Options
Has evryone forgotten what the grunge sound really was ?
nowayimfaithfull
Posts: 2,051
I know half of you are going to say, you have no clue but. Heres a try.
These bands pushed for a classic rock structured song, like Aerosmoth, Kiss, Stones, Zep, ESPECIALLY THE BEATLES.
bUTTTTTTT
They played their songs with punk chords, and even some minor chords. Just like the later beatles music. The bands looked for a non metal sound on their productions a lot of distortion and reveb, comming out like a punk band not a metal band. There is a show in 2000, where Ed starts talking about how bands all over the world tune their instruments, and than boasts how seattle musicians tune their instruments.
They really are proud of their sound. After ten pj went out of their way to capture their well wrote well crafted music in like 1 to 2 recordings in a live atmosphere. The whole band performing it.
Ala rvm. A lot of these bands you guys tend to like the sound of all do there music seperatley in studio, than the singer comes in and lays down his lyrics. I am not saying what is right or wrong, but its what these bands have taken alot of pride in. They faught for their punk sound and image very hard during those years. Now things change and obviously they have experimitted.
But i do not they look back on these recordings as mistakes they missed.
These bands pushed for a classic rock structured song, like Aerosmoth, Kiss, Stones, Zep, ESPECIALLY THE BEATLES.
bUTTTTTTT
They played their songs with punk chords, and even some minor chords. Just like the later beatles music. The bands looked for a non metal sound on their productions a lot of distortion and reveb, comming out like a punk band not a metal band. There is a show in 2000, where Ed starts talking about how bands all over the world tune their instruments, and than boasts how seattle musicians tune their instruments.
They really are proud of their sound. After ten pj went out of their way to capture their well wrote well crafted music in like 1 to 2 recordings in a live atmosphere. The whole band performing it.
Ala rvm. A lot of these bands you guys tend to like the sound of all do there music seperatley in studio, than the singer comes in and lays down his lyrics. I am not saying what is right or wrong, but its what these bands have taken alot of pride in. They faught for their punk sound and image very hard during those years. Now things change and obviously they have experimitted.
But i do not they look back on these recordings as mistakes they missed.
Some people have religion I have Pearl Jam.
no more shows
no more shows
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I'll never forget what the seattle sound is/was... I grew up listening to it.
Yes remeber grunt ruck, my point I guess is in relation to everyone wanting to change the bands sound. I read some stuff where they act like the band didnt realize their albums had a flat sound. I think they had a cause with these recordings.
Like in grievance, there is a not that mike hits that is straight up punk in the 2 minute mark, I read on here recently that they missed that and forgot to take it out of the song.
no more shows
Hartford 10 Boston 10 Wrigley 13 Worcester I 13 Worcester II 13 Hartford 13
NYC I 16 NYC II 16 Fenway I 16 Fenway II 16 Fenway 1 18 Fenway II 18
E.V. Boston II 08 E.V. Albany II 09 E.V. Providence 11, E.V. Boston 11
Troubled Souls Unite
The word grunge was created by the media, sure, but those bands had a very distinct sound at the time that was signature of the Seattle area.
Sludgy and Fuzzy.
I don't know, not all "Seattle" bands were from Seattle proper. If you wanna get that specific.
But I hate when people call bands like Smashing Pumpkins and STP "grunge" because to me they were just alternative rock bands, which is all grunge bands ever were really, it's just that all those bands came from one area in the country.
Gruntruck
And NOBODY walked around in spandex and makeup (guys) until after Hair Metal started as a musical genre. Ugh.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me...
They were not heavy metal, they really were'nt
They fused together punk/mainstream/classic rock, after Ten they added Eds folk. There is no acoustic on Ten.
Most people in the music world dont care about look, I am talking sound, these bands were on a mission.
This is really not my humble opinion, I am not a musician, I have read alot of old interviews and the five agaist 1 book. And listened to some interviews mainly soundgarden.
