Talk:Grunge music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grunge music article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article was the featured article of the Music Portal in May 2007.
Featured article star Grunge music is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 6, 2005.
United States flag This article has been nominated for Selected article, at Portal:United States.
Music
Portal
Grunge music is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
Alternative music Portal
This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
To-do list for Grunge music: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list

  • Further detail on lyrical content
  • Add more citations from reliable sources
  • Revamp "Decline of mainstream popularity" section
  • Detail relationship between grunge and post-grunge and Britpop
  • Add relevant fair use sound clips

Recurring problems

  • Post-grunge bands need to be kept off the prominent bands list; their list is in the article for post-grunge. Consult the list in that article before adding bands.
  • Non-grunge & non-post-grunge bands such as The Smashing Pumpkins and The Presidents of the USA need to be kept off the list.
Archive
Archives
  1. 17 July 2005
  2. 4 January 2006
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] SILVERCHAIR

The band that has been compared to the likes of Soundgraden, STP, Pearl Jam and of course Nirvana. They really need to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.80.214 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of media files on page

It's nice to see some samples of Grunge on the page, but these files (to the best of my knowledge) are not in the public domain and I'm not sure what the legality of such playback is.

They're fair use. WesleyDodds 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion

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

Why? There's not enough info to justify a fork. Likewise, it isn't even a real fashion; as the article says, it wasn't meant to be a fashion. -- LGagnon 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I think there should be a culture/fashion section Connör (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

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

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

[edit] New paragraph, beta edition

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

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

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

Looks very fine to me. I'm sure the other editors will also find it very reasonable... you will, right... RIGHT? :P --Sn0wflake 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I made clear revisions to the paragraph, and posted it below. Its only minor, mind.
  • As grunge came into being from a hardcore punk scene and was highly influenced by the genre as a whole, it is believed by some that grunge is a variant or subgenre of hardcore punk. In the documentary Hype!, there is a scene in which a guitarist implies that grunge is essentially the same as hardcore punk. He illustrates this point by playing two riffs on his guitar, claiming one as "punk" (in reference to hardcore punk) [3] and the other as grunge. This has caused debate about the similarity of the two riffs. Some of the fans agree with the guitarist, believing that the two riffs are similar due to their sound [4], others argue this is wrong based on the musical composition of the two genres.
In my eyes, it reads a little better (minor gramma fixes), and sounds a little less POV. Suggest this has a template for whatever else is added. Leyasu 05:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems fair, I made three minor grammatical/flow corrections, in case you don't mind. Now it's up to you and Ramirez. Or we could just remove the "Still, ..." and leave it as it is. Whatever's best for you guys. --Sn0wflake 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think we need such a paragraph at all. I really don't see that much of a debate on the nature of hardcore and grunge outside of this whole Talk Page discussion. I'd say we only integrate such a paragraph if further discussions are generated down the line. WesleyDodds 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, Ramirez. The paragraph will be included. End of story. Things need to be civil around here, and this is a fair solution to all. --Sn0wflake 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as how I started the whole debate, I might as well comply, although I do feel it's a highly unnecessary addition to the article merely created as a reaction to the Talk Page debate:
Still, post-punk and alternative bands since the late 70's have refered to themselves as punk whether or not they shared the aesthetics of the style and its subgenres (including hardcore). More often than not they merely subscribe to the DIY ethics of the underground punk scene, which is viewed by some as just as important in defining punk as the music itself. Alternative rock (which grunge is a subgenre of) is not considered to be hardcore, even though it traces it developement to the hardcore punk scene, especially to bands such as Hüsker Dü. Also, the intergration of 70's hard rock and metal influences in grunge is seen by some (including artists from the scene) as a pointed rejection of the increasing rigidity of hardcore in the mid-80's. WesleyDodds 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 :: Still, since the argument happened, its probally happening somewhere else as well. And in case it happens in future, weve answered it already. I also corrected the wording slightly more, as i made mistakes in typing myself. Post it as it is in my eyes. Leyasu 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Oh fuck... not again... all right, before Leyasu answers, can we reach a middle point? Which of your complaints are you willing to discard? --Sn0wflake 06:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I just updated it to fit his 2nd revision. I'll discard the "video documentary" complaint if I have to give up something, but that's it. -- LGagnon 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with LGagnon's views regarding Leyasu's edits. His version is better, and the revised version is less effective. WesleyDodds 06:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Try it now, it makes both our points adequetly i do so believe. Leyasu 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The same problems are there. It still refers to our debate, and it still makes it seem as if Hype! talks about it. If you want a counter argument mentioned it shouldn't be yours; it should be from an outside source. -- LGagnon 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
In light of Snowflake's abscence, and the fact im tired of it, this is how its going to work.
That paragraph is fine. If WesleyDodds wants to give it a copyedit, he can. Once he has copyedited it if he wishes to do so, Gangon will put the paragraph in the article, as it was when Wesley finished with it, where he thnks best. If he changes the paragraph, or otherwise fails to put it in within one week of Wesley announcing he is done with the paragraph, i will put it in where i think best. If the paragraph is subsequently removed, it will be seen as vandalism and direct disobediance of an Admin, as well as distrubing Wikipedia to prove a point. That is how it will work. Wesley, edit away, or pass the ability to do so. Leyasu 04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Combining my paragraph with LGagnon's is fine; any further attempts to counterbalance the different views may lead to giving more time to this debate than the article actually warrants.
On that note, the paragraph should probably go into the Notes section rather than the body of the article. WesleyDodds 09:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Leyasu, you are not taking over in the absence of an admin. You are on one end of the dispute resolution, and if you took over it would be biased in your favor. And you're not even an admin, so you can't enforce any of that.
And given that both Wesley and I disagree with your edit, I think you should leave it to Wesley to add in the new information. After all, he's closer to a neutral party in this dispute than you. -- LGagnon 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Deep Six: first?

