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Its just me, LGagnon. The Melvins have done so much music of different styles, its hard for me to pigeonhole them to a particular "style". I reserve the term "experimental". Thats exactly why they are influential. If they were doing the same stuff as everyone else, they wouldn't influence anybody. I'll admit they are my favorite band, so therefore, my own opinion is going to be extreme. Sorry for being so strident! :P see ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 00:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

In a perfect world, all bands would play in a single genre. But they don't. That includes Grunge. I think one or two of Eels' songs are very close to grunge, but not their entire output.--MacRusgail 16:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather call the Melvins sludge or stoner rock than grunge or hard core, not that i really care i like both stoner and grunge johan2501 13:56, 27 August 2005

Grunge Backlash

There's no mention of the backlash that grunge got, from proper Heavy Metal fans in the 90s, who thought it was ruining rock and roll. There was definatly a scene around, of bands that continued to play heavy metal music, who had hard core followings. Perhaps someone could find some reference to this, and add it.

Um... I think this is worth mentioning, but I would say that Grunge is a form of HM. I'd refer to trad. HM. Not just HM of course though but Punk. There was a punk backlash too. --MacRusgail 21:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Grunge grew out of the punk scene and has much stronger roots in punk than in metal. It did incorporate metal elements, but that does not make it metal per say. As for the backlash, show some sources and we'll be able to consider it for inclusion. -- LGagnon 00:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think the punk backlash & revival should be mentioned too. Grunge was accused of selling out by them. Some influences on Grunge e.g. Led Zeppelin in the case of Nirvana, would have been more or less unacceptable to the first wave of punk. The very common long hair I suppose might come out of metal too. I consider Grunge to be a kind of crossover genre, like Rock n Roll originally was, and which ended up alienated both of its prime origins a little bit. --MacRusgail 01:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole Neo-punk scene with bands like Pennywise, the Offspring, Rancid and so on, were all a big middle finger to grunge. Although, while some of those bands were kinda cool, they all were heavily imitating Bad relgion, which was kinda redundant, since Bad Religion puts out the same album every couple of years...

LGagnon: Re: punk v. metal, I mostly agree, except for Alice In Chains, whose background was mostly metal. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Blues as a stylistic influence

I think RnB, the old style, not the Destiny's Child type, is one of the most neglected areas of influence on Grunge. I'm not sure if all bands were influenced by it, but certainly I often thought the singing on Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots' records was sometimes noticeably blues influenced. Nirvana was less obviously influenced, but then again they covered a lot of Leadbelly's songs, notably "Where did you sleep last night?" --MacRusgail 09:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, though I suspect they first got the song from Mark Lanegan (of the Screaming Trees), not directly from Leadbelly. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• • Possibly, although I don't doubt they probably tracked down the original. Nirvana covered at least four Leadbelly songs. Mudhoney's My Brother the Cow also contains a couple of obviously blues influenced songs, including one with blues in the title.--MacRusgail 16:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'll have to agree, the frequent use of power chords in grunge music shows that all to well, as power chords originated in blues. --User:Kerrysfrench

clumsy sentence

LGagnon has reverted my change:

'due to the fact that its popularization was in tandem with the rise of the generation's name.'

back to the ungrammatical and clumsy:

'due to its popularization being in tandem with the popularizing of the generation's name.'

If my edit produced the wrong meaning, will someone have another go at rewording this, please?

Tony 00:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, "due to the fact" is too long; it's much more concise the way I originally put it. Secondly, what is the "rise" of a name? That's way too ambiguous to be useful. -- LGagnon 01:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have reworded it to be something in between our two edits. It seems to sound better than either of the previous phrasings in my opinion. -- LGagnon 01:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Much better now. Tony 13:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

m dashes

I see that they're now surrounded by spaces; most major US and UK style manuals now recommend no spaces. It would be easier for non-specialist editors if a single character were used, rather than the html code. Tony 01:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, if we put the m-dash character in directly, editing in certain browsers clobbers it. But they shouldn't have spaces around them, according to the MoS. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the browser problem had been solved. I see m dash characters used widely in Wikipedia. Tony 00:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Fad category

Is it fair to call grunge a fad? I think we should have discussed this first before adding that category. After all, grunge still has popularity to this day. Nirvana's box set didn't sell well on a wave of nostalgia alone, after all. I'm reverting the article for now; we can add the category back if there's a good argument for it given. -- LGagnon 19:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to me like a useful category, but seems particularly inappropriate to this article, unless it is going to be applied to virtually every type of music that has seen commercial success without becoming a major lasting genre. And grunge has been pretty close to a lasting genre. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Important read for “Grunge” Fashion

Before the “Grunge” craze most musicians, like everywhere, were poor. Weather and local occupation like logging made thick flannel shirts and heavy black boot common, rugged and cheap… Second hand stores were filled with these types of clothing and it was practical for the weather in Seattle… During the grunge craze the second-hand stores couldn’t keep em in stock and national cloths outlets would sell pre-worn flannels for big dollars… At this time most Seattle bands decide to rebel against this obvious mass marketing of the “grunge” look and decided get rid of the work boots and flannels in Seattle… —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grilledcheezy (talk • contribs) 17 Oct 2005.

Pretty much what we already say: "The "fashion" did not evolve out of a conscious attempt to create an appealing fashion, but due to the inexpensiveness of such clothes and the warmth that they provided for the cold climate of the region. The media, rather than focusing on the music, would give this fashion a heavy amount of exposure. In the early 1990s, the fashion industry marketed "grunge fashion" to a widespread audience, charging relatively high prices for clothing that they assumed to be popular in the grunge scene." -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a parrel to punk rock can be drawn here how the original punk bands worn torn clothing and saftey pins because of poverty and not for intended fashion. Then people like Malcolm McLaren used this look to sell clothes. In fact there are many parreles of the rise of a band like the Sex Pistols in the UK and Nirvana in the US. Totally accidental in nature and helped dethorne corporate and indulgent rock, in one case the hieght of the prog rock era coinsiding with arena rock and bands like Boston, Chicago, Fletwood Mac, the Eagles, rod stewrt, etc, and on the other hand hair metal.--SonOfUncleSam 08:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A Couple of Points

Well it's definately true that punk had a huge influence on "Grunge" music. Important bands named were Hüsker Dü, Black Flag, the Melvins and the Pixies. But why is there absolutely no mention of Bad Brains? I don't know if you guys rembere the 1980s hardcore punk scene but they were huge! And this combining of metal and punk styles were definately on Bad Brain's albums, particularly on 1986's "I Against I" and 1989's "Quickness". I mean you listen to these ablums today and they are (just like the Pixies are) ahead of their time and very much are representative of what would become the 90s sound. Hell they even wore flannel on the cover! :P

While we are at it, if we are going to include bands like Stone Temple Pilots as Grunge, despite the fact they aren't from Seattle, then let's not forget band like Tool and Rage Against the Machine. Granted they never used the term grunge for themselves, but did STP? I mean listen to "Opiate" and "Rage Against the Machine" side by side to "Ten" and "BadMotorFinger". Now, I won't claim that their subsequent albums were so "grungey", but I think these albums need mention.

Lastly, may I submit the idea that terms like "grunge" and "punk" are not styles as much as scenes. To me while sharing a similar essetic, values, influences and sounds, often bands in the same scene don't sound that much alike. I meansome sound closer than others, but if you take polar opposites then it's stretching it. To me Pearl Jam and Nirvana sound nothing alike (being on opposite ends). Or if we were talking about Punk, the Ramones sound nothing like the Sex Pistols who in turn sound very little like the Clash. So I think the article should mention that "grunge" is a time and place of a scene, and bands today can't be grunge anymore. To me, grunge was a west coast thing of the early to mid 1990s, just as punk was a thing of the US and UK in the late 1970s. Both are dead. A bands like Black Flag and Dead Kennedies and Bad Brians were Hardcore bands, not punk bands and thus a successor to punk. Grunge was in many ways a successor to hardcore, and alternative a successor to New Wave bands like Gang of Four and U2. But anyone trying to play "punk" or "grunge" music today are nothing but Retro bands and are imitators, not successors.

Perhaps someone more articulate than me can say this in the article. --SonOfUncleSam 08:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad Brains probably deserve mention; Tool, I can go either way; Rage Against the Machine probably deserve mention as long as we make it clear that they eventually headed elsewhere. I assume "essetic" above means "aesthetic". Yes, I agree that Pearl Jam and Nirvana are pretty far apart on the Grunge spectrum, and I agree that Pearl Jam represent one extreme, while counting Mudhoney as being even farther in the other direction than Nirvana. Anyone want to take this on?

(I'm not going to get into whether it is possible to be "punk" or "grunge" outside of the core era of each. But I smile when I see someone born circa 1987 wearing a spiked mohawk.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm a big person in the punk ethos and DIY attitude. But I wish more people like, oh let's say Nirvana for example, would realize they can be part of the greater punk movement (the movement is different than the music scene) with out mohawks. I tell these people, your music is not a fashion acessory.--128.59.143.41 05:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad Brains is punk, Tool is sorta metal, and RATM is more like nu-metal. I wouldn't categorize any of those three as grunge. As for STP, they weren't grunge per say, but they were marketed as grunge and often mistaken for it, so they deserve some mention in this article. The same can't be said for the other three bands. -- LGagnon 20:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying Bad Brains is necessarily grunge, but proto-grunge. Not under Grunge bands, but Grunge influences. Since Niel Young and Black Flag are mentioned, I think Bad Brains definately should be. I mean what Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Nirvana were to the grunge scene, Minor Threat, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys and Bad Brains were to the hardcore scene. And Hardcore was big influence to grunge. The quote about Black Flag is good, but I remember Krist Novoselic of Nirvana said he played "In Bloom" like a Bad Brains song, and Dave Grohl called them the "best live band ever". Zack from Rage Against the Machine had alot to say about them too. I wouldn't call RATM Nu-Anything. All this "Nu" stuff started post-1997. To me Rage's self-titled album sounds like a Soundgarden album with rap over it in many respects. Hence why many of the harder Audioslave songs sound just as much like a RATM song as they do a Soundgarden song. It's basically the Black Sabbath influence.

I've heard alot of people call Tool a metal band, and I scratch my head. To me Tool is no more a metal band than Jane's Addiction is. In both cases I could see how you might say that, but it still doesn't fit. Again I will point out that RATM (1992) and Opiate seem like grunge to me. Now something like Lateralis or Aenema and Battle of LA, definately not. But if you don't hear what I'm saying on songs like "Hush" or "Killing in the Name", then there really isn't much more I can say.