I hear you with the look, I am not saying you are wrong, christ mtv and magazines plastered that shit everywhere.
I am going back to the pre ten days, with like early sg, and nirvana, and green river, Also Ed had alot to say about their direction before lets say vitalogy.
no more shows
If I'm not mistaken, Neil Young was/is considered the "Godfather of Grunge" and he's Canadian, not a Seattle-ite.
He wore the clothes, he fit the sound, and look no further than Live Rust or Rust Never Sleeps for proof. His sound fell somewhere between classic/hard rock (Van Halen/Motley Crue) and metal (Black Sabbath) and had the same heavy riff/acoustic tinge feel that someone else talked about. And he's from Canada. Not Seattle. Most Seattle bands wouldn't have really passed for "grunge" anyway, save for The Melvins (who didn't have the commercial success most of the bands out of Seattle had in the early '90s.)
And yeah; to me the definition of grunge is a band out of the seattle scene from 85-95.
would you agree jains addiction too, I read an old jeff interview, where he goes into going to a show and saying yes, this is what we need to do
cool, also heavy metal lacked substance, it seemed at the point where the hair became a point of the music the songs got cheesey.
I think Eds we hate mainstream success outlook preserved their music, where if he got caught up in the so called (look) the music perception of the music might have been distorted. This is where he became a loud agressive punker, and a more melodic writer, no code is a very agreesive but warm and fuzzy album. You can hear the punk, and than feel the beatles.
no more shows
They all had many different influences as well as different sounds. Nirvana was more a punk sound with other influences.
Pearl Jam had more of a classic rock sound with a blues influence thanks to Mike McCready. His playing just bleeds the blues sound.
Alice in Chains was totally different than those bands too.
Totally agree, more of a scene than a sound.
I suppose Neil Young, The Melvins, and Meat Puppets where the biggest influences on grunge but they where around long before the term was coined by Mark Arm.
"Grunge" wasn't really a sound so much, just a way to jumble all these new artists into one lump category. The only band I would consider even putting in a category called 'grunge' would be the melvins (and maybe parts of badmotorfinger), and they were doing it long before the early 90's music explosion. Each band had a different sound and influence, and I have to say the only one I can think of that was actually influenced by the melvins was Nirvana. They were more of a pop/punk sound anyway, everything you loved about the Ramones and the Dead Kennedys rolled into one, with some fantastic acoustic tracks you didn't get from either band. the Melvins influence is most tangible on Bleach. Mudhoney was influenced by 60s fuzz/70's punk and glam, Pearl Jam's roots are in classic and glam (green river and MLB, need I say more?) Soundgarden was more of a hard rock/metal band than anything until Superunknown, and you'd never hear me call Alice in Chains a metal band, but they weren't far off.
Yes but you are going from start to finsh.
and vh and motley crue ??????????? and sabbath
thats sounds like guns and roses
neil got his nickname for his tunning. thats all, those crunchy stone riffs, and the i got id leeds
the music scene was bad in the late 80s, we would all agree.
In seattle the scene was punk, there are stories of jeff, cornell, stone, doing gigs and catching alot of shit. With their early bands, they wanted to have the same feel of their counterpart bands but not be afraid of using the music they grew up on in their sound. they caught alot of shit and fights broke out in the audience in some shows
they went out on the road and there were 10 people in the audience for a green river show at cbgbs.
it states on page 23 of five aginst 1 thqat these punk bands weere about speed, and the grunge ones were not.
no more shows
But man they spent years on it.
They were hated in seattle in the late 80 s, Seattle gets the tag becasue the music scene in l.a and other cities was horrible, so when a group of bands fights through their own city non the less, and than the country, and than the world, that deserves its own genre.