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

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

Unfortunately—very unfortunately—most of my record collection is currently in boxes, as I am remodeling a hunk of my house. And I don't think I even own a copy of What Syndrome? anymore. But I will dig these up when I recover my collection.
I don't have too much problem with saying that Deep Six may have been the first compilation of the specific music that became known as grunge, but what I'm saying is that the "Seattle scene" long predates grunge, and this should be reworded. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Melvins be listed as a Grunge band? I know they are more than just one genre, but I think they are grunge too.--24.152.251.248 09:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Very tricky. In my view, their "heavy" sound is obviously one of the main influences on grunge, and they certainly came to wider attention because of grunge, but they generally lack the pop influences that are the other main current in grunge, and that made it more commercially acceptable than the Melvins' sound. They are mentioned here and we say that they and the Wipers are "considered grunge bands by some fans of the genre, although others classify them as hardcore punk bands". That seems about right to me on the Wipers; I'd consider the Melvins more of a transition between hardcore punk and grunge, but I think the current wording is basically on the mark. - Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere that Kurt Cobain credited The Wipers for creating grunge back in 1979. ----DanTD 03:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangs

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

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

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

I think it needs context in the article. It really doesn't matter if someone used the word "grunge" to describe music unless it has bearing on the genre being described in this article as grunge. However, you can draw a link to the bands Bangs was talking about, since they did serve as influencs on grunge bands. If this info going to be in the article, that sort of connection should be made. WesleyDodds 06:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad to see it gone. I just figured that if it's going to be there, it should be precise about his earliest use of it (at least the earliest I know), which happens to be in one of his best-known essays, also one of the earliest citations for the use of "punk" with reference to bands. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted info

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

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

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

[edit] (Should the Smashing) Pumpkins (Be Included)?

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

While they had a few of the same primary influences, the Smashing Pumpkins were not part of the Seattle grunge scene (even though they tended to be lumped in with it in the early 90s). Not only were the Pumpkins from Chicago, but they also incorporated AOR rock, gothic rock, dream pop, shoegaze, and a number of other influences the grunge bands went nowhere near. WesleyDodds 09:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. They sounded more like My Bloody Valentine than anything from Seattle. -- LGagnon 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't think the pumkins like to be considerd grunge, especially as they were never part of the Grunge scene. Actually I think after a while non of the bands liked being called Grunge even Nirvana & Pearl Jam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs) 1 Feb 2006.
Well, in all fairness, they were a part of the grunge scene in as far as Grunge fans tended to like them, and made up a large amount of their fanbase... While I still hear them called "grunge" today, they're far too musically diverse and call on too many disparate influences to be classified as grunge. --Switch 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
TODAY - it was ranked number 3 on mtv's top 10 grunge anthems. --Flvg94 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would group them with the grunge movement, and I would argue that they were one of the more popular bands of the movement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.235.225.20 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006.
^ I agree. Siamese Dream is considered somewhat of a grunge milestone.--Flvg94 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On a point of interest, their influences include Cheap Trick, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath.
Also, in the siamese dream booklet, they thanked Pearl Jam, possibly for inspiration. so in conclusion, here are my three arguments on why the pumpkins are grunge:

  • They were part of the movement.
  • They have grungey songs. SD is considered a grunge record.
  • Their influences are somewhat similar to those of other more Seattle-based bands - Cheap Trick, Led Zeppelin, BLack Sabbath, The Beatles. --Flvg94 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to argue this? --Flvg94 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They thanked Pearl Jam because they toured with them, along with Red Hot Chili Peppers, whom they also thanked in the booklet. I can't think of any grunge bands that were influenced by Cheap Trick. And no, they were't part of the grunge movement. They didn't live in Seattle and only put out a single on Sub Pop (which a lot of bands were doing in the early 90s) They were apart of the larger alternative movement that broke through in the 1990s, which happened to largely depend on grunge bands (specifically Nirvana and Pearl Jam) for its success. WesleyDodds 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheap Trick is but one of their influences...and what about this point:
  • They have grungey songs. SD is considered a grunge record.

oh, and thanks a bunch for replying :) --Flvg94 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Certain songs do sound grungy ("Today" in particular), but the album was pretty much influenced by Queen and shoegazing, not grunge. WesleyDodds 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They were a Grunge band, and here are the reasons why. 1. For everyone that says all grunge bands have to come from Seattle is not true. A lot of Hair Metal bands came from the Sunset Strip, but you didn't have to come from LA to be a Hair Metal band. Also, grunge is a genre, not a period in time of where you come from. My band could be considered grunge, though we wern't around in 1993 and aren't from Seattle. Apop band waering flannels would'nt make it a grunge band. 2. Many people that like the Smashing Pumpkins like other grunge bands. 3. Most Grunge Singers don't have perfect voices (except Chris Cornell). Billy Corgan doesn't have a perfect voice, also classifing him with other grunge singers. 4. Billy Corgan used to play a Mustang, same as Kurt Cobain. 5. Billy Corgan didn't like being compared to Kurt Cobain, and that MIGHT meen that he did'nt like him. Many grunge bands had something against each other. (Pearl Jam and Nirvana) 6. They use a lot of distortion, like other grunge bands. 7. My last bit of reason is that Alternitive is an offshoot of grunge. A lighter one, in some cases, but still a root.

