Over the years, many people have said (and I agree) that Nirvana had such massive success out of nowhere because people had gotten really sick of hair metal by the end of 1991. Especially the second rate Warrant/Winger/power ballad stuff. Basically grunge was something new that came along at the right time.

However, I wonder how it would've been perceived back in, say 1988. I'd think that's the absolute earliest it could've broken through and still been a hit (the college/alt rock scene was starting to take off). In 1984 it would probably be just noise to most people.

I think about 1988. Do you agree that the "second part of the late '80s" started in 1988, with hair metal actually starting to get formulaic, Reagan going out, and the alt rock and rap scenes taking off big time?

I'd say 1988 is the earliest the '90s could have come in. 1988 and 1989 were pretty close to the '90s, in terms of mindset; for instance Public Enemy, NWA, etc. came out then. Even New Kids on the Block is '90s in a way.

Another question one might ask is what's the latest Grunge could have come out. I'd say 1993 is the latest the '80s could have stuck around.

I think about 1988. Do you agree that the "second part of the late '80s" started in 1988, with hair metal actually starting to get formulaic, Reagan going out, and the alt rock and rap scenes taking off big time?


Yeah, there were traces of this as far back as late 1986 (i.e. "Walk This Way" remake, or the Beastie Boys), but it didn't have much mainstream credit until probably '88. Reagan leaving office was a good part of the '80s death, too.

Yeah, hair metal was still kinda "exciting" in 1987 with Bon Jovi still riding high and Def Leppard releasing Hysteria, but 1988 was a "changing" year in the music industry and the pop culture radar in general.

How do you think Nevermind would've been taken if MTV promoted the h*ll out of it in '88? I know that was a big key to its success, even in late '91/early '92, MTV played it all the time (I was more into the lighter/classic rock stuff on VH1 then, so I didn't watch it as much, but I was very aware of it).

I'd say 1988 is the earliest the '90s could have come in. 1988 and 1989 were pretty close to the '90s, in terms of mindset; for instance Public Enemy, NWA, etc. came out then. Even New Kids on the Block is '90s in a way.

Another question one might ask is what's the latest Grunge could have come out. I'd say 1993 is the latest the '80s could have stuck around.


Yeah, it's cool to look at it from the other side, too.

If Grunge didn't come along, what do you think would've happened on the charts? I'm sure hair metal was on its deathbed anyway, but maybe, like, more MC Hammer/Paula Abdul stuff and soft rock/classic rock?

Yeah, there were traces of this as far back as late 1986 (i.e. "Walk This Way" remake, or the Beastie Boys), but it didn't have much mainstream credit until probably '88. Reagan leaving office was a good part of the '80s death, too.

Yeah, hair metal was still kinda "exciting" in 1987 with Bon Jovi still riding high and Def Leppard releasing Hysteria, but 1988 was a "changing" year in the music industry and the pop culture radar in general.

How do you think Nevermind would've been taken if MTV promoted the h*ll out of it in '88? I know that was a big key to its success, even in late '91/early '92, MTV played it all the time (I was more into the lighter/classic rock stuff on VH1 then, so I didn't watch it as much, but I was very aware of it).


I think it would've been taken decently. But there were still too many rock fans clinging to hair metal and all the A/C stuff that was popular then. It probably would've been successful, but not as much as '91 or even '90. 1988 was the "breakout year" for alt rock, with big, successful records by the Pixies, They Might Be Giants, R.E.M, Sonic Youth, and Jane's Addiction, even if Husker Du and the Replacements were zilch by then. Like it would've been a success, but it wouldn't have been the record to change the industry.

I've often heard hair metal peaked in 1987-1988 or so, but it was already slightly past its peak by 1988-1989, even though Poison were huge then. Part of it was that the "sleaze metal" like Faster Pussycat and Guns N' Roses was coming in, and there were so many hair metal copycat bands.

1988 was really the year, IMO, where people stopped thinking so '80s, with the end of the Cold War and the imminent recession. Also, there was alot more social criticism of the '80s then, and books published about the yuppieism, and movies with social commentary. The whole Reaganite, feed-the-rich-and-kill-the-poor thing was dying off rapidly.