There were times in seattle where clubs were closed for booking punk bands, it is a very hearty music city.
no more shows
You just contradicted yourself a lil, mikes speed bleeds blues but his sound is punk, even more today.
alice and chains was no differant on their first couple albums,
no more shows
those bands plus
kiss, zepplin, the beatles, aerosmith
green river was going to use joe perry to produce an album
soundgarden on their first 3 albums had an array of differant tunning, and were not straight up rock, when they lightened up alil their songs became more structered like beatles songs, and a lot of beatles minor riffs.
no more shows
I was just cruising a good soundgarden website and youd be suprised what their comments on their songs where.
no more shows
Mike's biggest influence was Jimi Hendrix. Yellow Ledbetter is a Hendrix-rich riff and listen to the solo in Immortality for the blues. There are plenty of other examples but those two stand out the tallest and I don't want to go song by song here, but I can't think of one single Mike song that screams, 'this is punk rock.' Don't get me wrong, they all had punk influences, but to say his sound is punk is just crazy.
Have we come to the conclusion that grunge has to be out of Seattle or around that area?
Well on the last 3 albums all he talks about is social distortion, so its not crazy
life wasted
mfc
unemployabele
green disease
rvm
lukin
stbc
dte
so you are stating mike song
well inside job isnt blues either is gtf
I mean the list is endless.
He may play blues style but he sure as hell rarely uses the chord in the studio, maybee half full.
I know he idols hendrix, but most of mikes solos are very punk sounding.
If he played blues chords, how do you think he would be able to hand and hand with stone in just about all their good work. even nothing as it seems doesnt sound blues.
no more shows
Of those songs you listed the only one McCready had a hand in writing was unemployable, though RVM, Lukin, and STBC came from the albums where individual credit wasn't given for each track. Inside Job (music co-credit with Eddie) doesn't exactly scream punk to me, either, a seven minute song that starts off with an acoustic guitar and piano? I'd go as far as saying that they definitely evolved into their own sound, but listen to the solos on the first two albums and tell me they don't evoke Hendrix. And I said before, I know they were all influenced by punk. I'm saying that Mike is more heavily influenced by Hendrix. Give Mad Season another listen, you'll understand.
no they can be from anywhere
now im not saying metallica is anything like grunge, but they were huge with their sound above every other metal band.
metallica was heavy metal chords, mixed in with a punk speeed with very good classic rock structuring on their firs 4 albums.
You can tell metalica was a very good songwriting band on a mision.
this is what it takes to have a huge band.
What made grunge huge was classic rock structure, with punk chords, and a variation of mixed tempos
Alot of bands do not waste their time fusing music, they sing they play they collect their pay.
Like pj writes a song where everyone says it reminds them of an old zeppelin song, or even hendrix, pj goes and plays the instruments with melvins chords, or even social distortion. Just becasue mike plays very fast bluesey styles, but chooses to tune his guitar or play very social distortion like chords does not make it blues, throw in the simplistic structue of a good beatles song, and than have ed screaming in a punk key where you cant understand him, and than have a very mainstream melody, all the way stone is playing simple 2 to 3 chords, which he bragged about during the avocado sessions.
Gives them their sound.
They are very consistant with this.
Where metallica was motorhead meets black sabbath, with a touch of the misfits
Where pealr jam its the beatles meet the melvins, or dead kennedeys, with a touch of neil young or bob dylan singing . hendrix or page style solos.
It is not just my opinion, Has anyone read the five against 1 book, it really goes in debth with subpop and the early green river days, especially with ed meeting pj, there is some bs in the book post vs with the drummers, but the first part is good stuff, you would be suprised how much craft went into all this music. It wasnt just 5 guys plugging in and saying cool.
Look at green day, they have the chords, and sometimes the singing, but their music lacks structure and songwriting, and they never dable in zeppelin or hendix.
I guess to put it simply it was very heavy music sound, with a mainstream tempo, with classic rock played solos in punk chords.
It shows that there is alot of substance in this musical genre. It seperated their sound from basic alternative, like nin, stp, u2.
They still to this day write alot of their songs this way, go read stones interviews in rolling stone, and other articels.
no more shows