That good enough? AdNimitz

Nope. The only one of those points that's valid is the first. The others . . . well, Corgan's main gutiar was a Stratocaster, while Cobain was one of the few (if the only) grunge guitarist to primarily use a Mustang. Lots of people who like goth like The Smiths and Depeche Mode, but that doesn't mean they're goth bands. Lots of genres use distortion (ie. heavy metal and punk). Lots of rock singers don't have perfect voices (one of my least-favorite vocal performances ever is Mick Jagger on the Rolling Stones' "Miss You"). Antagonism doesn't group bands together in genres. And grunge is a type of alternative rock, not the other way around. WesleyDodds 08:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we look at what critics, or even the band members say? Rolling Stone starts their biography with, "Smashing Pumpkins' music is distinguished from most other grunge rock ..."[5] The former bassist of the band says that they are a grunge band [6]. I agree that calling them grunge in hindsight might be stretching it, but at the time of Gish, there were constantly associated with grunge. And it wasn't until Siamese Dream that critics starting saying that maybe they aren't as grunge as they thought (since when grunge was new, no one knew exactly what was and wasn't grunge). But the fact that they would say this indicates that at a time they were in fact considered to be a grunge band. But leaving them off the list isn't exactly representing history correctly. Also it is worth noting that our opinions on the subject aren't supposed to be what guides the decisions, reliable sources are. Cank 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things were called grunge in the 1990s. Sonic Youth, for instance. Neither of them were actually of the genre, though. And Gish wasn't the album that garnered grunge associations; that came later. Gish was viewed as a psychedlic heavy-rock album at the time of its release. And the Rolling Stone bios are hardly the most reliable sources; at times they read like glorified press releases. WesleyDodds 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are arguing so vehemently against this. Their bassist said they were grunge. You can't get more reliable than this. It is not hard to find at least ten articles where they are described as grunge. I get that you don't think so, but who really cares? You are incorrectly representing history based on your personal opinions. Cank 01:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Bands aren't necessarily the most reliable or neutral source when it comes to classifying themselves. The fact is The Smashing Pumpkins weren't a grunge band and aren't acknowledged as such by histories of the genre. They incorporated some elements of grunge, but they also incorporated a lot of other genres like goth, shoegaze, and arena rock. WesleyDodds 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal?

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

Such a thing would be more appropriate for the more general classifications of alternative rock or rock music. WesleyDodds 10:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. But even then... - The Great Gavini... ...smells like teen spirit! 18:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further to Green River Split?

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

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

[edit] Nine Black Alps

The info on this band seems suspect. They were put into both a section on post-grunge and into the grunge band list. All Music Guide says they are alt/pop.[7] I'm reverting the article until someone can confirm what genre they belong in. -- LGagnon 02:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Paw shouldn't be there; they weren't really prominent as far as I know. STP stays as their status as a grunge band is debatable (this is aforementioned in the article). -- LGagnon 02:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Paw is pretty grunge, and from what I know they were considered grunge at the time rather than post-grunge, which was a term yet to be coined.
On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily called Stone Temple Pilots grunge, or even post-grunge. Just a hard rock/alternative band that happened to sound like certain Seattle bands (although they must have been aware of the grunge scene, because there's a flyer at my radio station where they played a show with Sonic Youth and Nirvana from the time they just called themselves STP). WesleyDodds 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


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

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

If anything we need to take Paw off that list. The real grunge scene was and always will be from Seattle and considering I could name a thousand more bands out of Seattle that were more influential out of Seattle at the time they really don't belong there. They formed in 1991 in Kansas? How can that possibly be remotely considered "grunge"? --Jason Scalia 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to think that in order to be gunge you have to be from Seattle and you have to form in the 80's. I don't agree with this, I think grunge is a specific style of music that was invented in Seattle in the 80's but later spread throughout the world. B o b b y 4 16:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style, roots, and influences

In this section, the writes notes that

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

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

[edit] Timeline of bands

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

Same with the other bands who have posthumous releases.

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

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

[edit] Grunge music genre dispute

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

Your argument's biggest weakness is that you don't cite any sources. Thus, you have given us nothing useful for the article itself. We're not claiming there is no such genre just because of one person's opinion. References are what counts in writing an article, and you have given none. -- LGagnon 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Grunge in fact does have a common sound. It is white noise from the guitar, the hissing dissonant sound coined by MudHoney, as "muddy." It's very easy to find, try looking around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.119.82 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with soccerfrll. Mark321123 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, were you not listening? OPINION IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARTICLE. So whether or not you agree with the fact that grunge is not a genre, official sources and millions contradict you. --Flvg94 19:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed list of "influential musicians"

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

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

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

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

ADD THAT PARAGRAPH!!instead of the list

[edit] Put the Melvins on the timeline?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Second Coming of Grunge Music

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

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

[edit] Kim Salmon and The Scientists

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

There's one problem with your argument: a lack of sources. If they are so important, where's the proof? -- LGagnon 00:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
How hard did you look? You can't have looked at all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Salmon
"Salmon's work in the 1980s was influential in the development of grunge music, first recognised around Seattle, USA, before impacting on popular music in the early 1990s through bands such as Nirvana and Soundgarden. The Scientists relied on unorthodox bass-heavy rhythms and distorted guitars, the latter being a direct precursor for grunge. In fact the term itself was coined by Salmon in the mid 1980s to describe The Scientists' sound, as noted in a documentary on Australian music, “Long Way to the Top” (2001)." --Chops A Must 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It could also be argued that the term was first used in 1981, far before Mark Arm:
http://www.citadel-records.com/mailorder/600/discs/ks.html
But it is a contentious issue, maybe just a more thorough look at the possible origins of the term being mentioned may suffice. --Chops A Must 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Ok, how about, "Long Way to the Top 2001"? --Chops A Must 05:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a notable source as far as I know, and there's no way to check it to varify such (as you did not make a citation of it). Additionally, I think you should be able to give me a written source claiming such as well, given that Kim Salmon has never been mentioned in any major source about grunge before. It's kind of hard to trust some obscure documentary as a primary source for such a debatable claim (especially given that only a tiny group is actually making this claim). We aren't giving undue weight to any extreme minority view. -- LGagnon 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, I don't think it is a minority view. Mark Arm conceded the point in an interview in 2002, after all he was The Scientists biggest fan:
http://www.ocweekly.com/music/music/dont-say-the-g-word/21621/
That article never says "The Scientists" specifically. He just alludes to "some band" which he never names. This is not sufficient evidence. -- LGagnon 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There isn't any point, because anything that is put up as evidence will be tagged as "obscure" because the author of this article seems to disagree with this standpoint outright, even thought there is a lot of material on the topic. --Chops A Must 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you stick to the argument and not make ad hominem attacks on me? I'm not going to tag anything as obscure; I'm just asking that you uphold academic honesty instead of pushing your standpoint without proper proof. If there is a lot of material on the topic, you should have no problem finding a very reliable source that agrees with you. If you can't, then you are just lying to avoid verifiability (which is absolutely required in editing Wikipedia articles). I'm just upholding Wikipedia's policy; I suggest you do so yourself by not relying on personal attacks anymore. -- LGagnon 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Long Way to The Top Episode 6, Written by Tina Havelock Stevens. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2001.
Michael Azerrad, Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes From the American Indie Underground 1981-1991 (USA: Little Brown, 2001).--Chops A Must 10:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You forgot the page number. -- LGagnon 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I just skimmed the book, specifically the chapter on Mudhoney. Neither Kim Salmon nor the Scientists are listed in the index, I can't find any mention of them in the chapter, and the first time the term "grunge" is mentioned in a historical context is on the page I cited in the article that describes Green River as "ultra loose grunge". It's followed by the sentence "Although the word 'grunge' had been used to describe various kinds of rock music for years, this was the first known application of it to the grinding, sludgy sound of Seattle." (Pg. 420) WesleyDodds 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I found one brief mention: "On a fall '87 tour, a stylistic rift in Green River widened to a canyon. Arm says the rest of the band was playing things like Whitesnake and Aerosmith's wretched Permanent Vacation in the van, while he was vainly trying to turn them on to garage-inflected Australian underground bands like Feedtime and the Scientists" (Pg. 422) WesleyDodds 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
But what does that say of their influence? Just because Arm listened to them does not mean they were influencial. -- LGagnon 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Apart from them covering them?--Chops A Must 06:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
So what? WesleyDodds 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Just that he listened to them. Certainly not that the Scientists are some sort of progenators of grunge or anything like that. That line is all I could find. WesleyDodds 06:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I came across this quote from Mark Arm (Mudhoney) said about the origins of the word grunge from a May 2000 interview with muso journalist Everett True.

