rummy said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I recall Teen Spirit, at least where I was, and on much music, was bigger than Jeremy or anything PJ had done up to that point. 

It was indeed (at least in southern Ontario, too).
I don't think any "grunge" song by anyone was ever bigger than Teen Spirit, however. 

Song, absolutely Teen Spirit was the biggest.  Video, on the other hand, MTV gave Jeremy the edge up until Kurt's death.  I think Teen Spirit might have even been #3 behind November Rain.  I might be wrong on that, but Teen Spirit was definitely bumped up to #1 posthumously.

Tim Simmons said:

Do you guys consider "grunge" the music from seattle (from 88-95/6) or is Grunge more the American alternative rock sound from that same period. 


I've always considered it the alternative rock sound until about 95-96ish. So Pumpkins were "grunge". Because PJ and Nirvana could be any more worlds apart in sound. So why wouldn't any other band from that era that wasn't from Seattle.

my view on grunge changed over the years. originally, I lumped anything that was alt-rock-ish into it, like the Pumpkins. I lived in kind of a rock music bubble, though, where the only stuff I had access to was what was on the radio (Winnipeg wasn't exactly a music mecca at that point). The only grunge groups I knew of were the ones that got radio play, or were on the Singles soundtrack. 

it only came later that I discovered all of the actual grunge bands, and found out I wasn't really a fan of real grunge at all. I liked more of the "grunge pop" like Nevermind (I hated Incesticide when it first came out, and didn't like some of the harsher songs on Nevermind at the time, which I later came to appreciate). 

I don't like Mudhoney much (live opening for PJ I walked away from-it was horrendous). And most of the other true grunge bands I'm not a fan of. 

And PJ got lumped in with grunge simply because of geography and fashion. you are absolutely correct that their sound is worlds apart from Nirvana and really any other seattle band. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

My first reaction was, "What the...???" 

And then I noticed it was published on April 1st.  OK, haha, funny!

Now, if it hadn't been published on April Fool's Day I would have continued with...

First off- the Stooges- grunge?  You gotta be kidding me.  Huh?

Black Flag, grunge?  OK, come on.  Really?

Neil Young and Crazy Horse, gru... I can't even say it.  That's just pure sacrilege. 

Singles, grunge?  I guess Rolling Stone never heard of Paul Westerberg, Led Zeppelin, or Jimi Hendrix.  Good God, did all the original R.S. writers die already?

And this:  Have any of the bands on this list ever referred to themselves as "grunge".  Not that I know of.  If they did, they probably sucked at that time anyway, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

I had the same thoughts as well, Brian, but I think the writer was going for albums that also had an influence on grunge bands, a hint of what was to come, so to speak. 

Good point.  I guess I'm being a critic's critic!

Yefa said:

rummy said:

^Same idea with In Utero. It initially had negative reviews from the mass media but they all seemed to flip their opinions once he died.

I can't speak for other mass media outlets but Rolling Stone gave it a rave review:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-album-reviews/in-utero-248756/

To quote pitcher Roger Clemens, I might be "mis-rembering" but I am sure I read a handful of negative reviews of the album back in 1993. That 4.5-star review from RS certainly isn't the one I was recalling (but thanks for posting it!).

I lost all interest in the RS article when I saw this little gem in the very first paragraph:

“How did a five-letter word meaning dirt, filth, trash become synonymous with a musical genre, a fashion statement, a pop phenomenon?”

They may have been quoting from the New York Times, but surely they can count to 6...