Again listen to Bad Brains's title tracks for "Quickness" or "I Against I" they sound more grunge to me than Black Flag's "My War". Personally I think that music journalism is afraid to point out Brains's influence on Grunge because of racism. But I don't feel it necessary to debate that, that's just and aside.--128.59.143.41 21:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, another addition... STP makes the grunge list but not Smashing Pumpkins? I think the Pumpkins case for grunge may even be stronger in some ways than the two LA bands Tool and RATM. And while I'm racking my brain for other potential grunge bands not from the Pacific Northwest, what about Live? "Mental Jewelry"'s song "Operation: Spirit" in particular was a college radio song. Admitadly a weaker case than the previous three, but just for consideration. Basically any group you can think of with that sound who had a album 1992 or prior with that sound I think should be a canidate to be discussed here. Though I think I got all the big ones that might have not been in this article.--128.59.143.41 04:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and ANOTHER thing: what is Moist doing on the grunge bands list? If you include a post-1992 band, from Canada no less, you are opening the flood gates to bands like Cranberries to Sponge and everyone in between. I think bands in that list needed to have album out by 1992 or before. Otherwise they came after grunge broke, not before.--128.59.143.41 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can still debate this, but I'm going to make some of the changes I was talking about.--128.59.143.41 05:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I might have f*ed this page up a little bit because I'm not sure how to footnote, since I'm new to wikipedia. But here is a link for the Grohl quote. http://www.fooarchive.com/gpb/rebeljuke.htm

Krist Novoselci's comments are here: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6596252/nirvana?pageid=rs.ArtistArticles&pageregion=mainRegion&rnd=1130479027937&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212

The Cornell referrences is based on his comments aired on the VH1 documentary on Grunge. --128.59.143.41 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I added your RS reference, but I didn't add the other one; it's a fan page, so its legitimacy is questionable. I'm leaving the quote in there for now, but I expect you to find out where this guy got the quote so it can be cited.

I also removed much of what you added. For one, you seriously lack sources, and you shouldn't add quotes without a source. Second of all, you took the "controversy" here and used it as part of the article. That's a bad move, because you still haven't proved that there is any controversy outside of this talk page (which is not usable as a source). -- LGagnon 01:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the fan page mentions that the article is from "REBELLIOUS JUKEBOX, Melody Maker 97). I could be mistaken but I believe Melody Maker is fairly famous magazine from the UK. There was a comment about Husker Du being an influence on Grunge that I added the part about Chris Cornell saying it. But the original comment was not written by me. Maybe you want to put the Husker Du part back. I'll keep looking for sources. Again, I don't know how to properly source the VH1 documentray on grunge, but if you have a large email account, like Gmail, then I could actually send you the documentary and you could get the quotes from there.--128.59.143.41 14:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I got a good quote about "in Bloom" again, this time from Grohl, "When I first heard it, it reminded me of the Bad Brains in a weird way. It reminded of “Re-Ignition.” I remember thinking, “This song is weird. I don’t think anyone is gonna like it."

http://harpmagazine.com/articles/detail.cfm?article_id=3397

Here is yet another article where grohl mentions his Bad Brains influence.http://www.wholenote.com/default.asp?iTarget=http%3A//www.wholenote.com/news/item.asp%3Fi%3D591 The Bad Brains page here on wiki, metions the Grohl quote about them being the best live band. I wonder where they got it.--128.59.143.41 15:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nu-metal?

Nu-metal is an offspring of grunge? Hardly. It's metal; it doesn't even sound like a decendent of punk like grunge is. It may rip off a few elements of grunge, but I'd hardly consider it a true decendent of it.

On another note, it would be nice if people discussed major changes to the article before messing around with it. It's a featured article, and that should give reason not to mess around with it carelessly. -- LGagnon 00:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to point something out. Featured does not = Correct. Leyasu 12:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But it does mean that it is quite close to it, and that should be taken into consideration so that random edits do not destroy the featured-level quality of it. -- LGagnon 13:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agrred, but i thought that i would clear up something that seemed an obvious flaw in the logic of the spokesperson. Leyasu 13:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

New bands on the list

It's unfortunate that nobody discusses adding new bands beforehand. Again, we have bands being added to the Prominent bands list without discussion, despite their controversiality. The new ones added seem to be pre-grunge punk bands, not grunge themselves. Anyone have a different opinion? -- LGagnon 05:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Not absolutely sure which you are referring to, but I removed Dead Moon, who are simply not grunge. On the Mono Men (pretty sure that's how they spelled it, not Monomen as it was added) and U-Men, I could go either way. Certainly in terms of the breakout of grunge as a popular genre, they are pre-grunge; I'm also not sure either qualifies as "prominent". On the other hand, if they had been still around and playing when grunge broke out, everyone would count them as part of the genre. I think we should probably drop them from the list as non-prominent. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Heavy metal and garage rock

Could the person who added these to the article please explain the change made? How is heavy metal and garage more accurate, as you claim? And can you back your argument up with sources? -- LGagnon 04:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn’t make the change but I agree with whoever did. I would say listen to Soundgarden or Alice in Chains to hear the influence heavy metal had on grunge. This would be more a 1970s style heavy metal ala Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath rather than 1980s “hair” metal bands.

As far as garage rock goes I can listen to Mudhoney and hear that. But since punk has it’s origins in garage rock (and some could argue that they were really basically the same thing with different names) how could the listing of garage rock as an influence on grunge not be appropriate? Buster 22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The truth isn't determined by opinions. I want to see some sources. If the person who added it isn't going to rely, I'm chaning it back. -- LGagnon 23:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who did it. Firstly, I have never heard thrash metal specifically referenced as an influence on grunge; rather, it is always heavy metal as a whole. Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, and KISS are among the many heavy metal bands that have influenced Nirvana, pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and others by their own admission. Conversely, the likes of Metallica, Megadeth, and and Anthrax really have nothing to do with grunge musically or culturally.

As for garage rock, one needs look no farther than "Our Band Could Be Yuour Life" to read mention of Mudhoney's constant debt to the genre. The Sonics, Wipers, Alice Cooper, and especially the Stooges (which at times are also considered punk or proto-punk) are seminal influences on grunge bands.

I'm not stridently pushing that garage rock needs to be listed as an influence; rather, it's inclusion might give people a better frame of reference as to what inspired the musicians. My main quibble is the listing of "thrash metal", which completely boggles the mind. WesleyDodds 03:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Garage rock may have inspired Mudhoney, but I've not heard other bands call it an influence. That's a specific influence for a specific band, not for the whole genre.

As for thrash metal, many grunge bands claimed they were parodying it in their acts (Hype! mentions this). If you could provide a specific reference mentioning heavy metal, then it'd work for the article. -- LGagnon 04:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Allmusic's genre description for grunge flat-out states "Using the sludgy, murky sound of the Stooges and Black Sabbath as a foundation, Grunge was a hybrid of heavy metal and punk" in the first paragraph, a description which is linked to on the entry page. Grunge bands have referenced Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and other heavy metal bands as influences on countless occasions; Nirvana even has a song called "Aero Zeppelin". There's a paragraph in Michael Azerrad's "Come As You Are" on pg. 87 devoted to outlining the legitimization of hard rock/heavy metal bands in the underground scene around the time Nirvana released their first single. And certainly Sub Pop played up the heavy metat (NOT thrash metal) influence in press releases that touted "ULTRA HEAVY ZEP RIP-OFF". While grunge bands say they were parodying thrash in Hype!, it never served as a direct influence. It's always Zeppelin, Sabbath, Aerosmith, and the like, NOT thrash. WesleyDodds 06:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, it's more accurate to state in the opening paragraph that grunge is a genre of alternative rock rather than indie rock, since indie rock is considered a form of alternative rock. This is reflected in the article and templates for alternative rock, so it would be nice to be consistent with the other Wiki articles. WesleyDodds 03:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice in Chains certainly came out of a metal background, though I can't think of another grunge band that did. I'm sure they'd all listened to it, but it's a very different aesthetic: grunge inherited punk's opposition to guitar solos and virtuosic excess. Many of the grunge rockers were/are great musicians, but grunge always subordinated everyone (except the vocalist) to a group sound. As for garage rock, certainly an influence on Mudhoney, also The U-Men (but they were minor players), and arguably (via glam rock) Malfunkshun→Mother Love Bone→Pearl Jam. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

LGagnon wanted source cites for the Heavy Metal and Garage Rock but didn't address WesleyDodds questions about the validity of Thrash Metal as an influence. I was told by LGagnon that "The truth isn't determined by opinions." In the murky world of rock music stylistic influences it partly is. The best sources you are going to get to determined a stylistic influence will be from the artists who are or were part of the genre. A rock music critic as a source will be just giving his "opinion" as to what the influences are. An educated opinion? As educated as any other obsessive follower, lover of "rock" music (include all genres please...) which I assume is most anyone here who feels strongly enough to contribute to the article or the discussion. Now getting back to Thrash Metal as influence. I don't hear it in grunge... anywhere. And grunge music is not mentioned anywhere in the wiki Thrash Metal article. Buster 16:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I should also mention that LGagnon took out the point I added that Chris Cornel cited Husker Du as an influence, and I mentioned it was on the VH1 documentary on grunge, but then he uses Hype as his source for thrash metal? Why would that part remain in the article and mine not?--SonOfUncleSam 09:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Because I cited my source and you merely mentioned yours. Wikipedia editors (all of them) need to learn citations matter a lot, and anything you add without one can be disputed. As long as we continue to allow edits without cited sources, we're always going to have problems like this. -- LGagnon 19:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, you didn't actually cite your source for thrash metal as an influence until this discussion started, and even then the reference is not mentioned in the article. So that's why I found it so curious that it was listed; I figured it must have been a mistake since basically any book or magazine article I pick up on grunge references 70's metal and never says a peep about thrash. What I find important is that the article discuss some sort of metal influence, period, since we have a metal influence listed and yet there's nothing about in the body of the text when discussing grunge's influences WesleyDodds 04:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So do we all agree to change thrash metal to heavy metal in the article? WesleyDodds 01:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Footnote #5

A slightly off topic question to LGagnon. For footnote five, you mention most grunge bands outside the Pacific Northwest are posers. How about give example of ones that aren't. L 7 was from LA and on Sub Pop. They are a good canidate I think.--128.59.143.41 19:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

L7 had a rather grungy sound to them. They are often considered riot grrl, but they fit well into the grunge genre as well. And like I said, most bands from outside the scene were post-grunge. -- LGagnon 02:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thrash Metal backlash

Saying that Thrash Metal was mentioned as influencing Grunge music in the movie Hype! isn't good enough to use under "origins" or in the body of the article as "inspired by". Who said it? In what context and what was exactly said? What was the exact line? I am considering replacing it with Heavy Metal as an influence. Heavy metal seems to be generally agreed upon as an influence by participants in the discussion area and WesleyDodds has come up with a cite for it.

hey, most bands in the Grunge scence were heavily influenced by Classic Rock, I would like to see something in the artcicle about that