Everett True: "Wasn't grunge™ your fault?" Mark Arm: Did you ever read that book by Clark Humphrey, Loser, about the Seattle music scene? In it, the writer has dug up some letter I wrote to a local fanzine, and in the litany of words I use to describe my band, one of the words is "grungy." Obviously, I didn't make that up. I got it from someone else. The term was already being thrown around in Australia in the mid-'80s to describe bands like King Snake Roost, the Scientists, Salamander Jim, and Beasts of Bourbon. In fact, Tex Perkins was crowned the High Priest of Grunge in some local magazine. If anybody said that to him then, he would beat the shit out of them. I guess the only difference was that in Seattle we kind of took to it."

Another quote again from Mark Arm (Mudhoney)in a 1992 Orange County Weekly interview:

OC Weekly: "The story I heard is that you were being interviewed by the British press and you said it." Mark Arm: "There are other instances of that word being tossed around. In Australia, there was a swamp rock movement referred to as grunge. The singer of one band was dubbed the high priest of grunge, and apparently if you actually said that to his face, he would punch you."

Another reference worth following is Bob Blunt's book 'Blunt: A Biased History of Australian Rock', (2001), Sydney: Prowling Tiger Press in which he makes makes an interesting contribution to the debate about Australia’s role in the birth of punk and grunge. Kim Salmon’s claims to authorship of both the term and genre of grunge are balanced by other considered assertions elsewhere in the book that such origins are messy and hard to define. In The Scientists, Salmon believes his band “were really forging a sound that was later taken up in Seattle … chronologically, there was punk in the Sex Pistols, and then the guitar action went to Australia” The ‘isolation’ thesis is routinely proffered, and comparisons made between Seattle and Sydney as disconnected cities seething with maladjusted, literate youth. While the usual overseas influences are certainly evident, the book does capture the extent to which bands turned inward for inspiration.

Whilst there is probably no defintive answer to where the term 'grunge' comes from there is more than enough case to include within the article the view that its origins were not solely a result of the Seattle music scene but bands were influenced from other sources such as Australia. Dan arndt 09:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image bloat

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

I think the Pearl Jam TIME image could stay, at least. Maybe replace the Ten image. WesleyDodds 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with that. -- LGagnon 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency?

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

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

[edit] Post-Grunge and Grunge Band

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

I highly doubt so. Post-grunge was meant to be more radio friendly. Grunge wasn't. I don't see why a band would do both at the same time, as either style alienates the other's audience. -- LGagnon 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Presumably few bands say "we reject all that grunge is - we want to be post-grunge". The terms are applied by critics. So there are likely to be bands that fall in a grey area between the two ? Bush are referred to as both grunge and post-grunge. The post-grunge page implies that the first post-grunge group was Foo Fighters. -- Beardo 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grunge Metal

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

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

[edit] Wipers

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

[edit] Dubious entries, again

I see that Hammerbox and Babes in Toyland have been added to the list. I don't think either is grunge, though in the latter case I will admit to having heard only a little of their music. I've removed Hammerbox before. I'll leave it to someone else to remove these next, but discussion would be much more productive than edit wars.

I hear absolutely nothing resembling grunge in Hammerbox's sound, and for a young person living in Seattle at the relevant time, I can't imagine someone much less grunge in style or lifestyle than Carrie Akre. Can someone give me a clue why they are listed? Or a citation for a respectable critic who called them "grunge"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the case could be made for Babes in Toyland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.59.143.41 (talk • contribs) 6 December 2006.

[edit] Australian scene?

I propose that Australia be removed from the list of regional scenes. The prime reason being that no Grunge bands (i.e. those that can be exclusively described as Grunge; those that are considered to have been affiliated with the original Grunge scene; those that are listed as Grunge under section 7 of the article) originated in Australia. Although Grunge music became popular in Australia in the 1990s, the Australian bands that spawned as a result can be described as Post-Grunge. The most notable example is Silverchair. What are your opinions on this? Superfopp 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i've decided to remove Australia (for the above reasons), but if anyone objects please discuss it on this talk page --Superfopp 16:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Would have to disagree as I came across this quote from Mark Arm (Mudhoney) said about the origins of the word grunge from a May 2000 interview with muso journalist Everett True.