I think it would've been taken decently. But there were still too many rock fans clinging to hair metal and all the A/C stuff that was popular then. It probably would've been successful, but not as much as '91 or even '90. 1988 was the "breakout year" for alt rock, with big, successful records by the Pixies, They Might Be Giants, R.E.M, Sonic Youth, and Jane's Addiction, even if Husker Du and the Replacements were zilch by then. Like it would've been a success, but it wouldn't have been the record to change the industry.

I've often heard hair metal peaked in 1987-1988 or so, but it was already slightly past its peak by 1988-1989, even though Poison were huge then. Part of it was that the "sleaze metal" like Faster Pussycat and Guns N' Roses was coming in, and there were so many hair metal copycat bands.

1988 was really the year, IMO, where people stopped thinking so '80s, with the end of the Cold War and the imminent recession. Also, there was alot more social criticism of the '80s then, and books published about the yuppieism, and movies with social commentary. The whole Reaganite, feed-the-rich-and-kill-the-poor thing was dying off rapidly.


Agree 100%. I think the Yuppie's fast spending lifestyle was more 1981-86ish. Maybe even a little more centered on 1983 or so - even a little before 1988, it seemed that kind of thing was slowly burning itself out.

Do you think more "serious" movies, such as Do The Right Thing, kinda kickstarted the '90s lifestyle? I saw that one not too long ago and it's kinda ahead of its time, seems alot closer to, say South Central (from '92) than to some movies from 1985, etc.

I agree the second half of '88 was the beginning of the end for hair metal. The sleazy/destructive bands were probably popular just to put "danger/rebellion" back into rock, which is something many fans felt it had lost when hard rock went "pop" and the lighter metal bands wore makeup, did ballads, etc.

Agree 100%. I think the Yuppie's fast spending lifestyle was more 1981-86ish. Maybe even a little more centered on 1983 or so - even a little before 1988, it seemed that kind of thing was slowly burning itself out.

Do you think more "serious" movies, such as Do The Right Thing, kinda kickstarted the '90s lifestyle? I saw that one not too long ago and it's kinda ahead of its time, seems alot closer to, say South Central (from '92) than to some movies from 1985, etc.

I agree the second half of '88 was the beginning of the end for hair metal. The sleazy/destructive bands were probably popular just to put "danger/rebellion" back into rock, which is something many fans felt it had lost when hard rock went "pop" and the lighter metal bands wore makeup, did ballads, etc.


Yeah, movies and literature like Bonfire of the Vanities and Do the Right Thing did seem to really kickstart the '90s lifestyle and way of thinking ("sensitive" yuppieism.) I also just saw Do the Right Thing recently...it definitely seems closer to a '90s way of thinking about things. The '80s became alot more eager to examine themselves.

My dad was actually sort of a yuppie. He did coke at one point in the early '80s, lived on the Upper East Side of N.Y.C., and owned lots of ridiculously expensive electronics (well, for 1985-i.e., a rear projection TV.) I think movies like Wall Street and the stock market crash of 1987 put holes in the yuppie lifestyle.

Yeah, it's cool to look at it from the other side, too.

If Grunge didn't come along, what do you think would've happened on the charts? I'm sure hair metal was on its deathbed anyway, but maybe, like, more MC Hammer/Paula Abdul stuff and soft rock/classic rock?


There was a classic rock revival in the early '90s. For instance Aerosmith became popular again around 1989-1993.

There was a classic rock revival in the early '90s. For instance Aerosmith became popular again around 1989-1993.


Yeah, even back to '87 if you count Permanent Vacation (although I'd call that their "hair metal" album, where their next couple ones were more just hard classic rock).

I think classic rock in general made a comeback, especially around '89 (when the '60s started really becoming retro cool). Maybe there would've been more bands/songs like that in a "Nirvana-less 1993"?

Yeah, even back to '87 if you count Permanent Vacation (although I'd call that their "hair metal" album, where their next couple ones were more just hard classic rock).

I think classic rock in general made a comeback, especially around '89 (when the '60s started really becoming retro cool). Maybe there would've been more bands/songs like that in a "Nirvana-less 1993"?


I think more stuff influenced by the other alt rock popular at the time...like 10,000 Maniacs, R.E.M, the Pixies, and "college rock" would have been popular. However, it didn't fit into the conception of rock created by hair metal and sleaze metal like grunge did. I agree classic rock would've made a bigger comeback.

I think more stuff influenced by the other alt rock popular at the time...like 10,000 Maniacs, R.E.M, the Pixies, and "college rock" would have been popular. However, it didn't fit into the conception of rock created by hair metal and sleaze metal like grunge did. I agree classic rock would've made a bigger comeback.