Could you cite a source for that, or at least not throw it in there without discussing it first? -- LGagnon 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the thing about Classic Rock is that it really isn't a genre. It's more a classification for all major rock bands from a certain era that have been accepted in the "canon" of the form, so to speak. Anyways, the Classic Rock bands that are the primary influences for grunge bands (Zeppelin, Sabbath, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, etc.) are already covered under the heavy metal classification. WesleyDodds 02:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyways, the Classic Rock bands that are the primary influences for grunge bands (Zeppelin, Sabbath, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, etc.) are already covered under the heavy metal classification. Question time, why if the bands are Classic Rock, on earth are they on a bloody metal genres article? And if its not a genre, why on earth is Classic Metal listed as a genre? Leyasu 03:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, my arguments are coming together. Like I have stated in the template talk for Heavy Metal, I do not consider metal a completely different form of music from rock music; it is a rock genre, just like punk, alternative, prog, psych, etc. are. And Classic Metal (from reading the article) seems as arbitrary an application as Classic Rock Which is not to say they are completely useless, just that they refer to loose categorizations created years after the fact. What makes those bands more classic than the 70's wave of Zeppelin, Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc.? But I don't want to get side-tracked on other arguments. My statement here is that classic rock cane surely be listed in the template for this page, but I don't think it's necessary. WesleyDodds 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What you consider is not fact. Fact is, its not a form of Rock music. That would be the same as saying Symphonic Metal/Neo-Classical metal is a form of Classical music. Or that Gothic Metal/Doom Metal are Gothic Rock. Its wrong, and doesnt work. If your going to say Classic Rock, you need to be listing Classic Rock bands, not ones on the Classic Metal article. Seriously, you really need to be making articles that agree with each other, not that contradict each other because someone is wanting to force their opinion to be there, in place of a musical fact. Leyasu 06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We're not continuing the "metal is/isn't a form of rock music" debate here, so let's drop it. Consequently I don't see how classic metal is involved, unless the bands overlap categories. I listed Classic Rock bands, which are also heavy metal bands. Pink Floyd's considered classic rock, but they're art-rock/prog/psych, and have no influence on grunge, so I feel listing heavy metal should be simple enough clarification. But like I said before, if everyone else thinks we should list classic rock for reference purposes (to better help people who don't know anythign about grunge to understand its roots) I don't really mind. WesleyDodds 07:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no point in adding classic rock. The only "classic rock" bands that matter are already considered metal. And classic rock isn't even a real genre anyways; it's a radio format. -- LGagnon 18:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, it isn't a kind of music, it's a radio format. Something is only Classic as opposed to Modern. You have Modern Rock radio stations (stuff from the current decade), Classic Rock (stuff from the 60s an 70s mostly) and Oldies (50s and 60s), and now even something new called "Classic Alternative" (late 80s and 90s). The only non-heavy metal bands to have significance I think were already mentioned. In particular for Nirvana, the Beatles (Rock) and Creedance Clearwater Revival (Roots Rock).

--128.59.143.41 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur WesleyDodds 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Grunge Is Dead? Where Did It Go?

Born in 1990 here, so Grunge ousted Hair Metal by the time I was 2 years old, but I think Grunge is very strong today, though most of today's bands are washed out.

Grunge never "died", even in 2005 it's still called "New Rock". I think it was the last revolution in Rock, from 1995 onward Rock just combined with other genres or was fueled by nostalgia movements, such as the 80s-like emo/pop-punk/neo-wave stage we're in now.

Post-grunge, which is really just wimpy, generic grunge rock, has been the backdrop for rock ever since Kurt's death in 1994, so did Grunge really die? Lifehouse had a pretty big hit with "You and Me" and Nickelback are doing quite well, although I really hate calling them grunge.

Grunge is alive, it's 90s AND 2000s. Nobody wears flannel anymore though.

Nobody said grunge died. It simply has less popularity than it did in the early 1990s. I've reverted your POV-based edit, because you edited based on your abstract POV and not actual facts. -- LGagnon 03:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Grunge is still around, perhaps. It if is, its become a more speciliased 'underground' genre. Perhaps worth mentioning that Grunge has lost its 'mainstream' popularity to other genres? This wouldnt say grunge is dead, dated, or whatever, but would explain its commercial success and withdrawel. Leyasu 08:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That is already explained in the article. -- LGagnon 12:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then for all intents and purposes, it needs better explaining if people are getting confused, or otherwise making comments against it. Leyasu 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is explained already in the last paragraph. The 15 year old above was complaining about his POV not being represented (it won't be; Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV) and his own assumption that the article says grunge is dead (it doesn't say that anywhere). -- LGagnon 14:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While we're talking about grunge being dead, many people consider Puddle of Mudd to be a BIG knock-off of Nirvana. Would Puddle of Mudd be considered post-grunge? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and definitely not real grunge. Although I don't see how they are Nirvana knockoffs; they seem like mere grunge-in-general knockoffs. -- LGagnon 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I believe it could be because the lead singer has stated Nirvana as a big influence on his writing style and his voice. So, that may be why they are considered a Nirvana knock-off. But no reason so to why. I was just wondering if they were posy-grunge or not. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, you seem to come across as extremely possesive of this article. With a serious case of Meglomanical Point of View. If complaints are made about the article, then people should take notice. I dont see it mentioned in the article at all. Ill read through again, but it comes across that this is your POV, and not NPOV for any intents or purposes beyond your own. Leyasu 22:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As taken from Lganon's user page.

• "These are featured articles that were mostly written by me. They have been deemed by fellow editors of Wikipedia as being amongst the best articles on this website: Grunge Music"

This is meglomanical POV. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies, lest you be set before a set of Admins. Leyasu 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a fallacy and hurt your argument; I suggest refraining from them, as they are in violation of Wikipedia's official policy. It's also worth noting that yes, I did write most of this article (which doesn't mean I can't be unbiased about it), and that a featured article is defined as being one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I only mentioned that on my page because my page is linked to on other websites and I wanted to point out what a featured article is to those unfamiliar with Wikipedia who follow those links. -- LGagnon 02:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack, its me pointing out to you that what your doing is acting with a Meglomanical Point of View. Thats not personal, thats me trying to say, rethink what your saying, or stop talking. In a generally polite way. Ive read through, and, due to your history with the article, i suggest your add the mention that grunge lost its 'mainstream' apparel to the metal genres that were then new. Otherwise i might have to do it, and it might not fit in as well with the writing style already in the article. Taking pride in an article is all well and good, when you start claiming it as yours, your violating several Wikipedia policies. Leyasu 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not polite to call someone a megalomaniac. Nor are the rest of your supposedly polite insults. You are only continuing to violate the policy against personal attacks, and if you do not stop doing so I will contact an admin about this.

As for metal taking over for grunge, that's an oversimplification. Electronica attempted to take over first in 1996 (the industry pushed it as the next big movement along the lines of grunge), but failed. Later, soft rock by female musicians became big from 1996-97, culumnating in the Lilith Fair. The metal bands did not come as a result of grunge, but as a backlash against the Lilith-variety soft rockers. The metal revival thus had nothing to do with grunge.

Do I think you should add your idea about it to the article? No, but not because I'm a megalomaniac. It's because your idea is factually innaccurate. -- LGagnon 16:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

When other users are complaining about it on the talk page, and its generally seen as something worthy of mentioning by others, its generally worth mentioning. Leyasu 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't about the 15 years old's complaint now; it's about your attempt to add false info into the article now. -- LGagnon 23:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this is about the complaint that the other user made, who you have proclaimed 15 simply because they disagree with you. This is also about your Meglomanical POV, and your violation of Wikipedia Policys concerning Ownership of Articles. If the article was so perfect, people wouldnt make complaints about it. Leyasu 06:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He proclaimed him 15 because he said he was born in 1990, therefore he would be aproxmiately 15 years of age. And just because a complaint is made doesn't make it valid.

Knock it off, Leyasu. Claiming someone has a megalomaniacal POV is a personal attack. LGagnon's edits have been perfectly reasonable as far as I can tell. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack, its me pointing out thats the way he is acting, which he is. I suggest you look up the article on what it is, and read it. Leyasu 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said. Sounds like what you are doing. Knock it off. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ive not avoided any issue. I raised an issue, which was disclaimed on the basis of what comes across as Ganon's MPOV. I suggested that he trys better wording what he says, so he doesnt fall into the trap of MPOV. He also then turned down the suggestion of clearing up the confusion that people are complaining about, because he doesnt want to. Thats not a personal attack, thats someone else exhibiting a MPOV, violating a Wikipedia Policy, and not being able to deal with someone hence forth telling them this in the most polite manner they indivually can.

So in the end, a complain about the article was made, and i second that complaint, hence forth if something isnt done about it by Monday 26th, ill edit the section in relevance myself. I see that as ample warning. Leyasu 17:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The 15 year old (that's not an insult; he mentioned it himself) was merely confused about something that was already mentioned in the article. What he was looking for is clearly mentioned already, but he didn't notice it. If he didn't notice it, it is not the article's fault; he can simply reread the article and see it.

If you have a suggestion about how to improve it, mention it here first because as far as I can tell there is no need to change anything in the article regarding his argument. In the meantime, don't change things around because you have yet to make a good argument for what should be added.

Also, don't add anything about nu-metal. As I explained before, your suggestion about it is historically innaccurate. I have recently discussed the subject with a musicologist I know and he has confirmed that my claim was right. Believe that or not if you want to, I'll just get out my textbook from my old History & Art of Rock & Roll class and cite an exact page that proves you wrong if I have to.

And again I'll say that there is nothing polite about calling someone a megalomaniac. And even if we allowed for your flawed logic, it is still a personal attack. Thus, your are commiting both a fallacy and a violation of Wikipedia's official policy. I suggest you quit making your "MPOV" argument; it does nothing to help your main argument and only makes it look very weak. -- LGagnon 21:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is my suggestion. Better and more clearly exhibit the fact that grunge lost its mainstream apparal in part to newer genres and trends due to its new ideolegy and themes that came with it having worn away. And go for it, one text book written by someone doesnt really give me anything to worry about when most sources contradict each other anyway.

FLawed Logic = Personal Attack. Claiming im making a personal attack = Personal Attack. Your an idiot = Personal Attack. Etc etc etc. Im not making a personal attack when i say that is what your sounding like. I said thats what your exhibiting. I made suggestion you think better your wording, to avoid sounding like that. Thats not a personal attack, thats pointing out something you missed, as someone might tell a friend they smell a bit if their friend didnt notice. If you take offence to that, that is your problem, as i have been as polite as i can be in trying to point it out to you.

Ive given you plenty of warning, ive given you reason enough in the fact someone has complained about it and a writer has then seconded it. This, i am giving you amnple oppourtunity to edit it yourself, before i, or someone else, does it for you. Leyasu 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read the articles on personal attack and fallacy. I don't think you understand how badly you are hurting your argument by continuing to use personal attacks. Might I add, an admin (not me) has already pointed out to you that you are making personal attacks. I think that alone should be reason enough for you to stop it. If not, I'm going to seek further assistance to make you stop it.

As for your suggestion, you'll have to rephrase that. Your statement was not written clearly, and I can not make out the point you are getting at. Instead, maybe you should just write a demo paragraph here of what you intend to add to the article.

And if I do cite a source, it is still one more than you have cited. Wikipedia's article are supposed to be based on verifiable sources, not unsourced claims, so my claim would win out by default. -- LGagnon 00:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of an argument, e.g. the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

That is Exactly what you are doing in my direction.