Everett True: "Wasn't grunge™ your fault?" Mark Arm: Did you ever read that book by Clark Humphrey, Loser, about the Seattle music scene? In it, the writer has dug up some letter I wrote to a local fanzine, and in the litany of words I use to describe my band, one of the words is "grungy." Obviously, I didn't make that up. I got it from someone else. The term was already being thrown around in Australia in the mid-'80s to describe bands like King Snake Roost, the Scientists, Salamander Jim, and Beasts of Bourbon. In fact, Tex Perkins was crowned the High Priest of Grunge in some local magazine. If anybody said that to him then, he would beat the shit out of them. I guess the only difference was that in Seattle we kind of took to it." Dan arndt 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think international bands should be in included. The article is called "Grunge Music" not "Seattle Music Scene". And there is no way Silverchair should be thrown in with the "Post-Grunge" article with likes of Nickelback. Clown666 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Beasts of Bourbon does have quite a Mudhoney/Melvins sound. If it were up to me I would say they're definatly a grunge band. Unfortunatly were going to prbably need some sources so I'll try to find some. 71.169.4.101 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audioslave?

Would Audioslave be consindered Grunge? they may be modern but they are a grunge band. Just Listen to Cochise. AdNimitz

Nope. They didn't come from the the time or place. WesleyDodds 06:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Audioslave is not grunge, but I don't think that is the reason. I think Audioslave is considered post-grunge because they are grunge influenced but they use less distortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.39.194 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rage Against the Machine?

I am just putting this out there, but was Rage a grunge band? I haven't listened to much of thier music, but they came from the early 90's and three of the former members are part of post-grunge band, Audioslave (along with Chris Cornell). AdNimitz

No. WesleyDodds 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grunge?

How is this a type of music? Especially when you merge Nirvana, Alice In Chains and Soundgarden into the same category when their music are VERY different from each other? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Migospia (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Because they have similiar overarching traits yet distinctive styles. Think of how painters in the same art movement have their own particular aesthestics, or how writers have their own distinctive voices. WesleyDodds 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The same way Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn are very different, but all fall under the banner of "Classical music". Beethoven at the end of his life was producing "Romantic music", which was a different genre, but not the one he started off in. All of these groupings are artificial. Why is "Devo" called Punk or New Wave when a lot of their music sounds nothing like other punk or new wave bands? --MacRusgail 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i'm trying to get this site up and running: it's for people who are grunge fans, grungy, or just want to contribute their own grunge - have a look if you're interested: MyGrunge have fun --Kinggrunge 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting "Style, Roots, and Influences"

I thought the article would read better if the "Style, roots, and influences" section was split in two. I've decided to go ahead with this, just so that everyone can see exactly what I mean.

The first new section is "Characteristics", which includes all the paragraphs that concern sound, lyrics, and concerts. These are the first two paragraphs and the last paragraph.
The second new section is "Roots and influences", which includes all the other paragraphs.

These are my reasons for doing so...

  • I believe the original section was much too long, and thus splitting it in two will make the article easier to read and understand.
  • The original section contained information on two different topics: the characteristics of grunge music, and the roots of grunge music. By grouping these topics together in their own sections, more emphasis is placed on them.
  • This layout (with a separate Characteristics section) is supported by WikiProject Music Genres and is used on articles such as Heavy metal and Punk rock.

Have a look at the new layout and if you have any objections or suggestions please discuss them here.

Superfopp 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition in roots and influences

I added 10 Minute Warning previously and it was edited out. Please see link to 10 Minute Warning wiki page. Substantiation can be found in footnotes and links provided on page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveswad (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC).swad 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substantiation of Ten Minute Warning Addition to Roots and Influences

I have included a link to a goldmine article here http://www.fivehorizons.com/archive/articles/gm082093.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveswad (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image removal?

Why where the images removed from the article? I'd also like to know when, and under what circumstances they should be re-posted.

Thanks.

Superfopp 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nu-Metal

I think nu-metal should be in the derivative genres section because nu-metal bands definately did derive their sound from grunge music. If not in the derivatives section, grunge's influence on nu-metal should at least be mentioned on here.

This article is not neutral in terms of the early Grunge movement giving Nirvana with "smell like teen spirit" and Pear Jam full credit for starting it or being the most popular bands of the era. Definetly not accurate! Before Nirvana came into the scene Alice in Chains with the album "Facelift" was already making noise in MTV and the whole world.

[edit] a couple of other things

There are a couple of things about grunge music stylistically that I thought I'd point out that aren't in the article. I'd add them but I don't have the sources for it. (1) The bands overwhelmingly have a "liberal" message to their songs. (2) Every grunge band I can think of has a low baritone singer, with the exception of Jerry Cantrell, a tenor, and Chris Cornell, a tenor that often sings in the baritone range. Not only are the singers baritone, but they rarely go into another range, sticking solidly within the low-to-middle of the bass clef. 68.97.41.118 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Review

[edit] Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur Jr

Unless anyone has a good reason not to, then Dinosaur Jr should be added to the "Prominent Bands - Outside Seattle Area" list near the bottom of the page. Connör 17:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They preceeded grunge and were an influence on some grunge band, but they weren't grunge. WesleyDodds 21:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Their most well known song (according to their article) is "Feel the Pain", which was released on their 1994 album "Without a Sound". So I don't see how they preceeded grunge. Connör (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Their first album was released in 1985, before grunge emerged. Histories of grunge do not consider them a grunge band. They're just a straightforward alternative rock band. WesleyDodds 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, Screaming Trees' first album was released in 1985 also, so i don't think that the date of the first album has anything to do with it. It's obvious that I'm not going to be able to convince you, so I wont add Dinosaur Jr to the list (but they will always be grunge to me =] )Connör (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can understand why people would consider them grunge, but it's just that they developed independent of the grunge scene. Their contemporaries were the Pixies and Throwing Muses, not Mudhoney and Soundgarden. If anything grunge in the 1990s started to sound more like Dinosaur Jr because of their influence on Nirvana. WesleyDodds 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can agree with that I guess, since Dinosaur Jr sounds very much like Nirvana, but Nirvana sounds very different from the majority of other grunge bands. Connör (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The Online Etymology Dictionary and Merriam Webster state that that the first known uses of "grunge" or "grungy/grungey" were in 1965.[8] [9] Good to know that it may be older than I am. Unless someone can come up with a good reason (i.e. not specious nonsense, fallacious reasoning or idiosyncratic definitions of reliable sources/original research), I'm going change the text.

