Damn he had a set of pipes. Really feeling this loss.
I never really got in to Audioslave (or even Superunknown at the time) but Badmotorfinger was and is an absolute classic and I like Flower a lot, too, and always had a lot of respect for Cornell even when I wasn't paying attention to his music. Saddest one in a while.
|Maggot Brain |
Grunge has always bugged me, most bands that people say were grunge, like Alice in Chains and Soundgarden come off as metal while the most famous grunge band, Nirvana, was more of a punk band.
This is really sad, they were in the middle of a tour.
"Grunge" is a bullshit marketing term that had no basis in reality, just like "flower power/hippies" in the 60s. invented by the media to describe something that had already reached its peak in relative obscurity. "Grunge" peaked creatively in late '89 and '90, it's just that the resulting albums came out in 1991. The San Francisco counterculture in the 60s was at its peak in 1964-66, and was already starting to dissolve in the spring o 1967 when Time Magazine did an article about it, which was where the term "hippie" was coined, and inspired a bunch of suburban teenagers to travel there looking for something that was already gone.
That's how it always happens.
Unrelated to my previous post, it's pretty damn poignant that the last song of the last show was a cover of "In My Time of Dying." Right up there with the choice to put All Apologies at the very end of the last Nirvana album.
All Apologies was probably not entirely coincidental, to be fair.
I think the word itself actually comes from 60s/70s music criticism too, like something that would define an album like 1971's kinda grungy "Loaded" contrasted with 1971's polished "Who's Next," although "garage" was probably used a lot more frequently. But yeah, Nirvana's heavily influenced by post-punk, mostly stuff like The Wipers and Mudhoney, but there's also plenty of Big Black and even DC "emo" at work. With Soundgarden I hear Mike Patton and some other influences, so they're really nothing alike except for the Seattle thing.
Two Jar Slave
Genres in any medium are best understood as dynamically-defined networks of idea-nodes. Arguments about whether this or that "really belongs" to a genre are basically pointless. As long as a piece of music/art/film shares a single idea-node in common with another, then you could argue that they belong to the same genre—at least to some degree.
I could make a song in Havana in 2028 (no I couldn't) that shares at least a few idea-nodes with grunge. When my hit album is released, it would be convenient for critics to be able to say, "This overlaps in style with grunge, that old genre for old people. Let's call it a grunge album so people can anticipate its sound," instead of saying, "This overlaps in style with grunge, but it wasn't made in Seattle in 1989, so we can't in good conscience use the g-word."
Kurt always maintained that about the best album ever recorded was Get The Knack by The Knack, at least according to his journals and writings.
Also The Shaggs and Scratch Acid and Young Marble Giants.
Kurt had excellent taste.
Also didn't he pretty much single-handedly get The Frogs their deal with Sub Pop?
2jar I agree with you in the big picture, but I also still think genres as they exist today are best defined as "where the big 5/3/1/whatever major labels decide a certain group of bands will sell best in the record stores and have very little to do with the actual cultural context of the music itself (except insofar as the marketing drives the culture).
I mean, like, Dinah Washington and C+C Music Factory couldn't be much more different but they're both considered RnB/Soul for marketing reasons.
Genres have very little to do with actual music.
Two Jar Slave
OZ, I hadn't thought of it from that angle, but it's true enough.
The Knack? That's so weird. There was this guy who used to come into my store in college who would always be asking me about the music I was playing on the disc changer, and as we continued our conversations I learned he was one of the founders of the College Radio station (the NME years anyway) and went on to work as a scout for Capitol. He was raised on LA punk, Slash, all that, but the first band he ever signed was in fact The Knack, which to me sounded like the furthest thing from "punk." Now it all kinda makes sense.
Yeah, he talked about The Knack a lot according to a bunch of things I've read (during the slow hours at the record store I'd just sit and read rock bios from the little used book rack, and I worked there for 7 years, so I've read a fair number of rock bios) and he definitely wrote about them and mentioned them in interviews. The Knack and The Beatles ("but for god's sake not Paul"). People forget that at heart, Cobain was a pop singer-songwriter and that is a big part of why Nirvana got so big. He wrote great pop songs.
Yeah Sub Pop's a perfect example: I hear the name and I can't not think of Nirvana, Mudhoney, even The Frogs, and their name refers to their music as under pop's radar when realistically they're probably still around because of megahits like Postal Service and Warner Records. I'm aware like everybody else that this is how it's been for at least the last 20 years, but I still see the logo and think I might like it even though I know I don't like hippie shit like Fleet Foxes.
Oh man you aren't kidding about that last bit. I actually like plenty of hippie shit, but not neohippy shit like Fleet Foxes.
|Two Jar Slave |
I liked Audioslave quite a bit in the 2000s. Sad to see him go.
|The Mothership |
I'm not gonna lie. I cried today.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|