• On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a logical fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".

Which is what your claiming your doing, and are not doing.

Ok, now to make it clearer what i said, as you didnt understand before.

Better and more clearly exhibit the fact that part of grunge losing its mainstream apparal was to what were then, newer genres and trends, due to grunge new ideolegy and themes, having worn away.

Im ready to cite sources anytime, and i will go look for them when you cite yours. And im sure for every source your provide, i could find thrice more. Your the one better equiped to edit the article, because you wrote most of it, so your wrighting style would match better. If you persist in not doing it because its not your idea, or whatever other seemingly meglomanic reason, then i, or someone else, will do it. Leyasu 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this any more clear to you: megalomaniac is an insult. It is not a friendly comment, or polite by any definition.

And the burden of proof is not on me, but on you. You are the one who claims that there is a connection between grunge and nu-metal, and until you can find a reliable (bold for emphasis) source that says so, you should not add your inaccurate claim to the article. -- LGagnon 03:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of Grunge/Nu-metal, nu metal bands like Staind, Godsmack, Linkin Park, etc. frequently cite grunge bands as influences. Certainly Alice in Chains has been a major influence on modern metal. However, that is not to say it is a direct descendant like post-grunge is.

Otherwise, yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you say. WesleyDodds 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is what i said, please read it, and not what you wish i had said.

• Better and more clearly exhibit the fact that part of grunge losing its mainstream apparal was to what were then, newer genres and trends, due to grunge's new ideolegy and themes, having worn away.

That is what i said. No, im not complementing you. No, im not making an attack. If someone said to me, 'Ley, your sounding a bit Meglomanical mate, you mind rephrasing what you said', id say sorry and rephrase it. Not start calling them this, that or the other, or start making personal attacks. Burden of proof on me? Well, you said its already in the article, thus you put it in the article, that means it did happen, if its already in there. What my problem is, is that i can see how many people are going to get confused. The article reads in parts as not NPOV. It really doesnt.

On 26th im going to overview it. Until then, i suggest taking my previous suggestion. This is an encylcopedia, not a battleground. If you cant accept people editing, or critiscising articles youve worked on, then dont submit things at all. Leyasu 11:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You still have not reworded it in a clear way. That sentence is poorly written to the point that it doesn't make sense. I already asked you to rephrase it and you haven't. And again, there is no connection between grunge and nu-metal. That is not my opinion, it is fact. You now have two editors telling you that your idea is questionable, and you still refuse to show proof of it. If you won't give proof, do not add that to the article or I will revert it.

And no, I didn't say nu-metal was in the article. I said that grunge's current underground status (the very thing the 15 year old asked about) was already mentioned. You are trying to make it sound like your argument in favor of adding nu-metal is the same as the 15yr old's argument, when it wasn't.

Until you can cite any reliable source, I suggest you quit this tirade. I am going to inform an admin to stop your nonsense; I suggest you do not make your situation any worse with more personal attacks and attempts to add your POV to the article. -- LGagnon 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• More clearly and understandably exhibit the fact that part of grunge losing its mainstream apparal was to what were then considered, newer genres and trends, due to what was grunge's new ideolegy and themes, having worn away.

I fail to see how that isnt clear. And i also fail to see how it says anything about Nu Metal. Leyasu 20:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is poorly written, you aren't specific about these "newer genres and trends" (and it sounds like the comment you made about nu-metal), you don't explain what these "new ideology and themes" are, and you don't make it clear if the genres and trends wore away or if the ideology and themes did. -- LGagnon 21:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is, indeed, terribly written. For starters, "Apparal" is not an English word (I'm guessing "appeal"?) and "ideolegy" should presumably be "ideology", but in what sense does grunge have an ideology? It's not like Jack Endino wrote a Grunge Manifesto and everyone from Kurt Cobain to Mark Lanagan signed it. Grunge arose as a conjunction of several musical forces in the region, including a temporary shortage of club venues that resulted in a lot of punk-influenced Seattle bands spending more time rehearsing so their chops improved. And as for it not being as big as when it burst onto the scene: of course! This is popular music we're talking about! In the past 30 years, probably punk and hip-hop are the only genres where closely related lineal descendants were still really big a decade after the first big breakout (in the case of hip-hop, bigger).

As for themes, I'm not sure what "themes" of grunge could be said to have "worn away". Do you have any examples? And are any of them citable? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

When i speak, i spean in general. If i was referring to a religion, i would say Cathedral, instead of naming each individual religions religious building (Jewish Syanogues, Islamic Mosques, Christian Cathedrals, etc).

I admit, i am terrible at spelling, ironically, my user page does say that, so i often have to spell words how i believe them to be spelled.

Anyway. When i said ideology and themes, i mean any ideology/theme that defines the genre. For instance, in Black Metal that was its 'brutal' and 'extreme' nature. In Hip-Hop it would be the 'image' and 'reputation' that the genre lays claim to. I was being general.

The point is, we understand that Grunge ticked out over time. We know this. But when writing an article, remember that many people reading it wont know anything about Grunge, and if they see something said on several other articles, and not here, they will get confused. This, when i say that the article should better illustrate that it lost its critical acclaim to other genres and trends, i mean other musical genres that arose near its end that took the spotlight, and newer trends in fashion and similar related concepts.

I havent named anything specific, because i dont work with Grunge or Grunge related music as a general rule of thumb. However, i reference you to the nu metal article, so read that. My main suggestion is to reword things for that part, to make it clearer that it lost its shiney new apparal (it is a word, i dont know if ive spelled it right. Means something similar to immediate attraction/clothing worn) over time, and its media attention was thus replaced with something else shiney and new. Much like a child will forget a toy just brought, for another toy just brought, and in turn forsake that one for yet another new toy.

I hope sitting there and explaining it to you, might actually clear that up for you. Leyasu 20:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you say "cathedral" to mean "place of worship", don't be surprised when Jews, Muslims, Methodists, etc. consider you either ignorant or offensive. And when you use "ideology" and "theme" this way, this is sheer Humpty Dumptyism.

I now take it that by "apparal" you meant "apparel", not "appeal". But again, all you seem to be saying is "it's not new any more". Well, sure. Things are always "more up to date right now than they ever were." So should we add to pretty much every music genre "by the way, this is no longer what the hipsters listen to?"

I don't think that critics have taken "acclaim" away from the pioneering grunge bands. I'd be interested if you can find a citation for that. As far as I can tell, Nirvana's reputation is, if anything, stronger now than when they were around. Ditto the Screaming Trees. If what you mean is that current bands rehashing or imitating grunge are not highly acclaimed, well, mo, it's not a form that particularly evolved or deepened, it kind of went back into the general stew of popular music, one more set of motifs, gestures, etc. in the repertoire. Imitators and those who repeat themselves are generally not highly praised, the main exception I can think of is when something has been gone long enough to produce the effect that "everything old is new again": e.g. the the Squirrel Nut Zippers, The Strokes.

As far as I can tell, all nu metal has in common with grunge (beyond what it has in common with pretty much all rock music) is that it's loud and distorted. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

When i say Cathedral to mean place of worship, some religious people might get offended yes. But generally when i do, most people get what im on about, because they do it as well. I only chose to explain what i meant, because i talk in the way im familiar with. I took to believe your not from England, and decided that it nmight be a culture barrier that is stopping us from understanding each others implications so well.

Yes, that is pretty much what im pointing out. That Grunge lost itself to what was then newer trends and genres. Thus is worth mentioning, in brief, just to clear up that for anyone who doesnt know anything about Grunge. For instance: If i went to a science exhibit, and all the exhibits assumed i knew this specific chemical formula, and i didnt, i wouldnt have a clue what any of them were doing.

And, it becomes worth mentioning in brief, when people start asking where it is, and complaining its not in there. Leyasu 15:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It is already mentioned that post-grunge affected grunge's decline, and that is the only genre that effected it. What else are you intending to add, nu-metal? I've already explained that it has nothing to do with grunge. If you meant something else, come out and say it already. Tell us exactly what you intend to add to the article. Being ambiguous doesn't help at all. -- LGagnon 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Grunge's relation to hardcore

I don't see how grunge is a hardcore punk genre. Certainly it is descended from it but the grunge scene cannot adequately be described as hardcore on a stylistic basis. And by the time grunge was formed and dominated Sub Pop, hardcore was largely considered passe; if anything grunge is a reaction against the rigidity of hardcore due to the influence of 70s metal and classic rocks that harcore punks disdained. WesleyDodds 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded per WesleyDodds. Leyasu 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Grunge still retains a lot of elements of hardcore. And grunge bands felt a greater connection to punk than metal. Remember, metal was originally mixed in as parody, not serious praise. Other elements, such as DIY, moshing pits, etc are distinctly punk in origin, and particularly prominent in hardcore. -- LGagnon 01:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As they are prominent in metal. I somewhat disagree its got anything to do musically with Hardcore Punk. Cite reason and source as to how it has, please. Leyasu 04:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Prominent in metal? Hardly, at least in the case of the original form of metal. Maybe in trash, but that is only because thrash took the idea from hardcore.

Grunge came out of a hardcore scene; it's mentioned in the article already. It's even mentioned in Hype!, which I also cited in the article already. -- LGagnon 05:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I just say: The Melvins. Not metal. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No dear, 'moshing' is more common in metal than anywhere else. If u said to a member of the general public, 'moshing' is what, they would say metal gigs. Punk in origin doesnt define where they are most prominent. The more i hold conversation with you, the more each time, you seem less concerned with facts, and more concerned with not being shown as wrong. Im getting tired of you, and unless your going to speak in a more polite manner, and stop with the arrogant attitude, i am going to ignore all further comments you make. Leyasu 07:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In the Pacific Northwest, where grunge originated, until the mid-1980s the mosh pit was a punk phenomenon, though by the late 1980s it was spreading more broadly. Unless I'm very mistaken, crowd surfing pretty grew along with grunge. I don't remember ever seeing a mosh pit at a metal show before the late 1980s, by which time grunge was establishing itself locally, though not yet nationally. By that time, a Seattle crowd would mosh to anything: I remember Joe Jackson stopping a show at the Paramount Northwest because a mosh pit had formed; a few years later, I remember the staff of the Opera House telling They Might Be Giants to stop a show unless the crowd would leave the pit. Not exactly punk, metal, or grunge bands. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Leyasu, I have made a request for mediation against you already. If that does not go through and you do not stop the personal attacks, I'm making a request for arbitration. If that happens, it is likely that you could be banned. I suggest you cease violating Wikipedia's official policy and stick to discussing the article and its subject matter.