As an aside, I just saw the discussion above re Kim Salmon and The Scientists. This is purely anecdotal and therefore WP:OR, but I attended hundreds of gigs here in Perth in 1983-90 and read almost every issue of every local music magazine from cover to cover. I remember very clearly that the word "grunge" was used in this city during that period in various senses, including dirty clothes, unappealing homemade food and bands that were comparable to the "Seattle sound", i.e. a hybrid of punk and metal/hard rock. I can assure you that the word was used for music here at a time when "Seattle" only conjured up the Perry Como hit. But of course, a reference is needed Grant | Talk 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Sample

I don't think "Touch Me I'm Sick" by Mud Honey is an appropriate music sample because it doesn't illistrate the slow, heavy beat that is most previlant in grunge music. Maybe something like "In Bloom" by Nirvana would be better. Goldfishsoldier 01:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the best we can do under fair use. Was trying to put SLTS in as well, but the best section for it (Mainstream success) already has a Nirvana image taking space. WesleyDodds 02:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A citation question for Seattle, Washington

One of those darn things where someone wants a citation for the obvious. In the Seattle, Washington article we say "Seattle is often regarded as the birthplace of grunge music" and "Seattle is often thought of as the home of grunge rock". That article is currently up for Featured Article Review and on its review page, User:LaraLove asks: "I know that's common knowledge here, but is it common knowledge world-wide?" My own experience is that everywhere I've traveled in the last decade (much of Europe, both east and west), it is. But I have no idea how to cite for such a thing. If anyone has an idea, please either drop by the review page, the Seattle, Washington article (to add it yourself) or Talk:Seattle, Washington. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christgau Review

In this review [10] of U2's Boy, Robert Christgau says "No matter where they're starting off--not as big as Zep, maybe, but not exactly on the grunge circuit either--their echoey vocals already teeter on the edge (in-joke) of grandiosity, so how are they going to sound by the time they reach the Garden?". I'm not exactly sure when the review was written but as far as I'm aware, it would have been written around the time of the album's release in 1980, since Christgau would have been 38 when it was released and would have written a review at the time. Could that be an early use of the "grunge" term, or has Christgau written that review sometime in the 90s or 2000s? I'm led to believe they were reviewed at the time of their release, since this reviewer has been around awhile. If so, the grunge term could have its first use here. 220.245.249.191 09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bauhaus and Gang of Four?

"Soundgarden and other early grunge bands were influenced by British post-punk bands such as Gang of Four and Bauhaus, which were popular in the early 1980s Seattle scene." - I have my doubts about this line. I don't doubt that these bands were popular in Seattle (I listened to them), or that they influenced Seattle bands (I can remember some that this is true of), but I don't think there was much musical influence on Soundgarden or other early grunge bands. I know this has a citation, but I suspect that the citation is being misconstrued from simply noting that these British bands were popular in Seattle. Can someone with the book confirm or deny this? CAVincent 05:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a number of early Soundgarden interviews mention Bauhaus, and Gang of Four was a favorite of many grunge bands, particularly Nirvana. WesleyDodds 06:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punk metal template

Stop removing this template. Grunge is part of the genre and it should be listed. 86.155.162.127 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. While grunge uses elements of punk and metal, that does not make it "punk metal". All reliable references classify it as a genre of alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It is punk metal, read the article. And stop removing a valid template. It may not be "punk metal" but it draws influences from punk and metal and therefore the template should be listed. Punk metal is not a fusion of punk and metal, but any genre that has punk and metal influences and elements. Thundermaster367 (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we see a source that describes grunge as "punk metal"? CloudNine (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's original research, Thundermaster, which is not acceptable. In fact, the punk metal article consists mainly of original reseach. The references for this article classify it as alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My name is Johnny and my User name is Thundermaster, just to note. I think that we should include the template. Grunge is punk metal because it contains elements of punk metal. It may not be subgenre but I reckon it is a derative form and we should include the template. Tell you what, let's have a vote. Thundermaster367 (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not rely on voting. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"I reckon" is a sure sign of original research. Do you have any sources to back up your claim? CloudNine (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
My source is Wikipedia itself, the punk metal article. And that article does not have orginal research. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a suitable source in this case. Where are the reliable third-party sources for your claim? (Punk metal doesn't have any sources, so what's to say it's not original research?) CloudNine (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The punk metal description at all music guide http://wc05.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:11952 seems to be limited to D.R.I.-style crossover, which grunge clearly is not. Looks to me like the punk metal article is all original research from editors misconstruing the term to apply to anything with both punk and metal roots. But feel free to correct with actual sources if this is wrong. CAVincent (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of punk and metal, why was Bad Brains removed as an influence? I think since most grunge people were influenced by hardcore, and since Bad Brains was one of the first and most prominent to combine punk and metal, and since even Nirvana said In Bloom is a rip off of ReIgnition, and Dave said seeing Bad Brains made him want to be a musician, they are all good points for their inclusion. It would also be nice to see it's not just all white folks that influenced them. Fact is Bad Brains sounds more grunge on "I Against I" and "quickness" than anything by Neil Young, in my opinion. --128.59.143.41 (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Btw, here was the relevant section deleted: Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl later noted the influence of Bad Brains on his career: "Seeing Bad Brains live was, without a doubt, always one of the most intense, powerful experiences you could ever have... They made me absolutely determined to become a musician, they basically changed my life, and changed the lives of everyone who saw them." Fellow Nirvana bandmate and bassist Krist Novoselic said that an early version of their single "In Bloom" "sounded like a Bad Brains song."[13] Bad Brains' albums such as I Against I and Quickness helped pioneer the combination of hardcore punk and heavy metal into a single sound. While elements of heavy metal made their way into the grunge sound,[14] the genre continued to remain loyal to its punk roots. The mentality of the musicians was still deeply rooted in the punk scene, with many bands adhering to the DIY ethic.
  • and you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&oldid=149098299--128.59.143.41 (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Brains

