inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: sonikuu on 04/06/06 at 5:49 pm

Grunge did, no doubt, change the world of rock music forever back in the 90's.  It destroyed the hair bands and brought in a more serious minded rock that focused on the darker subjects in life.  Many of the greatest bands of the 90's were Grunge or were influenced by it in some way (would Green Day have become popular without Grunge?  Probably not.).

While some will say that that alone justifies it being a positive impact, it has also had a negative impact.  It virtually destroyed all the positivity and the hard partying lifestyle that characterized Rock music up to that point.  It then replaced it with a much darker, more depressed form of music.  Unfortunately, Grunge being dark, depressing, rebellious, etc. also paved the way for the Nu-Metal bands of the late 90's/early 00's and, subsequently, the Emo of the 00's.  These two styles would not have become popular without Grunge taking the 'party' out of rock and injecting some (at the time) much needed angst into it.

So, did Grunge have a positive or negative impact?  Does the fact that it destroyed the hair bands and revolutionized Rock music make it positive?  Or is it a negative impact, with the fact that the darker environment it created would later spawn Nu-Metal and Emo?

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: velvetoneo on 04/06/06 at 6:53 pm

I don't think you can call it either a positive or negative impact. At the time, grunge was original in that it swept away definitively the hard-partying style of true mainstream rock and made it more dark, thoughtful, intellectual, and depressing. But too much of anything is a bad thing, honestly. I think the reason rock music hasn't been innovative or interesting since grunge died for the most part is that people are stuck on grunge.

However, I adhere to the belief that emo is a Persian while grunge is a domestic shorthair, speaking of breeds of alternative cat. Emo (and all the twee-pop styled alternapop that's followed in its '00s wake, including Bright Eyes) is exclusivist, whiny, soulless, and commercial in its own "alternative" way, and without much point or "heart." Grunge had plenty of heart, was depressing without being whiny, and such. However, it's a short step from one to the other. Grunge also maintained the feeling of arena rock and the proletariat in rock which emo has killed. Plenty of the alt rock that came just before Nirvana wasn't all that depressing (Sonic Youth, Jane's Addiction, and the Pixies certainly weren't.) What made it okay to be depressing in an effete style in '00s rock is the heavy influence of highly depressing '80s alt rock like Joy Division and the Smiths, both of whom I love (in slight doses.) People underestimate the influence of those two groups on the '00s. Alt rock in the '90s was refreshing, alt rock in the '00s can be extremely irritating. Grunge was a good thing. Of course, we can't escape the influence of moroseness, even in a stylized fashion, even though we seemed to briefly escape it around 1999. At least grunge struck a balance between being intelligent and thoughtful, if depressing, without being whiny and pompous. Alt rock has become whiny and pompous, not thoughtful (if depressing) and intelligent, but accessible to all sorts of fans.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/06/06 at 7:14 pm

It's had a positive and negative effect. It was positive in 1991 when it brought in something new and fresh into a stale rock scene and brought alternative rock to the mainstream. It was negative because it has given way to the current rock scene which is every bit as stale as hair metal was by 1991. Now that being said I like modern rock. There are some decent Emo songs and bands like the Foo Fighters and Audioslave are great but the truth is after 15 years in the mainstream alternative rock is getting rather tiresome. And in becoming so commercial has lost the very things that made it "alternative" in the first place.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: velvetoneo on 04/06/06 at 7:28 pm


It's had a positive and negative effect. It was positive in 1991 when it brought in something new and fresh into a stale rock scene and brought alternative rock to the mainstream. It was negative because it has given way to the current rock scene which is every bit as stale as hair metal was by 1991. Now that being said I like modern rock. There are some decent Emo songs and bands like the Foo Fighters and Audioslave are great but the truth is after 15 years in the mainstream alternative rock is getting rather tiresome. And in becoming so commercial has lost the very things that made it "alternative" in the first place.


The alternative rock scene has gotten so stupid it's probably going to undergo a rebirth soon, and then become mainstream without shame.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/06/06 at 7:36 pm

^Yep. In some ways it's getting just as dumb and repetitive as pop-metal was.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: velvetoneo on 04/06/06 at 7:38 pm


^Yep. In some ways it's getting just as dumb and repetitive as pop-metal was.