• Please don't threaten to have other users banned. Especially while you are engaged in a disgreement with them over article content. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry about that, but he has been warned before about personal attacks, both by me and an admin, and I have put in a request for mediation, and yet nothing has changed. I am not guaranteeing a ban, but I think he should be warned that if I am forced to make a request for arbitration (which at this rate may be inevitable) there could be severe consequences. I wasn't trying to threaten him with a ban; I simply wanted him to know that the results of arbitration could result in it. I know it's a thin line between warning and threat, but it seems as if he doesn't understand that he can't continue on with personal attacks without reprocussions. -- LGagnon 07:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As Jmabel said, moshing wasn't part of metal until the late 80s. It couldn't have influenced grunge to do so because only hardcore involved moshing before the late 80s. And who cares what the public thinks? Most of them don't even know what hardcore punk is, so why rely on them for historical accuracy? This article is supposed to be a historically accurate acedemically viable work, not a popularity contest. I have presented and cited sources; that achieves much more accuracy than general public opinion, which you should not be relying on for the purposes of this article. -- LGagnon 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comment insinuaited that Moshing was only done by Grunge fans at Grunge concerts. The point i was making is that you were wrong, based on your insinutation. Im still waiting for these cited sources on the history, for which no links have been given. Leyasu 23:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said that only grunge fans mosh, or that only grunge shows had mosh pits. I have no clue where you got that from. I said that moshing originated at hardcore shows, not metal concerts.

As for sources, I mentioned Hype! already, which is cited in the article, and I cited other sources in there too. I shouldn't have to copy and paste those here. You can look at those if you want, and then, when you actually understand the subject matter (frankly, you don't seem to know grunge too well) you can try showing me some of your own sources - which you haven't given any at all. -- LGagnon 23:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You insinuated it. Which means that is what you were implying without directly saying it. You mentioned a source in the article. Im skeptical to check based on our argument before when you claimed something was part of the article when it wasnt, so you hold little credibility in my eyes. I want a musical defination of how Grunge is Hardcore Punk - not the views of some fans who try to proclaim something as something it isnt. Leyasu 00:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We've already tried to go over your claims of things missing, and you won't even directly state what you think is missing. I've already pointed out the flaws in your argument for the need to include nu-metal, so quit trying to include it.

And no, you don't have an excuse to childishly dismiss my sources just because you don't trust me. My sources are legit whether you want to admit it or not. Your sources - or lack there of - are completely illegitamite, because you have not stated so much as one source. Until you can give a source, you have no right to change the article around based on your POV - which is the only thing you base your argument on.

If you are going to work on this article, start doing research. I'm not going to let you throw revisionist history in the face of cited sources that prove you wrong into the article.

Show your sources. You are the one who has the burden of proof on you, not me. -- LGagnon 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok first i dont know how you got anything about nu-metal from this statement.

• * More clearly and understandably exhibit the fact that part of grunge losing its mainstream apparal was to what were then considered, newer genres and trends, due to what was grunge's new ideolegy and themes, having worn away.

Again, not a single mention of Nu Metal. So that is you now lying about what i said.

It is things like that lying, like that dancing around what im saying as to ignore it, that makes me distrust you. That and previous incidents of you saying this is your argument and showing meglomanical point of view.

Im not questioning your sources. Im asking you to explain yours to me, and give me a musical link, not something tedious and unrelative like, for example:

• 'The station master in Thomas The Tank Engine wore a top hat. Marry Poppins' bank manager also wore a top hot. Due to this, both films must have the same director.'

Which is exactly what your argument seems like.

Alls i ask is for you to explain the musical link to me. Otherwise, it appears there is non. And when you have done so, ill sift and chose from Google results for pages matching what i say, just like you yourself would. As everyone does when citing sources, actually, mmm. Leyasu 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been arguing in favor of your nu-metal idea throughout this talk page. You throw around vague claims as to what needs to be added to the article, and they just sound like a variant of your nu-metal argument. And then you come back to it, claiming that I "claimed something was part of the article when it wasnt". That's just a continuation of your nu-metal argument. And if it is not, then for once say what it is you are trying to get across, because your commentary on the article is too vague to be understandable.

And again you post the same poorly written line you used before. Do a revision, make sure it is readable and not vague at all, and then post it. Until you can make your writing make sense, all I can do is assume that you are talking about nu-metal again (this time masked by vague wording), because you aren't even trying to revise it to clearly state what you are getting at.

And again, you are making personal attacks. I'm not going to take this any longer, and I'm getting an admin to look over this again. If he does nothing, I'm going straight to the arbitration committee. I suggest for your sake you don't make your situation worse.

I can not give you a link to Hype!, because it is a film (and, might I add, the most well known documentary on grunge). You'll have to watch it yourself. It's done almost entirely by those who were there throughout grunge's history, so you can be sure that it's mostly accurate (the exception possibly being the SubPop guys' gloating over their achievements).

Your analogy makes no sense. I don't see how it connects to anything we've been discussing.

And again, you refuse to give sources, when I've given mine before this conversation even began. Why don't you quit? Why don't you actually get your sources, if they are so easy for you to find? I'm calling your bluff; you don't have sources, and you know nothing about this article's subject matter. If I'm wrong, get your sources and stop wasting my time and Wikipedia's disc space with your constant bluffing. -- LGagnon 07:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again, Nu Metal this, Nu Metal that. Did you fail to read above?

• More clearly and understandably exhibit the fact that part of grunge losing its mainstream apparal was to what were then considered, newer genres and trends, due to what was grunge's new ideolegy and themes, having worn away.

'Again, not a single mention of Nu Metal. So that is you now lying about what i said.'

There isnt any mention of Nu Metal in what i said. And if im vague, how can i be specific about adding Nu Metal?

I have also had several people read this now, all of which understand perfectly clearly what im saying. Im hardly being vague. If you fail to understand something, i suggest you get a dictionary.

A film says whats grunge or not? I can probally find several more film documentarys on Grunge that say different things. A film documentary was made about black metal that interviewed doom metal and heavy metal bands, and in all had nothing to do with black metal. Does that film documentary automatically dictate what is black metal due to it being a film documentary? no. One source, which is a POV Film Documentary is not a good source, and i expect better, and proof while sources. One source which i have no access to isnt going to make me believe you, either.

OK so ill explain the analogy, as it seems your not very good on adapting to English thats used outside of America.

• Moshes = Top Hat. Engine Master = Grunge. Bank Manager = Hardcore Punk. Director = Scene.

• 'The station master in Thomas The Tank Engine wore a top hat. Marry Poppins' bank manager also wore a top hot. Due to this, both films must have the same director.'

I have at no point refused to give any sources. Ive simply asked you to provice creditable ones first. That isnt refusing, thats waiting on you. I suggest you type grunge into Google as i did [here] . In fact, here is some of the pages i found after a few mins of looking through Google.

• [The first one]
• [A second link]
• [Third random link]

I got them from about 1 minute on Google. And thats picking random pages.

Why wont i run away and not question people? Simple, if i dont understand something, i ask. If i doubt something, i question it. If i disagree with something, i oppose it. I dont just run away and hide at threats and bullying from anyone. Again, now i want some credible sources from you, and an explanation of the musical link.

Musical link. Explain it. Leyasu 07:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline that says I can delete your personal attacks. Since the mediation committee does nothing and no admin will step in, I'm taking this into my own hands. If you don't like it, go ahead and make a complaint; it'll help me more than it'll help you.

I'm not commenting on much of your early babble in your last post; you just repeat yourself, assuming that writing the same unclear line will get yourself somewhere. I've got advice for you: look up the concept of revision and why it helps with writing.

And don't use a weasel argument with me. "Several people" is no one but you. Get another Wikipedian (and not a sock puppet account of yours) to speak on your behalf; don't hide behind a weak claim.

And stop this "one source proves nothing" argument. One source is better than none, and you don't have one to counter it. As for being POV, all' media is POV - even Wikipedia can't escape that entirely. But facts still remain that are noticably true, and only the facts from it were used in this article. Cut the childish anti-acedemic BS; sources count whether you'd like them to or not.

And a documentary is a much better source than your 1) student's website, 2) fansite, or 3) CD review that isn't a viable source (what info is supposed to come from this to back your claim?).

As for my sources, here's a link to them: [2]. -- LGagnon 08:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu, what are those pages intended to demonstrate? The first is someone's personal page; unless I'm missing something, uncitable. The secondis a probably citable site, but the page you link to says nothing about anything we've been discussing. The third is basically a track listing from an album, what conclusion do you mean to draw from it? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Hype is usually considered pretty much the definitive documentary on the rise of grunge. If you reject that as a source, I can't say it says much for your knowledge of the topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I didnt check what they were, i simply snatched randoms from Google. The purpose was simply to point out that when i say i can find many results on Google for something, i can.

Also, i asked for the musical link of Alternative Rock as being a Form of Hardcore Punk. That is what i asked for an explanation for, and what Ganon is dancing around answering. I havent seen Hype, many people probally havent and wont have acces to it. Also its only one source. This is why i asked for ones that are accessable by many. Leyasu 08:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hype! is accessible; go rent it. There's plenty of places, from Netflix to DVD stores, where you can find it easily. As noted above, you prove your lack of knowledge about grunge by rejecting the most universally respected documentary on the subject.

Again, I'm not the one on trial here. You claim there's no connection when the definitive grunge documentary says otherwise. The burden of proof is on you, and you have no proof. Your argument is fallicious and inane, and unless you have proof that there is no connection between hardcore and grunge, you have no reason to argue such. I've given you proof already; if you don't want to watch Hype!, then it's your fault you haven't seen proof, not mine. It'd be the same as if I cited a book and you whined because books aren't available via hyperlink. It merely shows your lack of acedemic skills and honesty, which you seem to have no respect for. -- LGagnon 08:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If i dont want to pay money to watch something, i wont. Remember, another user also said exactly the same as ive said, so thats two users waiting for you to provide sources. When there is a multitude of people disagreeing with you, and your not offering proof thats accessable easily, other than one source that is POV, then your argument is flawed. Again, explain the link for the benifit of myself, and all those other people who do not wish to or otherwise cannot afford to buy, rent or obtain in any other form, a film they have no intrest in. This is your last chance now before i simply ignore any other comments you have to make to provide us with a reason to how we are wrong, other than dancing around the subject. Leyasu 08:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the same? No, he did not as exactly the same thing. He never asked for sources, just for clarification on something he didn't notice was in the article already. And how is two a multitude? And no, sources don't have to be easily accessible; how do you think academics worked before the internet? It's utterly rediculous for you to claim that just because I don't hand you my sources on a silver platter that they don't count. And why would someone interested in grunge take no interest in the most important grunge documentary?

Your argument contains so many inconsistencies that it is obvious that you are just a troll. You aren't trying to improve the article, you're just trying to piss me off. I'm not going to consider your suggestions valid until you can understand the simplest concepts of creating an academically viable article.

You are too academically unskilled and immature to trust with this article. If you edit it to suit your POV, I'm reverting it. -- LGagnon 09:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you try checking my contribution history before you accuse me of being a troll. I understand making an article perfectly well, and ive been working on several, including this one. Thus now, uve failed to prove what u said, youve avoided answering. Also, im now dismissing all further comments you have to make, as you were warned i would do. Good day to you. Leyasu 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've proven my point already. The other editors accepted Hype! as a source, and I don't need to give you a free one. If you won't bother to get ahold of a copy, that's tough. You need to learn how to do research without the use of the internet. Mankind has been doing this for quite some time; the existence of the net doesn't suddenly make all print and non-net media useless.

