Grunge - Thurston Moore/Michael Lavine
 

I'm listening to Nirvana for the first time in yeaars. If it wasn't for them I wouldn't be on this forum. I will so buy this.

Most grunge bands are deathly boring.

normally i wouldnt buy a book about grunge but if thurston wrote it you know its going to be really in depth and informative. He can provide alot of insight into struggling indie bands and nirvana before and after fame as he was on the ground floor for most of it.I hadnt even heard he was writing a book on this.

Fixed.

just for Nirvana and Moore/Lavine i would buy this book...but most of the grunge bands sounds boring...(nickelback and creed are grunge?? uhhh!)

First it's No Wave, now it's grunge?

Thurston's trying to cover all dem genres!

i think thurston knows the cliches of grunge fairly well by now, and probably wouldn't have done a book if it was just going to reiterate old ideas.

am i too optimistic in expecting something new?

i just don't know what else new there can possibly be to say about grunge. it came. it died. most of it sucked.

As a former grnge fanatic, I basically agree. "Grunge" is made up of tons of horrible, shitty boring bands. For every Tad, Mudhoney and Nirvana there was a Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and Stone Temple Pilots and then came Silverchair, etc etc. If the shit that doesn't sound anything like Mudhoney, the original grunge band, wasn't included, it would be a really great genre.

Uh.....I actually really like the Silverchair song tomorrow.

I know, it's embarrassing.

Don't worry, I'm also ashamed.

I'd rather listen to Silverchair or Bush than Breaking Benjamin or Chevelle.

grunge was supposedly about killing off the hair metal bands. but it seemed to just want to have all their decadent excess only with indie values as justification.

I don't think "grunge" had any sort of agenda at all. People were sick of hair metal, and all of a sudden a small group of bands that hailed from the Pacific Northwest got popular, and everyone called them the next big thing.

With the internet (YouTube, iTunes, etc.), the music of the future will have so many influences from all time periods that it's not even funny.

Yeah but they still suck, just not as bad

Aw, come on - there's definite stylistic similarities between all the early ("proper") stuff: yer Green Rivers, Screaming Life-era Soundgardens, Tads, Mudhoneys, Blood Circuses etc, even if that was almost entirely due to Sub Pop consciously focussing on the bands that fit with their long hair/sludgy aesthetic at the expense of anything that didn't (initially, at least). Though as Hype (the movie) or Loser (the book) both make clear, that initial scene peaked around '89 and was pretty much over in Seattle by the time Nevermind came along a couple of years later and redefined everything.

Assuming the book focusses on all that stuff and the build up to it rather that the steaming piles of dreck that followed in the 90's, I'll be interested, but whether there's much there that hasn't been exhaustively covered elsewhere remains to be seen...

I think the U-Men, the Melvins & Green River may disagree there ;)

I still do listen to Silverchair and Bush. And I'm not ashamed. I'm awesome.

Hahah, I can't believe I said Mudhoney instead of Green River. Anyway, yeah the Melvins and the U-Men too. My point is, they sound nothing like any of those three awesome bands. And yeah the wipers were influential, but Ive listened to them and they don't really sound that grungy. Maybe I've listened to the wrong albums. Honestly, it doesn't really matter that much because my point still stands. I think you're getting bogged down figuring out the earliest grunge bands. There were plenty of bands with a similar sound.


Yeah Green River kinda sucks, at least the album of theirs that I have. It sounds like hair metal, practically.

That'll probably be Rehab Doll, which is absolute dross. Dry As A Bone holds up though, and Come On Down's got a couple of OK tracks.
Mind, the Together We'll Never/Ain't Nothing To Do 7" is a fucking scorcher.