wikipedia excerpt from the band BUSH

NOCODE#1

The Science of Things

In 1999, Bush released the album The Science of Things, the album was Bush's first studio album to not reach the top 10 in America (it hit number 11), its sales are meager compared to its predeccessors, Sixteen Stone outsold it 6:1 and Razorblade Suitcase outsold it 3:1. Although it did have the hits "The Chemicals Between Us," which reached the top of the modern rock tracks chart for several weeks, and "Letting the Cables Sleep" which has seen some airplay since the album's release. With Bush, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, and Candlebox suffering commercially, the only truly successful grunge band was Foo Fighters who dramatically changed their style with 1999's There Is Nothing Left to Lose shifting away from their grunge sound, it appeared grunge and its bands time in the mainstream was quickly coming to an end.


WHAT THE FUCK? foo fighters were the only true successful grunge band?

shermanator982

I think it means in 1999 they were the only successful "grunge" band...despite the fact that I wouldn't consider them grunge anyway...but that's another story.

Whoever wrote that could have made it a little more clearer

jwillmo

shermanator982 wrote:

I think it means in 1999 they were the only successful "grunge" band...despite the fact that I wouldn't consider them grunge anyway...but that's another story.

Whoever wrote that could have made it a little more clearer

Even if you do consider the Foos "grunge" (I don't either), according to the RIAA both of their late 90s albums (Yield & Nothing Left to Lose) went single platinum, so the Foos' supposed commercial superiority doesn't make any sense either.

I realize "wikiality" is subjective, but that statement is just out and out false.

markymark550

jwillmo wrote:

I realize "wikiality" is subjective, but that statement is just out and out false.

yeah, never regard anything on wikipedia as fact until you've researched it or followed up on the citations that they provide in the article

1STmammal2wearPants

I hope no one is using Wikipedia as a source for their book reports.

1STmammal2wearPants

It's kind of funny though, we started up our own Democratic newspaper at my college as a response to the low-quality campus newspaper that everyone hated. The damn thing cited wikipedia as a credible source- no one took it seriously on campus.

SomethingCreative

1STmammal2wearPants wrote:

I hope no one is using Wikipedia as a source for their book reports.

I got very lazy and used it for a paper in the fall...it slipped past my teacher though....I got a big fat A

Haijay

wikipedia can be a source of some good info. but anyone can post stuff on there and moronic stuff like that does get on there,though it doesn't stay very long usually.my favorite is nickleback's criticism section was just as big as their "acclaim" section. like they deserve an "acclaim section".