And I don't care how much you've contributed; it's the quality of contributions that counts, and I doubt you've actually added anything in a proper academic matter, considering the fact that you are incapable of understanding the concept of academic honesty.

And if you feel that I'm wrong about that, prove me wrong. Show me you can do real research. Show me you know how to do a revision. Show me that you are trying to accomplish anything here other than shooting your mouth off like a 12 year old. -- LGagnon 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply because you chose to keep making personal attacks, im warning Admins of you. Secondly, i suggest you check the page historys for gothic metal and symphonic metal. I also suggest you check my contribution history. No further comments will be made to you, and i shall now proceed to do as i deem best, regardless of your MPOV. Leyasu 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and lie to the admins. They did nothing about you when you were (and still are) making personal attacks, they aren't going to do anything about me telling you to stop it. -- LGagnon 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, back to the actual topic . . . I don't think grunge should be listed under hardcore punk genres. Punk overall, maybe, but not hardcore. Not much from hardcore carries over into grunge (aside from the intensity and underground sensibility shared my virtually all bands in the udnerground in the first place); sure the article references Husker Du, Black Flag, and Bad Brains, but you have to consider the context. Husker Du pretty much moved away from hardcore after Zen Arcade (and it was the work during and after that that influenced the Pixies and and the development of alternative rock), Black Flag slowed down their tempos and took on metal aethetics with My War which is referenced from a Mark Arm quote in Our Band Could Be Your Life as being a seminal influence on grunge, and Bad Brains' I Against I album is generally viewed as an alternative rock record. Sure Dave Grohl cites Bad Brains as an influence--he played in bands like Scream in the DC hardcore scene, which Bad Brains was a part of.

I admit I've never seen Hype; been meaning to, but not a high priority by any stretch. But I have read Come As You Are, Our Band Could Be Your Life, and many other articles and books on alternative rock in general and grunge in particular, and none of them explicitly say that grunge should be considered hardcore. Speaking of "Our Band Could Be Your Life", Azerrad's book suggests that the metal influences were not primarily satirical; in the Mudhoney chapter he mentions when forming Green River how Steve Turner got into Blue Cheer and Mark Arm began reevaluating bands like Black Sabbath, Alice Cooper, and Aerosmith, "bands he'd disavoewed when he first discovered punk" (pg 416) and integrating these influences into their music.

And on another note (just so not to create a new section): I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the Dep Six compilation, which was the first record documenting a "Seattle scene" and was the first vinyl appearance of seminal band like Soundgarden. I would add it, but I think LGagnon can integrate it into the body of the article more effectively. WesleyDodds 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Moshing, crowd surfing, stage jumping, DIY, and a large portion of the style come from hardcore. And all those were part of hardcore before they became part of anything else. Grunge came about at a time when hardcore was still bigger in Seattle than any other underground style; the whole grunge scene was originally a hardcore scene.

Hype! specifically states that metal was added as satire. Maybe a few musicians were serious about it, but they do not represent all of them.

As for Deep Six, you can go ahead and add it where it seems like a good place. I'll change it if needs be. -- LGagnon 02:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Moshing, crowd surfing, and stage jumping do come from hardcore, but by the time grunge developed they were no longer exclusively hardcore; Megadeth and Anthrax videos from the period feature moshing, for instance. So it's a bit of a misnomer to list grunge as a hardcore punk genre under such a pretext. And the DIY aesthetic was never solely a hardcore invention; you can trace the beginnings of DIY to the first wave of punk and independent labels like Stiff and Rough Trade, and certainly many scenes afterwards held the DIY model as an essential part of their music.

And due to the influence of bands like Husker Du on the development alternative rock as a whole, it would be more accurate to place alternative rock as a blanket heading under Hardcore Punk Genres, which itself is unnecessary.

As I've said, I haven't seen Hype, so what is the context of your citation? Who was it that said metal was added as satire, and how was he or she connected to the grunge scene? Could he or she be considered to be a "representative" with the authority to make a statement? I'm not trying to aggravate an argument or anything, I'm just genuinely curious about the context, since as far as I know Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and Mudhoney all genuinely appreciated metal and satire (while certainly a factor in some respects) was not the primary factor in incorporating Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath influences. WesleyDodds 03:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who said thrash wasn't really an influence, right? Then how is it that thrash's moshing et al influenced grunge? Like I said, grunge was created in an already existing hardcore scene, thus it obviously got those elements from that same scene. And look at all the hardcore bands that influenced grunge (see article). And just because hardcore bands had slightly different styles on some albums does not mean those albums are not hardcore.

As for Hype!, I can't remember who at the moment. Most of the people who comment in the film were the musicians themselves, and others included producers and other people who were directly involved in the scene. -- LGagnon 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You mistake my reasoning. I did not intend to suggest "thrash's moshing et al influenced grunge"; what I was saying was by that point moshing was no longer exclusively hardcore.

Also, the later works of hardcore bands were greatly different from their hardcore-era material. My War is an about-face from Damaged and New Day Rising slowed down and was more poppy. If anything, the development of grunge was indicitive of the frustraions with hardcore that led to the evolution of Black Flag into a dirge-y metal-influenced act and Husker Du into an alternative rock/college rock band. It was arguably all still punk rock, but not hardcore. WesleyDodds 03:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It may have not been exclusively hardcore, but that is besides the point. The point is that grunge got those elements from the hardcore scene that it was created in.

Furthermore, I suggest you watch the scene in Hype! where one musician picks up a guitar and says "this is punk" and plays some hardcore on it, then says "this is grunge" and plays some very similar grunge. The scene is meant to show how little difference there is between the styles.

And no matter what we come to here, the fact still remains that there's a source in the article already. Wikipedia is supposed to work towards academic reliability and be based on sources whether or not certain editors think they are wrong (as per official policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability). If you would like point out a source that says grunge is not hardcore, you are welcome to do so. As it stands, our sources say that it is. -- LGagnon 05:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing the fact that grunge grew out of hardcore. I am debating the decision to list grunge under hardcore genres and add a Hardcore punk footer. Why not list punk and metal as well if we are going to list hardcore? We already have hardcore punk listed as an influence in the grunge template. Why add a hardcore punk footer? Also, your reference there is dubious by assuming punk and hardcore are synonymous; hardcore is a faster, more intense outgrowth of punk that is generally defined by very specific boundaries. Cite a better example from Hype. WesleyDodds 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You wont get one Aj. I asked him to do the same, and he basically told me to go fuck myself and started making personal attacks. Also, to Gangon. Wikipedia is based on FACTS! For example, a common anolagy i use:

• A thousand people who have never seen a dog, say all dogs have three legs, three eyes, and two tails.
• Ten people who work with dogs everyday, say all dogs have four legs, two eyes, and one tail.
• Which one is right?

Take this into account when you cite sources. I also back up WesleyDodds demand for a better source than Hype. Also, one band, or one person in paticular, doesnt define a whole musical scene. Leyasu 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you are libeling me despite being warned not to make personal attacks? I hope Snowflake is reading this.

And as Wikipedia:Verifiability states, we are not ditching sources just because you think it is suspicious. Nor are we ditching any sources just because they are not from the web. In the pre-web days, they were the only sources available for academic work, and nobody complained. They are still considered useable to this day.

Besides, WesleyDodds never said Hype! was unusable; you did. I think WesleyDodds understands the fact that Hype! is the most respected documentary on grunge, as previously mentioned by Jmabel. -- LGagnon 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu, stop it

You have not proven Hype! wrong, and you have not give so much as one source to back your opinion. You have no right to change the article based on your POV. Your academic dishonesty is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. -- LGagnon 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Gagnon, he is merely asking that you provide a second source for your argument. Find another credible who agrees with hype and he will probably be very appreciative. Hell, he might even say your right, wouldnt that make you feel so warm and gooey inside? Though, i must say i agree with them in that by the time grunge started moshing, crowd surfing, etc. was no longer a strictly punk/hardcore trend; and that it had been assimilated by other forms of music before grunge, some of whom i am sure grunge was influenced by, and therefore deserve mention.

just my opinion, maybe in hopes that i could clarify what leyasu and that other person were asking for when you badgered them about not checking your 1 and only source for seemingly everything. Back in the old days scholars would use sources that people couldnt check and had to be trusted, you should look at this new age of information as a good thing in that everyone can be checked and double checked to be sure that we get the best, most reliable, widely repudiated, and un-biased finished product as possible. we are all working toward the same goal here, just everyones panties have gotten into a wad and tripped them before the finish line.

Again, all we are asking is that you present 1 more credible source that backs up what is said in hype. i am not denouncing you, your stance, your source, your manhood, nor your writing skills. just asking for clarification. MushroomHedScienceTwix3000 Added 1 Feb 3006, after this was archived.

Civility

Please take a deep breath and try to refocus your comments on content rather than contributors. Work toward a solution. If you can't find a middle ground, consider taking some of the steps outlined in dispute resolution. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution does nothing. I did make a request for mediation, and the mediation committee has ignored it. This is the second time they've done nothing to handle a problem I've had with another member. And the admins do nothing either. While I try not to act uncivil with other members, it is hard not to when there is no real working system in place to stop member harassment. I've gone through the proper steps of dealing with this; if anyone is screwing up, it's those who are supposed to carry out those steps. -- LGagnon 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried an RFC? For what it's worth, I've added this page to my watchlist. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked more than one admin to look at this situation. The first one told Leyasu to stop making personal attacks and did nothing else. The other simply told me to seek mediation. RFC would only lead to the same thing. -- LGagnon 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Adding the page to RFC would attract more contributors which could help to build a consensus on the issue that is greater than two editors squaring off against each other. Subverting a strong consensus is a no-no. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to bring this to RFC, but I have just posted something at Third Opinions about this. -- LGagnon 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ime going to add this page to RFC now. Also, let me remind Ganon, he was previously warned if he kept acting uncivil and attacking any user who made changes to this page, that i would simply ignore him and carry on editing without him. I am in the process of seeking advive from admins myself at the minute, as well. Leyasu 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I attacked you? You've been making personal attacks throughout this talk page, and you are saying I'm making personal attacks by pointing this out? Go ahead and make a RFC and contact admins; it'll be obvious to them that you are the one who's been making attacks. -- LGagnon 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note. This is my last and final comment directed towards user: LGangon.

Dear user. I have warned you several times about your mannerisms, civility, MPOV, hostile way of talking, and personal attacks. As such, you have ignored all of the comments i have given you, and i have as since refused to speak or work with you anymore due to this. If you have any other comments to be made towards me, please do so through an admin, or not at all.

I am also tired of this roundabout argument, in which you are now saying the same things as i have before, that you duely ignored.