OK, this I see as problematic. Bad Brains were one of the big four of Hardcore Punk, which was a big influence on grunge. The fact that Bad Brains was combining punk and metal in the mid 80s, before a lot of the Grunge bands were is significant. The fact that Bad Brains were an influence on Nirvana makes them at least as significant as the mention of the Pixies in the article. Yet they are constantly erased from the article.

While I can agree there is a difference of opinion, I would like to discuss, rather than just have it constantly erased with the claim it is not relevant. I don't see why it is any less relevant then the mention of the Pixies, for example.

I welcome debate, or a third voice, but I think it belongs in the article. The fact that Bad Brains' role in the creation of the Grunge sound has been underplayed by the rock press always stunk of racism to me. But at the same time, the musicians never hesitated to give them credit. Nirvana gave them credit, as did Soundgarden (in fact they gave them credit in the same interview that cited Bauhaus and Butthole Surfers as influences)--128.59.143.41 (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason the mention of Bad Brains keeps getting removed is because a soild citation of them influencing grunge wasn't provided in the previous version of the page. The article was extensively sourced and rewritten in order to meet current Featured Article requirements, so all "iffy" material was removed, including the mention of Bad Brains. And it will be removed again until a proper reference can be found. Nevertheless, Black Flag has been consistently pointed out as the mso influential hardcore band on grunge, with little to no mention of either Bad Brains or Minor Threat. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: Do Video interviews count? If I show videos from Dave Grohl, or Chris Cornell, directly citing them as an influence, is that an "iffy source"?--128.59.143.41 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that they consider Bad Brains an influence on their work, but is Bad Brains an influence on the grunge genre? There's really no solid proof of that. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If Bad Brains influenced both Soundgarden and Nirvana, then I think they would belong in the same company as the Pixies, Black Flag and Niel Young, etc as influences. Honestly, with the hindsight of what Grunge became, I think once they moved from Hardcore into Metal/Punk Rock like "I Against I" and "Quickness," were Grunge albums in their sound (obviously Bad Brains was no in the Seattle scene). I mean songs like "Re-Ignition" as I mentioned before, played an influence heavily on "In Bloom," But songs like "Quickness," "House of Suffering" and "Let Me Help" are pretty close to Grunge sounding to me.
I mean, you can disagree with me and say "this kid is crazy, they sound nothing like grunge music," but in all fairness you have all these other influences like Gang of Four and Flipper. I don't see why, if I can back it up with interviews, why Bad Brains can't or shouldn't be on that list. Is that fair to say?--128.59.143.41 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this kid, Hardcore was definately an influence on Grunge. There is no good reason why Black Flag should be listed as an influence and Bad Brains not, as long as he can find the citations and interviews. What other "proof" is needed?--128.228.93.202 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slow

Should the Vancouver band Slow (notorious for their Expo 86 striptease act that got the independent music festival shut down) be considered an early influence or player in the Grunge scene?

Here is a song video of theirs dating back to 1986. You be the judge.

Slow - Have Not Been The Same

--70.68.26.228 (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Four of Grunge

I saw no mention of the "Big Four of Grunge". They all are Seatle bands, so I just listed them first, amongst the Seatle bands, and labeled them. I was tempted to pull them out of seatle, and even list them before prominent bands. Then I noticed the hidden comment telling me not to add certain bands, and to post here if I altered the list. I have now posted here. Mathiastck (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not commonly mentioned in sources, unlike the "Big Four" of thrash. That's why there's no mention of it. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks very common when you type it into google. I heard of big four of grunge before i heard of big four of thrash, and it's also prominently mentioned elsewhere on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Grunge Mathiastck (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering why the hell there's a grunge portal, particulary since many of the articles featured at the alt-rock portal are grunge-related. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Music sites as Reliable Sources

I'm assuming that PureVolume can be counted as a reliable source for what bands can be included in Grunge Music, so I'm adding STAIND, 99Burning, Creed, and Three Days Grace. Only one of the bands currently in the list of Grunge bands outside of Seattle is in the top 100 bands at PureVolume when I looked, but all four of these are there consistently. If other popular music sites also have lists, I encourage other editors to use them to refine and/or expand the list. Dscotese (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the site. It's not a suitable source. It's a site for bands to host mp3s. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It is true that PureVolume does not discuss the grunge genre in any form. However, it is an objective second party source about whether any particular band is a good representative of Grunge. Bands are allowed to declare two genres in which their music fits when they sign up and they can add one more after that. Obviously, if a band picks genres in which they are not a good fit, their audience won't find them and they won't do too well. If I understand you correctly, your intent is to fill Wikipedia only with information that human beings pass judgment on, rather than adding the useful facts that automated systems uncover through objective, automated synthesis. That in itself adds bias to and subtracts value from Wikipedia, in my opinion. Dscotese (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Bands aren't considered reliable sources for their own genres, because they are inherently biased. Well known examples are Motorhead only calling themselves a "rock 'n roll" band, and The Cure rejecting any genre applied to them, particularly gothic rock.WesleyDodds (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, but if they happen to guess correctly, then their ranking in the genre they chose would tend to match their skills. I guess you're arguing that people wanting to listen to "Grunge" music might enjoy non-Grunge music more than music that really is Grunge? Does it come down to there being some group who has the authority to decide what is and what isn't Grunge? If that is your point, I guess I understand. I just figured that the listeners should be the ultimate reliable source on what is Grunge and what isn't. Dscotese (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Random listeners are not reliable sources. Journalists and peer-reviewed academics are. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Everclear