And this isn't just emo I'm talking about, it's really most alternative rock, even the incredibly boring, pompous, and '80s-derivative stuff like Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, etc. And fiery '90s alt rock icons like Tori and Liz Phair have been reduced to A/C, since the alt rock scene is currently anti-woman.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/06/06 at 7:40 pm


And this isn't just emo I'm talking about, it's really most alternative rock, even the incredibly boring, pompous, and '80s-derivative stuff like Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, etc. And fiery '90s alt rock icons like Tori and Liz Phair have been reduced to A/C, since the alt rock scene is currently anti-woman.



You mean "Indie" rock.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: Donnie Darko on 04/06/06 at 7:41 pm

I think in the early '90s it was a wonderful development, and ushered in the final era that rock ruled in (about 1991-1994, maybe later).  But people never really tired of it, and it made rock a largely boring alternate genre to hip hop for whiny kids to listen to.  All the glam was tranferred to the rap realm, even by the early 1990s.  Positive/happy/fun rock bands like Weezer and The Darkness are very rare.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: velvetoneo on 04/06/06 at 7:42 pm



You mean "Indie" rock.


Whatever. "Indie" is probably a better word. I mean, the current indie people hate the late '80s-mid '90s period anyway.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/06/06 at 7:48 pm


I think in the early '90s it was a wonderful development, and ushered in the final era that rock ruled in (about 1991-1994, maybe later).  But people never really tired of it, and it made rock a largely boring alternate genre to hip hop for whiny kids to listen to.  All the glam was tranferred to the rap realm, even by the early 1990s.  Positive/happy/fun rock bands like Weezer and The Darkness are very rare.



Yeah, glam rock transferred to glam rap and now rock is the alternative. Strange the way things switched up ain't it? ::)

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: Donnie Darko on 04/06/06 at 8:01 pm



Yeah, glam rock transferred to glam rap and now rock is the alternative. Strange the way things switched up ain't it? ::)


That's exactly correct. Notice how when rock went indie rap went pop? (this happened c. 1992)

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: deadrockstar on 04/06/06 at 11:04 pm

I hate depressing music. I didn't even like the original Grunge.  Yes, thats right, I don't even like Nirvana.  At all.

I've tired of The Shins somewhat lately because some of their stuff is melancholic(although not near as bad as a lot of bands).  I really dont like Death Cab for Cutie, Bright Eyes etc.

Velvetoneo I don't like how you keep stereotyping the Indie rock scene.  Its not all depressing, 80s underground rock-influenced type stuff.  My Morning Jacket and Sleater-Kinney are both examples of bands that don't fit that stereotype at all.  Same with the Kaiser Chiefs.  Also the Flaming Lips and the Pixies are both still kicking @ss.  I saw TFL on Austin City Limits not long ago, they rocked.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: deadrockstar on 04/06/06 at 11:05 pm

The Arctic Monkeys are another good band that isn't that way as well.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: velvetoneo on 04/07/06 at 5:56 am


I hate depressing music. I didn't even like the original Grunge.  Yes, thats right, I don't even like Nirvana.  At all.

I've tired of The Shins somewhat lately because some of their stuff is melancholic(although not near as bad as a lot of bands).  I really dont like Death Cab for Cutie, Bright Eyes etc.

Velvetoneo I don't like how you keep stereotyping the Indie rock scene.  Its not all depressing, 80s underground rock-influenced type stuff.  My Morning Jacket and Sleater-Kinney are both examples of bands that don't fit that stereotype at all.  Same with the Kaiser Chiefs.   Also the Flaming Lips and the Pixies are both still kicking @ss.  I saw TFL on Austin City Limits not long ago, they rocked.


Sorry, I tend to generalize things too much  :) .

Yeah, the Flaming Lips kick ass. I just think alot of the younger American scene is whiny and very "hipster" without benefits.

I'm not going to say I hate depressing music. I mean, some of my favorites include Tori Amos, Kate Bush (though they're more majestic and emotional than purely depressing), The Smiths, Joy Division, Aimee Mann, The VU, Sonic Youth, Nirvana, etc. But I can only take alot of it in small doses, and the stuff I like is more depressing in that its thoughtful and melancholic as opposed to whiny. I also like really intensely emotional music, whatever emotion it may be, as long as it's intense.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: Mr Tumnus on 04/07/06 at 6:41 am


I hate depressing music. I didn't even like the original Grunge.  Yes, thats right, I don't even like Nirvana.  At all.

I've tired of The Shins somewhat lately because some of their stuff is melancholic(although not near as bad as a lot of bands).  I really dont like Death Cab for Cutie, Bright Eyes etc.


