wikipedia excerpt from the band BUSH

Options
NOCODE#1
NOCODE#1 Posts: 1,477
edited June 2007 in Other Music
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?
Let's not be negative now. Thumper has spoken
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • shermanator982
    shermanator982 Posts: 65
    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
    http://www.myspace.com/shermanator982
  • jwillmo
    jwillmo Posts: 471
    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
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,215
    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
    1STmammal2wearPants Worcester, MA Posts: 2,983
    I hope no one is using Wikipedia as a source for their book reports.
    2003 Mansfield III 
    2004 Boston I 
    2006 Boston I 
    2008 Bonnaroo, Hartford, Mansfield I 
    2010 Hartford 
    2013 Worcester I, Worcester II, Hartford 
    2016 Bonnaroo, Fenway I, Fenway II 
    2018 Fenway I, Fenway II 
    2021 Sea.Hear.Now
    2022 Camden
    2024 MSG I, Fenway I, Fenway II
  • 1STmammal2wearPants
    1STmammal2wearPants Worcester, MA Posts: 2,983
    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.
    2003 Mansfield III 
    2004 Boston I 
    2006 Boston I 
    2008 Bonnaroo, Hartford, Mansfield I 
    2010 Hartford 
    2013 Worcester I, Worcester II, Hartford 
    2016 Bonnaroo, Fenway I, Fenway II 
    2018 Fenway I, Fenway II 
    2021 Sea.Hear.Now
    2022 Camden
    2024 MSG I, Fenway I, Fenway II
  • SomethingCreative
    SomethingCreative Kazoo, MI Posts: 3,412
    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
    "Well, I think this band is incapable of sucking."
    -my dad after hearing Not for You for the first time on SNL .
  • Haijay
    Haijay Posts: 439
    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".

Categories