Grunge~ Can it be considered heavy metal?

TheGreatDuck wrote:

kmorg wrote:

TheGreatDuck wrote:

kmorg wrote:

To me grunge was the opposite of metal. It was a reaction AGAINST metal.

No.

Eeeeeh... YES!!! You skipped the TO ME part in my post, didn't you?

OK, to you it may be the opposite of metal (although there are several grunge bands that played metal), but it wasn't a reaction against metal.

According to the Metal Evolution episode last night, most of the notables and band members interviewed claimed it was a reaction against what was going on with metal at the time. Of course, when they say metal, they are talking about bands like Poison and Warrant, not Judas Priest and Motorhead.

exact33 wrote:

metalinmyveins wrote:

S.D. wrote:

I lived in Seattle a couple different times during the 90's (1991-1992) (1995-2000). I met some know-it-alls, but I also hung out with a bunch of really cool down to earth people.

Blanket generalizations do not apply to cities.

Which I wholeheartedly agree with, since I made that pronouncement in every post! With that being said, I will reiterate, elitism is not a connotation that is associated with the uneducated. It is clearly associated with those who have an educational background. Seattle is clearly way ahead of the curve as it pertains to education. Due to this, people who are educated are prone to having philosophical constructs which exhibit that of elitism. Never did I once say that the whole city (or even the majority) exhibits this type of behavior, which is impossible, since people come from totally different socio-economic backgrounds. Whatever the percentage might be of elitism that exists within certain demographics of society, I think it's fair to say that elitism is a part of Seattle, strictly due to the fact that it is a very highly educated populace.

...and to be honest, I don't even have a problem with that being the case. I think the word elitist took on a life of it's own during the Presidential election of 2008, and because of that, it has become a far more derogatory way of describing someone. I like hanging around smart individuals, as it sure does beat the hell out of hanging with dumb ones.

I dont like hanging out with people who think they are smarter than everyone else. The very notion that because they had X amount of schooling makes their opinion more valid than someone else's just shows how unenlightened they really are. Those who think they know how to better spend others money and tell others how to live have left ruined and broken lives in their wake.

Let me explain what I meant by that last sentence. I don't think for one second that a certain amount of schooling defines what a person has to offer this world. I have surrounded myself with more than a few people who have had limited education beyond that of high school, yet most are articulate in some varying degree. I think ones ability to become smarter has more to do with how an individual immerses themselves into what goes on around them. In fact, throw out the word smart altogether, and replace it with the world cultured. Dumb people on the other hand come from all walks of life. I think an education certainly can enhance somebody's view of the world or people, but it's not the be all end all.

Still, from my experience those who are 'cultured' think themselves above others. They talk about their jobs, their homes, what they have bought and so on. Sure, they give to charity but its mostly to make themselves feel better. For me personally, i would much rather be considered 'uncultured' and do some good rather than write a check and think myself some great humanitarian.

exact33 wrote:

Still, from my experience those who are 'cultured' think themselves above others. They talk about their jobs, their homes, what they have bought and so on. Sure, they give to charity but its mostly to make themselves feel better. For me personally, i would much rather be considered 'uncultured' and do some good rather than write a check and think myself some great humanitarian.

Cultured has nothing to do with money at all! Cultured is more of a by-product of how we look at humanity, of how we treat others, respect others for our differences, etc... In other words, the more I know about things that I'm not familiar with or people who are different from me, the better off I feel I will be. Cultured is about emotional growth, where uncultured is the polar opposite. For instance, I have this friend, who I've known since high school, who has turned into the biggest bigot imaginable. Anything or anyone who is different from him, he distrusts, he hates. I don't even know that I call him a friend anymore. He more or less is someone who has shown limited growth since his days in high school (he didn't exhibit these horrible traits back then). He would be a classic case of someone who is uncultured. He is a fear based individual.

metalinmyveins wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Still, from my experience those who are 'cultured' think themselves above others. They talk about their jobs, their homes, what they have bought and so on. Sure, they give to charity but its mostly to make themselves feel better. For me personally, i would much rather be considered 'uncultured' and do some good rather than write a check and think myself some great humanitarian.

Cultured has nothing to do with money at all! Cultured is more of a by-product of how we look at humanity, of how we treat others, respect others for our differences, etc... In other words, the more I know about things that I'm not familiar with or people who are different from me, the better off I feel I will be. Cultured is about emotional growth, where uncultured is the polar opposite. For instance, I have this friend, who I've known since high school, who has turned into the biggest bigot imaginable. Anything or anyone who is different from him, he distrusts, he hates. I don't even know that I call him a friend anymore. He more or less is someone who has shown limited growth since his days in high school (he didn't exhibit these horrible traits back then). He would be a classic case of someone who is uncultured. He is a fear based individual.

well this thread probably isnt the best place to have this conversation since it is off topic but it seems our experiences with cultured people differ greatly.

I enjoyed the episode alot , and I thought for the most part they came off as I suspected, most of bigger stars of the movement admitted they grew up listening to metal and as Melvins Buzz Osbourne stated, alot of that music is likeable.

When these guys are talking about metal that dismiss they are not talking about Priest, Deep Purple, Motorhead or Black Sabbath, but Poison, Motley Crue etc, bands that I like but their lyrics were all pretty stupid and the scene got too bloated, predictable and image became more important then the music.

IMO the lyrics to bands such as Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, TAD and even Nirvana, where smarter, more heartfelt, and frankly something I could relate to.

I saw most of the episode and I DVRD it today so I can watch it in its entireity well that and Weird Al behind the Music Remastered

Just watched the Grunge episode and it confirmed what I thought to be true about the elemental difference between Grunge and Metal. Metal is Alpha Male centered to it's core and Grunge is Beta Male centered. Metal is thematically about conquering, achieving, overcoming, sexual conquest, fantasy, and the warrior ethos. Grunge is none of those things but rather focuses on internal struggles and feelings.