Everclear should be included on the list. -000 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

From the sources I've consulted, they're considered post-grunge, rather than grunge. CloudNine (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] decline section of mainstream popularity

(During the mid-1990s many grunge bands broke up or became less visible)
Hole,2002
Screaming Trees,2000
Alice in Chains,2002
Soundgarden,1997
Pearl jam,1990-present
Skin Yard,1993
Mudhoney,1988-present
Nirvana,1994
Hole, 2002
E.t.c E.t.c

above are many noteable grunge bands and the years some of them disbanded or not, i am hard pressed to find any mass break up in the mid 90's, now i took out that whole ridiclous unnecessary and more importantly inaccurate statement from above and lead off with the time article about kurt and just let the rest of the article read out which has dates times and places and things which exclaims the decline of grunge started in early 1994 which was when grunge bands started to become less vissible anyway which exactly what the artilces says anyway,and may i remind people there is no ownership of articles on wikipedia--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing against consensus. The sentence introduces the paragraph topic that grunge's popularity declined beginning in the mid-1990s due to some disbandments and decreased visibility by a number of key bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

is 1994 the mid 90's?(no it is not) i have tried to come up with a compromise with that section rewording it or even removing it because it just an pov statement anyway and the second sentence in the section exclaims the latter half of the 90's grunge was supplanted by post grunge anyway , wesley dodds why are you ignoring fact i presented the facts there were little to none break up of grunge bands in the mid 1990's,and you are unwilling to compromise --Wikiscribe (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, 1994 is the mid-1990s. If you divide the decade in thirds, it is clearly neither the "early" nor "late" 1990s.
In any case, though, this seems a tempest in a teapot. I am amazed that neither of you seems to be willing to let the other's version stand for a while, while this is worked out on the talk page, rather than requiring article protection. This is hardly an earthshaking matter of principle. - Jmabel | Talk 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

i have tried i have re written it or just tried to remove it all together and have the lead just say about the time magazine article being something similar starts off the whole section with post grunge supplanted grunge in the latter half of the 90's , 1994 is early 90's early 90's 90-94 mid 90's 95-96 late 90's 97-99 and dont try and make it like its my own pov by trying to claim in some abstract manner that 1994 is the mid 90's--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The way it is right now, it is not even grammatically correct! "Time magazine had labelled Kurt Cobain as "the John Lennon of the swinging Northwest," appeared "unusually tortured by success" and struggled with an addiction to heroin." Time is wrongly formatted too. Besides all that, what does that paragraph mean anymore? Couldn't have picked a better version of the article to block. indopug (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

well yeah the time magazine sentence is not grammatically correct(page was protected)so it could not be fixed properly though grammar is not the central issue that has been brought up, though i did not change the sentence around that much,blame others as well as me because of a sence around this article of ownership and unwilling to compromise by certain parties--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One of your edit summaries said "fixed poorly worded lead off sentence", but now we have . . . a poorly worded lead off sentence. And no one's claming ownership of this article; we just want to maintain the current standard that the article adheres to. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

i don't know if this is going over your head or not dodds but the main issue is not grammar that can be fixed,the issue is that little pov sentence thats starts of the paragraph ,if you were a helpful editor you would have tried to help instead of being obnoxious reverter and being insistant that its your way or the highway and if you are suggesting that little pov sentence is the only way that paragraph can start you obviously have a pov interest in the issue because i would not want to suggest the other reason because that might seem to be a personal attack. i do want that high level of standard also being the sentence is a misstatement which i have duely demonstrated,also we is me to i rest my case on the ownership issue as well--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you want to refrain from personal attacks, but be careful with some of your phrasing ("you were a helpful editor you would have tried to help instead of being obnoxious reverter") which could be interpreted as such. How does the sentence push a point of view? Also note that your edit was reverted by three editors, including myself. You have been the only one trying to rewrite/remove the sentence. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

you seem to be a very very experienced editor as you know any article over time gets critiqued,that is the way it works there is no perfect article that goes for feature articles as well , i know i have worked on feature articles before in particular the ancient egypt article and it does get critqued often,that is what i mean about ownership of the article because some just disagree does not mean that an article can never be critiqued thats not a consenus thats a filibuster,i mean in between my small edits there were other editors who made changes and did not revert my edits or change as well, you act like im trying to add something totaly off the wall to the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reprhased the sentence, and I think a lot of the problems have been solved by simply changing "During" to "Starting in". WesleyDodds (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

your just rehashing the same pov pushing statement what was wrong with the redone statement by -5- where he just elinminated the unnessicary and out of place sentence with the time magazine article--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-5- only fixed the bad grammar that was the result of your edit. The paragraph still needs a topic sentence; otherwise, it just starts off cold with no context. It doesn't have to be that sentence, but the paragraph needs a topic sentence, otherwise the paragraph is badly written. That's my main concern here. That's really been my only concern. I'm saying this as someone with a degree in English. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

so why does it not start off with starting in 1994 what i had changed to already and yet the sentence still states grunge bands broke up in the mid 90's which i have already pointed out is not true please dont try and fillibuster content dispute with proper english and grammatical issue sort of fluff,you just want the article to say what you as in pov want the article to say and i realy dont care if you got a ph.d in physics english or history--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: the current version: "Starting in 1994" I feel gives it an unnecessary fixed date, but I could live with it. The best I could come with as an alternative is "As the decade wore on", but that's a bit too colloquial. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

how about this "In subsequent years grunge bands became less visable"--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't work, because that would indicate that much of it happened in 1994, and the separate conjunctions affixed together by "and" makes the sentence awkward. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DeepSix1985.jpg

The image Image:DeepSix1985.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PAGODA

pagodas article says that they are indeed grunge, so i think we should add the band to the band sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.151.80 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a list of prominent grunge bands, not just a list of grunge bands. Barring an unlikely revival, I don't think any bands formed after the early '90s are ever going to belong on the list. Sorry. CAVincent (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)