If since you changes your mannerisms and attitude, and become far more workable with, and far less hostile, i may be more reciptant to your comments. Until that point, this discussion is closed, and all further comments that you make about, pertaining to, or otherwise concerning me shall be duely ignored. Leyasu 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment on content, please. Stop focusing on each other. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Let's not turn this into a revert war. Instead, cite a source that proves it wrong. Cite something instead of just throwing your POV around. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not POV. As I've said before, I have a source in the article already that proves you wrong. If you do not have one of your own, you should not remove the info I got from it. -- LGagnon 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

The article has been protected on a neutral revision. Now, both parties, please post your sources right below this post. Please do so in a terse and clear manner, and then the other editors of the article will decide whether your arguments are valid or not. --Sn0wflake 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on consensus. Wikipedia:Verifiability says it is not, and that is official policy. It is based on cited sources, which is exactly what I have there. Hype! is already in the References section, and it backs my claim. I have mentioned this over and over again throughout this talk page.If you need me to write it here, I will:

Pray, D., Helvey-Pray Productions (1996). Hype!. Republic Pictures.

And here's a link to where it is in the article: [3] -- LGagnon 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I quote everything that user Wesley Dodds said, which cites reason as to why Lgangons's argument is wrong, and contains sources. Leyasu 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

He means sources from outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be academically honest, which means information should be backed by outside sources. And as stated above, sources negate the usefulness of any editor(s)' doubts as per official policy. And no, Wesley Dodds didn't give any source that says Hype! is wrong; he simply said that he read the books cited in the References section. -- LGagnon 06:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Which all contradict Hype!, making it wrong. I suggest you re-read the statements that Both Myself and Wesley have given to you. *Wanders off, refusing to converse with Gangon, to edit other articles as Snowflake suggested* Leyasu 06:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon, please quote what is said on Hype!, so that editors can understand exactly what you are claiming. Omitting certain parts may be, of course, necessary, but by any means do not quote out of context. (in case you are wondering, I am trying to create a comprehensive summary of the discussion, so that people won't have to read the previous posts). Leyasu, unfortunately, you currently do not have sources to back your position. I can only suggest that you provide evidence that Hype! is not a reliable source. Otherwise, Gagnon's source will be considered canon and thus incorporated into the article. --Sn0wflake 06:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, my source is already canon. It specifically says that we are not here to debate the vericity of sources that we can not prove wrong without a contradicting source.

I mentioned the scene with the guitar player a little while ago when I was talking to Wesley. I can't transliterate the scene perfectly, as guitar doesn't translate into words, but the hardcore song and the grunge song are essentially the same song with a very slight change. There is also another scene that talks about it, but I don't have the exact quote on hand right now. -- LGagnon 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Firstly, the issue of guitar is a matter of opinion, and unless your trained in guitar, then your opinion is pretty much empty compared to people who are experienced guitar players.

Also, why do i need to provide sources when Aj already provided several? Ok, if you want ill just quote him:

• I admit I've never seen Hype; been meaning to, but not a high priority by any stretch. But I have read Come As You Are, Our Band Could Be Your Life, and many other articles and books on alternative rock in general and grunge in particular, and none of them explicitly say that grunge should be considered hardcore. Speaking of "Our Band Could Be Your Life", Azerrad's book suggests that the metal influences were not primarily satirical; in the Mudhoney chapter he mentions when forming Green River how Steve Turner got into Blue Cheer and Mark Arm began reevaluating bands like Black Sabbath, Alice Cooper, and Aerosmith, "bands he'd disavoewed when he first discovered punk" (pg 416) and integrating these influences into their music. --As quoted--

Im not saying Hype is a bad movie, or completely wrong. Im saying the reason given is wrong. If the Hardcore Punk tag is put into this article because it is part of Grunge's origins, then you need to put Alternative Rock, Indie Rock, AND Heavy Metal in there as well. There isnt any pick and choose about this. A similar argument happened before about Grunge being a Metal genre because it was influenced by Heavy Metal. That was wrong, this is wrong.

Let me ask this. Would the Gothic Metal band, Labores Somnium, be Synth Pop because they take influence from Synth Pop music? Would they be Japanese Rock music, because they influence from Japanese Rock music?. The answer to both is no.

What fans do at concerts, does not, define what the music is. It also doesnt define what the scene is. If moshing and crowd surfing defined music, then all metal genres, and most rock genres would also be Hardcore Punk. Thats by Gangon's argument, not mine. That is what their argument implys.

To further this point. Would Gothic Metal be considered Goth Music because Goths sometimes attend Gothic Metal bands concerts? Would they be considered this way when they have no musical connection to Goth Music at all?.

Gangon's argument is folly. A thousand people can repeat something wrong, but that doesnt make it right. And again, to put hardcore punk here, is to then include all the other templates for its origins, and, by his argument, then opens the door to all forms of metal, and most forms of rock music, then being called Hardcore Punk.

Please take this into account, before people next try to the consensus they are wrong. Always look at the big picture, not the small one, that fits your cause. Leyasu 06:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is yet again becoming confusing. I do not even understand anymore what the dispute is. You have both failed in exposing you case tersely and providing sources. So let's try the simple route: would you both agree in having, content-wise, both of your visions and in terms of templates, absolutely nothing? It seems fair. --Sn0wflake 07:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a handfull of links i just grabbed from google, and not one single one says that Grunge is part of Hardcore Punk.

• the first link
• the second link
• [4] the third link]
• the fourth link
• The fifth link

Enjoy. Leyasu 07:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

They don't say a lot of things. And The books don't say a lot of things either. Is everything they don't say wrong because it's not mentioned? This is faulty logic you are using. Hole is never mentioned in Hype!; that doesn't mean Hole doesn't exist. A source doesn't have to contain every single detail about the subject to be usable.

It doesn't matter how many links you throw out that say nothing; until one says something to the effect of "grunge is not hardcore", you have no case.

And this isn't about origins. Hype! makes a point of letting the viewer know that there is very little difference between hardcore and grunge; that was the whole point of that scene. Like I said, there are some things you can't trasliterate from film, but the scene is intentionally done to show the extremely close similarity of hardcore and grunge.

So, until a source is cited that proves Hype! wrong, or explicitly claims grunge is not hardcore, let's put an end to this dispute and return the article to the way it was. -- LGagnon 07:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, it's highly unlikely any of us will find a source that says "Grunge is not hardcore punk". Either someone cites an explicit reference to the contrary ("Grunge is a hardcore punk genre") or we indicate any divergence between the two genres. Here are my sources so far:

• Michael Azerrad, Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes From the American Indie Underground 1981-1991 (USA: Little Brown, 2001).

Pg 64: Ponderous and dire, the sludgefest [My War] flew directly in the face of the ever-escalating velocity of hardcore -- within the hardcore scene side two of My War was as heretical as Bob Dylan playing electric guitar on one side of Bringing It All Back Home. "It was definitely a line in the sand," says Mudhoney's Mark Arm, who had been seeing Black Flag shows in Seattle since 1981. "It was sort of an intelligence test -- if you could handle the changes of Black Flag, you weren't an idiot. And if you thought they were just selling out, then you were an idiot.

Pg. 65: Then there was the fact that the band never explicitly allied themselves with the punk scene -- their songs were introspective, never about "punk unity" or bashing Reagan; their opening bands were either not classically punk (Minutemen, Saccharine Trust) or completely obnoxious (Nig-Heist); except for Dukowski's mohawk, they didn't even go in for stereotypical punk fashion.

Pg. 416: The band was called Green River, after the Green River Killer [ . . . ] (It probably didn't hurt that "Green River" as also the title of a Creedence Clearwater Revival hit either.) By then Turner had discovered the sludgy Sixties powerfuzz of Blue Cheer as well as the first Stooges album. Arm had begun working his way from Northwest garage rock and the Stooges right up through Alice Cooper, Black Sabbath, and Aerosmith, bands he'd disavowed when he first discovered punk rock. Their new band plied a mixture of punk, proto-punk, and classic scarf-on-the-mike-stand rock & roll

Pg. 152: One of the signal moments in the decline of the original D.C. hardcore scene came when [Ian] Mackaye's brother Alec's beloved band the Faith broke up in August '83. At the band's last show, peopel wept. "Then it was like, 'What is this?'" says MacKaye. "What do we have?" Hardcore became hopelessly played out. "We realized it was done," says MacKaye. "The cake was made. You can't cook it anymore."

Out in Seattle, young Mark McLaughlin was thinking the same thing. "That was what killed hardcore off for me, was how quickly people decided what was hardcore and exactly how to do it," says McLaughlin, later known as Mark Arm. "It became this by-the-numbers, follow-the-rules sort of thing. By '83 I was bored out of my mind with most of it. I was still listening to Minor Threat and a few bands, but you'd hear this new band Stalag 13 or something that was just this fake Minor Threat band, what the fuck's the point of this?"

• Reprinted from the July 1992 issue of Select

[Soundgarden] formed in Seattle in 1984 at the heart of a dawning scene in the sleepy Pacific North West, inspired by a sprawling history of music that took in staple alternative heroes - American post-punk outfits like Black Flag, Husker Du, Sonic Youth and Butthole Surfers - but also the Motor City sounds of The Stooges and MC5 and the ear churning but long since ridiculed giants of '70s rock.

"It was just a mutation," drawls Cornell, neatly shaven but for a thin, downy fur of moustache, and a tiny goatee on his chin. "Being a punk band then wasn't daring any more - it was 1984. It was much more ballsy to come out in front of a punk audience and do a Sabbath cover or a Kiss cover and have them throw shit at you, and then have them adnit that they actually got off on that sort of stuff a few years earlier. It was just a way to create the kind of animosity you used to be able to get just by playing fast punk songs."

So, Soundgarden began with confrontation in mind, releasing their first LP on the hardcore label SST, calling it, as a sign of self-promotional disinterest, Ultramega OK, and moving to A&M for the second LP, 1989's Louder Than Love, which was pushed almost solely at the metal market.

I'll try to get more as soon as my free time allows WesleyDodds 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Current evidence

LGagnon

Pray, D., Helvey-Pray Productions (1996). Hype!. Republic Pictures.

Leyasu & WesleyDodds

Indirect

• the first link
• the second link
• the third link
• the fourth link
• The fifth link

Direct

• Michael Azerrad, Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes From the American Indie Underground 1981-1991 (USA: Little Brown, 2001).

Current proposed resolution

Leyasu & WesleyDodds are considered canon, LGagnon's opinions comes right after, preceeded by "other sources say". Extra templates are not included.

Concured. Which means i agree to the proposal. Leyasu 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What is Leyasu's sources being considered canon for? He doesn't even say what part(s) of his sources prove his point. They are not usable for the purpose of this article if they add nothing to it. And all they are are pages taken randomly from Google. And one of them (the first one) is a fork of this article.

And how is my source not canon? Wikipedia:Verifiability, official policy, says that we are not to dispute that. My source is already in the article (and has been for over half a year), and it is used for citations in the text. Why are we abandoning official policy now? -- LGagnon 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

By the official policys, the fact myself and WesleyDodds have more sources by a significant amount, outweighs your one. And admin has set a proposal, i suggest you take it, in the art of compromise. Leyasu 08:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not how the policy works. Read the article I've linked to.