The episode was okay and yes, there were many pompous jackasses that were interviewed. Also, Nickleback??? WTF???

Everytime Nickelback Is Played, God Kills A Llama
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2214165610

mlotek wrote:

Everytime Nickelback Is Played, God Kills A Llama
[url=https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2214165610

https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2214165610[/quote[/url]]

Good. I hate llamas.

Grunge has always been a form of hard rock. Metal elements in some bands sure, but the actual bands that get lumped into the category are vastly different anyway. Shitty label to start with IMO.

Being influenced by metal and being a metal band are 2 different things and I am glad they made that clear in this episode of Metal Evolution. Glad they all said they weren't metal! It's not!!!

Well, I've always felt that "grunge" (and it really is just a term) was an amalgamation of old 70s hard rock/heavy metal: Kiss, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and late 70s, early 80s punk: Sex Pistols, Black Flag, Young Marble Giants. Throw the Beatles into all that, and you've got grunge!

So, as for the question, I highly believe it could go either way, but I also firmly believe that grunge is its own thing.

Lurideath wrote:

Being influenced by metal and being a metal band are 2 different things and I am glad they made that clear in this episode of Metal Evolution. Glad they all said they weren't metal! It's not!!!

I can get on board with this, I suppose.

TheDoctor'sScarf wrote:

Well, I've always felt that "grunge" (and it really is just a term) was an amalgamation of old 70s hard rock/heavy metal: Kiss, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and late 70s, early 80s punk: Sex Pistols, Black Flag, Young Marble Giants. Throw the Beatles into all that, and you've got grunge!

So, as for the question, I highly believe it could go either way, but I also firmly believe that grunge is its own thing.

Best description so far, and one I agree with, the difference being I saw it as another branch on the metal family tree not apart from it.

manny wrote:

TheDoctor'sScarf wrote:

Well, I've always felt that "grunge" (and it really is just a term) was an amalgamation of old 70s hard rock/heavy metal: Kiss, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and late 70s, early 80s punk: Sex Pistols, Black Flag, Young Marble Giants. Throw the Beatles into all that, and you've got grunge!

So, as for the question, I highly believe it could go either way, but I also firmly believe that grunge is its own thing.

Best description so far, and one I agree with, the difference being I saw it as another branch on the metal family tree not apart from it.

I can agree with this to a point. I think that many of the bands leaned more to the punk side than the 70's heavy metal and hard rock, even if those bands were an inspiration the grunge artists. One of the key ingredients to bands like Sabbath, Zeppelin, Nugent, Purple, etc. was the guitar solo. It played an integral part of the sound and the songwriting. That key ingredient was sorely missing in grunge. I think the lack of guitar solos was a reaction to the swirling, technical solos of popular mainstream 'metal' at the time. I also wonder if perhaps some of the popular grunge guitarists just couldn't play solos.

Quote :

I also wonder if perhaps some of the popular grunge guitarists just couldn't play solos.

I don't think that's much of a mystery.

Since when did guitar solos become the be-all/end-all measurement of what is/isn't metal?

So any guitarist who doesn't play a solo in every song is doing that because he can't play a solo?

Good grief this keeps getting sillier.

Context is a very funny thing, just saying

S.D. wrote:

Since when did guitar solos become the be-all/end-all measurement of what is/isn't metal?

It's never been any part of my definition of metal.

Quote :

Since when did guitar solos become the be-all/end-all measurement of what is/isn't metal?

I'd say it's just more of a "characteristic" than the definition.

S.D. wrote:

Since when did guitar solos become the be-all/end-all measurement of what is/isn't metal?

So any guitarist who doesn't play a solo in every song is doing that because he can't play a solo?

Good grief this keeps getting sillier.

I didn't say it was the be-all/end-all. I just said it was one difference between the 70's heavy metal/hard rock bands and the grunge bands.

However, guitar solos are an important part of heavy metal. It's one of the things that attracted me to it back in the 70's. Those insane noises coming out of Nugent's speakers, the mesmerizing solos of Blackmore and Iommi. The screaming guitar solo of Aerosmith's "Train Kept A Rollin'", Eddie Van Halen's pyrotechnics, etc. Then came along bands like Steeler and Alcatrazz and the bar was raised even higher. It doesn't necessarily define heavy metal. Lots of styles of music have solos. It's just one ingredient of the pie.

I also didn't say those artistis couldn't play them. I asked the question of whether they could or not. I'm not ultra-familiar with any of those bands and couldn't even tell you the names of the guitarists, so I don't know.

The Metal Evolution show did mention how grunge was purposely more stripped down and didn't include solos, almost as a reaction to the over-the-top showmanship and musicianship of the popular 'metal' artists of the time.

Grunge barely even had riffs, much less solos. It was more about chord progressions, which is fine but it's not exactly metal.

Grunge wasn't exactly solo free. Pearl Jam incorporated some hendrix style wah solos (on the first album) and even Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit had a very basic melody solo too. AIC used solos all the time as well...

Troublezone wrote:

Grunge wasn't exactly solo free. Pearl Jam incorporated some hendrix style wah solos (on the first album) and even Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit had a very basic melody solo too. AIC used solos all the time as well...

True.

I must also mention that assuming someone can't play guitar solos because they never play them isn't stated as a mockery. Mortification's guitarist Michael Carlisle, who played on defining albums like "Scrolls of the Megilloth" didn't perform any solos because he concentrated on being a rhythm guitarist. Soloing wasn't his thing and I can only assume that some of the grunge rockers felt the same way,. That's not a put-down, just an assumption.