True. That's weird, isn't it? As polarly opposite as Grunge and Hair metal often seem to be, they do have that one common faction of "rebellious/hard rock" in their music.

True. That's weird, isn't it? As polarly opposite as Grunge and Hair metal often seem to be, they do have that one common faction of "rebellious/hard rock" in their music.


I think grunge sort of filled the void easily of hair metal and sleaze metal. If there had been no hair metal, bands like They Might Be Giants, Pavement, Dinosaur Jr., and Sonic Youth could've taken over more easily from new wave, since they're more thematically similar, in terms of being more personal than rebellious.

I'm often blown away by how similar Nevermind sounds to late 80s 'pre-Grunge' bands like the Pixies'. The Pixies' Surfer Rosa is definitely one of the main blueprints for 'Nevermind'. 'Surfer Rosa' and 'The Pilgrim' were revolutionary releases during a time dominated by a hair metal, so I'd say Nevermind could have come out anytime after 1988 (the band had been planning many of the songs on Nevermind since they formed in 1987).

All this stuff really interests me.  I love thinking about "what if" scenarios with music.  While we're on the subject of a Nirvana-less early 90's, do you think music today would be better, worse, or about the same?  Grunge revitalized music for several years and produced some of the best albums of the 90s.  However, theres no doubt that Grunge made angst and pessimism cool, thus indirectly setting the stage for the angst filled and pessimistic styles of Nu-Metal and Emo.  

I think the big reason Nevermind hit it big is because it came out at the right time. Nirvana had 2 CDs before Nevermind, which did poorly in sales. IIRC, Bleach was released in 1988 or 1989, and Incesticide after that.

Had Nevermind come out in 1988-1989, I think it would have been drown out by hair metal, which was still going strong. It would have been something out of the mainstream and probably wound up like Faith No More's "Real Thing" CD - ahead of its time and underappreciated.

1990 probably wouldn't have made a difference

1992 or later and Nirvana would have played second fiddle to other Grunge bands. Nevermind still would have been big, but not nearly as much as it was.

I think it came out at just the right time.  Radio and MTV were being inundated with hair metal and a change was sorely needed.  At first, those hair metal bands were cool and some of them were quite influential, but after awhile, they just kept multiplying like jackrabbits and the quality of the music began to suffer.  Ratt, Dokken, Whitesnake, Poison, Warrant, Motley Crue, Skid Row, Queensryche, Great White, Mr. Big, Winger, Cinderella.....these were all bands doing the same kind of music at the same time.

Thank god for Nevermind.

All this stuff really interests me.  I love thinking about "what if" scenarios with music.  While we're on the subject of a Nirvana-less early 90's, do you think music today would be better, worse, or about the same?  Grunge revitalized music for several years and produced some of the best albums of the 90s.  However, theres no doubt that Grunge made angst and pessimism cool, thus indirectly setting the stage for the angst filled and pessimistic styles of Nu-Metal and Emo. 


Who knows...I think Nirvana is given too much credit for single-handedly 'starting' grunge - Soundgarden, The Melvins.etc were already playing pretty much 'grunge' music before Nevermind. Nirvana's main legacy was popularising grunge music. I think the music scene without Grunge would be dominated more by dance/house music, synths-etc - in other words, nothing would have really changed except for the absence of Grunge.

I think the big reason Nevermind hit it big is because it came out at the right time. Nirvana had 2 CDs before Nevermind, which did poorly in sales. IIRC, Bleach was released in 1988 or 1989, and Incesticide after that.


As far as I know Incesticide was released after Nevermind..?

I think the big reason Nevermind hit it big is because it came out at the right time. Nirvana had 2 CDs before Nevermind, which did poorly in sales. IIRC, Bleach was released in 1988 or 1989, and Incesticide after that.

Had Nevermind come out in 1988-1989, I think it would have been drown out by hair metal, which was still going strong. It would have been something out of the mainstream and probably wound up like Faith No More's "Real Thing" CD - ahead of its time and underappreciated.

1990 probably wouldn't have made a difference

1992 or later and Nirvana would have played second fiddle to other Grunge bands. Nevermind still would have been big, but not nearly as much as it was.

I totally agree. Especially with the 1992 or after part. It came at the right time, but it wasn't expected and that's what made it huge.