Wesley's source is in the article already and does not prove mine wrong; if it did, I'd have changed things myself. Your sources are randomly picked Google links; you didn't even state what they are supposed to prove. They don't count as sources at all. If you want them to count, please state what they prove and what part of it proves this.

And as for the admin's suggestion, he can't overrule official policy. Admins do not have that kind of power. -- LGagnon 08:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now cited a number of paragraphs from Azerrad's book for evidence. Scroll up to read them. WesleyDodds 08:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wesley just explained some of his, which is more than you have done. Mine also explains that so far, it is you and a film that your not ready to quote, vs several other peoples versions of grunge's history, as well as mine and Wesley's.

The admin also counts towards consensus, like that or not.

Also, picking and chosing which policys to follow doesnt work. You cant violate several policys to follow one that suits you. Thats playing Wikilawyer and isnt a clever, nor wise thing to do. Ill go find the policys im speaking off as i can be bothered, as this article is not my top list of prioritys in life. Leyasu 08:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon, in case you didn't notice, this is a dispute resolution proccess. Normal editorial rules have not worked to resolve the situation in the past, and as such should not apply in this case, sans the most importa of all, which is WP:IAR. You are ignoring my request while the other party is complying. WesleyDodds has provided enough evidence so that his vision is the main one. You, on the other hand, have not provided any cites, and as such it's impossible to understand and and organize your views. I suggests you bring forward your evidence or your view will be assumed secondary by default. Patience is limtied virtue, don't abuse. You may take some time to organize yourself, that's perfectly understandable, but stop posting messages claiming you are under this or that policy. Your view will be on the article, but what is being discussed is exactly what can be incorporated from your source as a secondary view. --Sn0wflake 16:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how this IAR rule applies. You've given no reason for us to ignore official policy, especially since IAR is not marked as official policy itself. I would like for another admin to be included in the dispute resolution, because IAR under one admin's control seems like it could allow for bias.

And Wesley did not specifically prove that grunge is not hardcore. Maybe some bands were bored with it at the time, but it doesn't prove that it was entirely dead then. In fact, several hardcore bands were still up and running then, and The Melvins have outlived most of the grunge bands.

And yes, I did give evidence as far as I could. I can not transliterate video and sound; that's an impossibility that I shouldn't have to explain. Nor can I pirate a copy of the scene onto Wikipedia for you. I did, however, do as much as I could to explain the scene that proves my point. If you think I am wrong, go to Netflix or Amazon.com or some other place where DVDs are sold/rented and watch the video yourself. This is standard procedure for verifying sources in the academic world; if Wikipedia is supposed to be an academically honest work, I think we should use real academic procedures.

Again, I'd like to stress the fact that we need another admin involved in this dispute. I am not going to trust an admin that claims to be above official policy without a second opinion as to whether or not you can do that in this situation. -- LGagnon 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You were asked to quote the movie which you have dodged around doing. The admins rule is perfectly admissable, and in the art of comprimise, i shall point out your not doing a very good job at it currently. Please remember, the rulling faction is normally the consensus when dealing with theorys. Accusing other users of conspiring against you is also meglomanical, i might warn you. I suggest you click this link here and read up about it, and avoid acting in this way, wether maliciously or in good grace. Leyasu 00:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For the second time, you've made a personal attack against me during this resolution process. "Megalomanical" is an insult, whether you'd like to admit it or not.

And it doesn't matter if Metawiki mentions it or not. It is a personal attack nonetheless. You can't butter it up by pointing at a non-policy page.

And I did quote the movie. If I have to repeat myself, here it is:

Guitar player: "This is punk" *plays hardcore* "And this is grunge" *plays same song slightly differently*

It doesn't transliterate perfectly, but that is as much as I can write. Music does not translate into text. If you still have doubts, watch it yourself.

And again, this dispute is pointless, and in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. It has become a witch trial, as you are demanding that I write something that's humanly impossible to write.

And I said nothing about conspiracy. I said that there is too much potential for bias in the use of IAR, and that we shoulod have another admin here to make sure it is not abused. -- LGagnon 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your description of the scene is that your phrasing suggests that punk and hardcore are synonymous, when in fact hardcore is a form of punk rock. It does not define it as a whole. Much stronger evidence would be if the someone said "Grunge is hardcore". If that is so, the matter would be simpler. Still debatable, but simpler.

My main concern is how this argument has gotten so insanely out of hand. All I wanted was to get rid of that damn unnecessary footer and Category listing at the bottom of the page. We know hardcore gave birth to grunge, it's in the article and template. Does that mean we consider it a hardcore genre? Not really. Alternative rock's the most apt overarching heading to put it under (and we already do). WesleyDodds 05:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The word punk is often used to refer to punk derivatives, including hardcore. It was not uncommon for hardcore bands and fans to refer to their music as simply punk. Hardcore songs that mentioned the style in their lyrics tended to talk about "punk" more than "hardcore" (for instance, "Punk's Not Dead" by The Exploited). Even Kurt Cobain called his music punk. The guitarist may have said "punk", but the style he played was indeed hardcore. And the whole point of the scene was to show that grunge was hardcore. It's not said explicitly, but the implication is obvious because the two songs sound almost exactly the same. -- LGagnon 07:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, punk also refers to punk derivatives. Yes, underground bands like Sonic Youth, Big Black, Beat Happening, the Pixies, etc. called themselves punk even if they had more in common with the philosophies of the punk underground rather than the sonic aesthetics. However, your reading of the scene is very subjective, and your entire assertion seems based upon the conclusion you draw from this scene. Does he say it's a hardcore riff? No, you say he said "punk". What speed were both riffs played at? Are you sure it was hardcore and not crust, oi, or what-have-you? And the whole analogy sounds like the setup for the punchline of a joke; even if it's serious, it seems done in a very satirical way and even then, the set-up makes the entire discussion about grunge seem very black-and-white. Does this guitarist playing two similar riffs mean that grunge is punk or hardcore? No, it merely means that this particular person considers grunge to be punk. We can cite this viewpoint, but that does not necessarily make it accurate in relation to the genre itself. Any implication gleaned form this single scene does not seem strong enough to warrant Wikipedia classifying Grunge as a hardcore punk genre. WesleyDodds 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly i didnt claim you were being meglomanical, i said it is meglomanical to act in a certain way. I also kindly suggest you avoid doing it, much like your kind suggestion about the admins. Let me ask what you will do if another Admin comes, and says the same as Admin Snowflake?.

Also, i would like to point out im not asking you something thats impossible to right. To compare the two songs, as i dont trust your opinion, you can accuire the note sets for each, and the tempo, time signatures, and other such things. Then we can compare them with the aid of several experts in both the form of music and instrument being used.

They will sound the same, because they are played on the same instrument. That doesnt mean they are the same. So when im told this by an expert in both Grunge music and guitar styles, other than your 'opinion', then i might take notice. As such, your 'opinion' is nothing more than an 'opinion' and Wikipedia is not a place a soapbox or voice stand. Leyasu 02:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I doesn't matter how you phrased it; you still intended to call me a megalomaniac. You are just continuing the personal attacks you were making earlier.

And yes, it is impossible. The note sets are not acquirable, as the guy made the song up on the spot. The DVD doesn't come with them written down, either.

How about we make this less complex? You could just watch the DVD yourself. I'm sure it'll cost less than hiring the experts you claim you'll get ahold of.

And no, two styles don't sound the same just because the same instrument is used. Grunge doesn't sound like the blues just because a guitar is used, for instance.

And, for the sake of the article, it doesn't matter if you are convinced or not. What matters is that there is a source cited, which is all that matters per official policy. -- LGagnon 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

An admin has already told you that we are running on IAR. Also, when i said the same instrument, i meant the exact same instrument, not the same type of instrument.

Snowflake, what do you propose we do as Gangon is still accusing me of personal attacks now, no matter how kindly and delicatly i try to give him friendly advice. Leyasu 04:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon, you seem to assume I am bothered by the fact you are repeatedly stating I am biased to Leyasu's side and abusing my sysop rights. If somebody who is biased consists of anybody who does not fully support you and only you, then by all means, I am biased. Do bring in another admin. Oh, wait, the other ones who walked in, soon stepped out because they didn't have the patience to mediate this meaningless conflict.

I was giving you the chance of solving this in the most simple manner possible, but you don't seem to care, so here is the bottomline: you will write your version of the disputed section(s) of the article including as much information from Hype! as you can, and send it to me. Leyasu will write her side of the story. I will then merge then in a fair and neutral paragraph(s), each version as a singular view, and then incorporate the final result on the article. You will have to agree that this fair to both of you and solves the conflict, there is nothing to argue. If you fail or refuse to do this, for whatever reason, I will assume you are acting on bad faith and that's your loss. Do you understand what I am saying? If you do as I ask, this discussion will be over and your version of the facts will be featured on the article. So don't reply to this in haste, don't reply to this in anger, think over what you are doing, and stop throwing policies at me. I am an experienced editor and if I am telling you policy-citing solves nothing, then you should at least attempt to take my word as true. This is my final attempt at solving this dispute in a win-win situation. Please comply. --Sn0wflake 05:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On a note: Leyasu did make a personal attack on LGagnon, and as such she is being blocked for 6 hours, as it has been agreed upon. --Sn0wflake 05:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've not dipped my toes in here actively, but I am watching this page. To suggest that Snowflake is doing something wrong or abusing his aministrator privilege is, frankly, flat wrong. He's taking a rather active hand and obviously isn't afraid to rap a few knuckles, but it seems that that's a necessary evil at this point. This should really be a simple matter. If you want to make an assertion, provide a source. If the source isn't available online, transcribe a small portion of the pertinent section of your source. Anything that's properly sourced will be included. If the sources conflict it'll be noted and presented as a proper conflict. End of story. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowflake, I did not say you were biased. I said that IAR presents the potential for bias. If all rules are out the window, you have absolute power. I am not comfortable working in a situation where the rules can be made up on the spot, as most people are not. I asked for another admin to be included in this so as to have at least some for of checks-and-balance in place so that there is some reassurance that IAR can't be misused. I could take your word for it that nothing is going to go wrong with the rules thrown to the side, but I expect proof. Having another admin at least watch over this dispute isn't a lot of proof to ask for. -- LGagnon 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For the lack of one admin to supervise the resolution of this conflict, we already have three: Jmabel, Woohookitty, and I am acting on the supposition Katefan0 is one also. If I play sides, they will know. Can we proceed now? Right. Please start writing your version of the paragraphs as soon as possible. --Sn0wflake 19:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The debate was not regarding the prose of the article, rather the addition of the Hardcore punk genres footer and the listing of Gunrge in teh Hardcore punk category. There's actually nothing in the article prior to or after the debate declaring grunge a hardcore punk genre. So it would be kind of hard to write a revised paragraph for the article when no original exists in the first place. WesleyDodds 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for summary

I really can't bring myself to slog through all of the above. Could someone give a summary, preferably neutrally worded, of what is in contention about the content of the article (not about people's views of each other's competence and motivations)? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It starts at Grunge's relation to hardcore and expands from there. WesleyDodds 06:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)