I agree Alex and want to add Coldplay even tho' they are not Grunge. I can't bear the depressing dronings of Chris Martin.
Thank God they've just announced they are to stop touring/performing in the UK for the foreseeable future. HURRAHH!!

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: Trimac20 on 04/07/06 at 8:11 am


Sorry, I tend to generalize things too much  :) .

Yeah, the Flaming Lips kick ass. I just think alot of the younger American scene is whiny and very "hipster" without benefits.

I'm not going to say I hate depressing music. I mean, some of my favorites include Tori Amos, Kate Bush (though they're more majestic and emotional than purely depressing), The Smiths, Joy Division, Aimee Mann, The VU, Sonic Youth, Nirvana, etc. But I can only take alot of it in small doses, and the stuff I like is more depressing in that its thoughtful and melancholic as opposed to whiny. I also like really intensely emotional music, whatever emotion it may be, as long as it's intense.


Toris Amos and Kate Bush are hardly depressing...Quirky, but no truly melancholy-inducing.

When I want to get depressed I listen to groups like Travis (I know they were real pop a time), some Radiohead and Elliott Smith. But Elliott Smith's music is not just depressing; in many way's its enlightens you to the little truths in life, like light at the end of the tunnel.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: velvetoneo on 04/07/06 at 2:20 pm


Toris Amos and Kate Bush are hardly depressing...Quirky, but no truly melancholy-inducing.

When I want to get depressed I listen to groups like Travis (I know they were real pop a time), some Radiohead and Elliott Smith. But Elliott Smith's music is not just depressing; in many way's its enlightens you to the little truths in life, like light at the end of the tunnel.


Tori can be extraordinarily depressing. Just her voice is on some of her albums, it's the essence of sadness. Listen to Little Earthquakes through From the Choirgirl Hotel, all of that is pretty depressing in places, even bleak. Her newest stuff isn't.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: deadrockstar on 04/07/06 at 3:05 pm


Sorry, I tend to generalize things too much  :) .

Yeah, the Flaming Lips kick ass. I just think alot of the younger American scene is whiny and very "hipster" without benefits.

I'm not going to say I hate depressing music. I mean, some of my favorites include Tori Amos, Kate Bush (though they're more majestic and emotional than purely depressing), The Smiths, Joy Division, Aimee Mann, The VU, Sonic Youth, Nirvana, etc. But I can only take alot of it in small doses, and the stuff I like is more depressing in that its thoughtful and melancholic as opposed to whiny. I also like really intensely emotional music, whatever emotion it may be, as long as it's intense.


What about the other bands? My Morning Jacket, Sleater-Kinney, Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, none of them are really old.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: velvetoneo on 04/08/06 at 7:48 pm


What about the other bands? My Morning Jacket, Sleater-Kinney, Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, none of them are really old.


Sleater-Kinney are good. But you still have to admit that most younger American indie rock is overly depressing and pretentious. I think I could accept some of it if it weren't majority like that. The reason The Smiths, Joy Divison, The Cure, and the rest of the English early '80s alt rock scene were good is that they were original and not everything on the market was like them. But now everything is.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: paradisecity on 04/09/06 at 6:51 am

I think it had a very positive impact.

Except it's as good as dead now. And Courtney Love is trying so hard to ressurect it.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: Trimac20 on 04/09/06 at 6:59 am


Tori can be extraordinarily depressing. Just her voice is on some of her albums, it's the essence of sadness. Listen to Little Earthquakes through From the Choirgirl Hotel, all of that is pretty depressing in places, even bleak. Her newest stuff isn't.


I have the 'Tales of a Librarian' compilation. At first her music didn't really do anything for me; but now I sort of do appreciate it. I still prefer the more pop-friendly songs like 'Cornflake Girl' and 'Mr. Zebra' to the more confessional sort of music.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: velvetoneo on 04/09/06 at 8:35 am


I have the 'Tales of a Librarian' compilation. At first her music didn't really do anything for me; but now I sort of do appreciate it. I still prefer the more pop-friendly songs like 'Cornflake Girl' and 'Mr. Zebra' to the more confessional sort of music.


Buy To Venus and Back...and listen to the live disc. It's supreme.

Subject: Re: Grunge: Positive or Negative Impact?

Written By: deadrockstar on 04/09/06 at 5:57 pm


I think it had a very positive impact.

Except it's as good as dead now. And Courtney Love is trying so hard to ressurect it.


Its not dead, just it's original form.  Today's emo bands and black/depressing/angry metal bands(like Slipknot) seem like de-generated forms of Grunge. 

Check for new replies or respond here...