Who knows...I think Nirvana is given too much credit for single-handedly 'starting' grunge - Soundgarden, The Melvins.etc were already playing pretty much 'grunge' music before Nevermind. Nirvana's main legacy was popularising grunge music. I think the music scene without Grunge would be dominated more by dance/house music, synths-etc - in other words, nothing would have really changed except for the absence of Grunge.


The reason Nirvana was so successful is that they combined many characteristics of grunge with hair metal-type pop-rock style production. They also were a more "rebellious" group, filling the void left by hair metal.

I think about 1988. Do you agree that the "second part of the late '80s" started in 1988, with hair metal actually starting to get formulaic, Reagan going out, and the alt rock and rap scenes taking off big time?



I agree. 1988 is the absolute earliest year Nevermind could have come out in and still been as a big. Mostly for all the reason you mentioned.

I think the big reason Nevermind hit it big is because it came out at the right time. Nirvana had 2 CDs before Nevermind, which did poorly in sales. IIRC, Bleach was released in 1988 or 1989, and Incesticide after that.

Had Nevermind come out in 1988-1989, I think it would have been drown out by hair metal, which was still going strong. It would have been something out of the mainstream and probably wound up like Faith No More's "Real Thing" CD - ahead of its time and underappreciated.

1990 probably wouldn't have made a difference

1992 or later and Nirvana would have played second fiddle to other Grunge bands. Nevermind still would have been big, but not nearly as much as it was.


The actual order of their released albums is this....

1. Bleach(1989)
2. Nevermind(1991)
3. Incesticide(1992, it's a compilation of 1988-1991 stuff mainly)
4. In Utero(1993)

I'm sorry if I appeared to act like a know-it-all(I don't think I'm one). ;)

The actual order of their released albums is this....

1. Bleach(1989)
2. Nevermind(1991)
3. Incesticide(1992, it's a compilation of 1988-1991 stuff mainly)
4. In Utero(1993)


And 1994 had MTV Unplugged, which I think is their best album.

Crazy really that they only released 4 studio albums...they have quite alot of material.

And 1994 had MTV Unplugged, which I think is their best album.


That too, but I was counting the ones that were released while Kurt was still alive. ;)

Crazy really that they only released 4 studio albums...they have quite alot of material.


The box set that was released in 2004 covered alot of the previously unreleased stuff.

The box set that was released in 2004 covered alot of the previously unreleased stuff.

yea I love the booklet!

yea I love the booklet!


I wished that they would've put some songs from the FM demo in on the box-set(but it didn't count as Nirvana, since Krist didn't help record it. They did, however put a FM song that become a Nirvana song on the Sliver-best of the box CD).

I wished that they would've put some songs from the FM demo in on the box-set(but it didn't count as Nirvana, since Krist didn't help record it. They did, however put a FM song that become a Nirvana song on the Sliver-best of the box CD).

O yea that Sliver-best of the box..I mean it's great if you don't have the boxset but I just got the feeling they're overdoing it a bit..must be Courtney I guess  ::)

And 1994 had MTV Unplugged, which I think is their best album.

It's a great album but I'd say either Bleach or In Utero is their best. :)

Nirvana, interesting. Now I've never been much of a fan of grunge or any heavy metal genre, but I felt it was my duty as a '90s enthusiast to listen to Smells Like Teen Spirit. It was pretty good. I didn't really care much for it, but it was nice.

Nevermind was so good, that it could've been released in any era and made an impact. But mid 1991 was the time it would have the most impact, and that's when it happened. Right place, right time. But the album itself was great, every single track. It couldn't have been drowned out by anything.

regarding there first album Bleach, it was done on a shoe string budget and was never expected to be a big breakthrough album. It barely got any circulation outside of there little grunge enclave.

O yea that Sliver-best of the box..I mean it's great if you don't have the boxset but I just got the feeling they're overdoing it a bit..must be Courtney I guess  ::)


It's actually good if you want some of the songs from the box-set while your on the go, of course, that can be just as easily done with CD-R copies.

It's actually good if you want some of the songs from the box-set while your on the go, of course, that can be just as easily done with CD-R copies.

yea you're right.
I mean it's pretty obvious Courtney wants to make a maximum profit.

yea you're right.
I mean it's pretty obvious Courtney wants to make a maximum profit.


Yep.