Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


October 2, 2001
8:17 AM   Subscribe

I've been away for a couple of weeks and was surprised when I came back and didn't find any threads to do with the 10th anniversary for the most influencial album of the 90s. It's been just over 10 years since Nirvana realeased 'Nevermind'. I wonder what band will have the biggest influence on the next 10 years of rock 'n roll?
posted by Jase_B (71 comments total)

 
Entertainment Weekly had some interesting things to say on the Anniversary.

It's no longer on their website, but in the print magazine, EW claims that Nirvana killed Rock and Roll, because they set an impossibly high standard for others. Not sure I agree with that...
posted by ColdChef at 8:29 AM on October 2, 2001


Nevermind = Overrated.
posted by UncleFes at 8:49 AM on October 2, 2001


Superfuzz Bigmuff was better.
posted by dydecker at 8:51 AM on October 2, 2001


hahahahahaha! impossibly high standard! hahahahahaha!
[giggles uncontrollably]
nirvana's defining moment was on mtv the night doofus novoselic beaned himself with his own bass. that pretty much said it all...
posted by quonsar at 8:52 AM on October 2, 2001


Nirvana weren't much more than a pixies rip off. They were good, but not innovators.

The band I would like to see as being the biggest influence over the next 10 years would have to be Spiritualized or Godspeed you Black emperor! (more strings and gospel in Rock please!), although it will probably be linkin Park or some shite like that.
posted by twistedonion at 8:54 AM on October 2, 2001


The whole decade? Nevermind was the album that brought non-glam bands back to the major labels, there's no denying that, but after '95/'96 was there anything left (in a popular context, which is what we mean by influenicial, right?) that sounded even remotly like Nirvana?

Maybe Foo Fighters, but that has more to do with Dave Grohl than anything else.
posted by alan at 8:55 AM on October 2, 2001


Superfuzz Bigmuff was released in '89. :P
posted by sad_otter at 9:02 AM on October 2, 2001


Honestly, I think that probably Radiohead will be a huge influence over the course of the next 10 years (although they already have been) if they keep things up at the same pace they have been. They've managed to not only keep their albums and songs at a digestible length for the masses (unlike GYBE! whom I thoroughly enjoy), and have gotten both critical success and sold millions of copies of their releases. They've also worked the electronic and experimental angle into rock music, without going completely off the deep end. They've kept things interested, but still palatable.

Bands I really enjoy whom I think will make small (or perhaps larger) influences in the next 10 years will hopefully be the aformentioned Godspeed You Black Emperor, Sigur Ros, Fridge, Four Tet, Lift To Experience, and Massive Attack (among others).

Of course, electronic artists like Aphex Twin have had a pretty big influence on music (in my opinion) of the past 5 or so years, so that will probably continue as well (especially since he has a new album Druqks coming out in late October).
posted by almostcool at 9:10 AM on October 2, 2001


rock and roll was dead by the 90's

anyone in the know (and off their tits) was raving.
posted by Frasermoo at 9:11 AM on October 2, 2001


Too much raving for you Frasermoo? :)

Seriously, though. The argument of "rock is dead" is about 20 years old and doesn't hold any weight. Rock isn't dead and it isn't going to die. Like anything else, it's simply going to go through changes as different genres spring up and evolve and everything slowly turns into one big musical clusterfuck. Honestly, that's a good thing, though, if done well.
posted by almostcool at 9:20 AM on October 2, 2001


in other nirvana news Courtney Love is suing for Nirvana's Rights.

maybe the acting career just isn't working out as planned?
posted by bluno at 9:20 AM on October 2, 2001


too true almostcool.

but did Nirvana really bring anything new to the party that the likes of Joy Division, Fugazi et al hadn't already?
posted by Frasermoo at 9:29 AM on October 2, 2001


Almostcool - your name really should be prettydamncool :-) you are spot on when you talk about keeping albums and songs at a digestible length for the masses

Just listen to the last two Radiohead albums to hear the influences of Aphex Twin. Saw Radiohead last week - they totally rocked. They will be influential in a big way, already are - just look at muse etc. It's a shame the real innovators are never well recieved.
posted by twistedonion at 9:33 AM on October 2, 2001


A few things happened shortly after the Seattle invasion:

- three-chord songs took over alternative rock. It seemed to move from the college radio sound (B-52s, the Manchester bands, Depeche Mode, Nine Inch Nails) through grunge to the likes of Weezer, POTUSA, Social Distortion, Green Day, Everclear, etc. More basic songs.

- Alternative rock (which was only in a few markets c. 1989) went nationwide but moved to shorter playlists and weeded out the older songs. It's more like top 40 but with different artists.

Perhaps this was more Green Day's influence than Nirvana's.
posted by kurumi at 9:33 AM on October 2, 2001


but did Nirvana really bring anything new to the party that the likes of Joy Division, Fugazi et al hadn't already?

No - all they brought was a bunch of hand me downs

The thing is - the kids loved them and most kids don't love Fugazi :-)
posted by twistedonion at 9:35 AM on October 2, 2001


Last year people were singing the praises of At The Drive In as being the 'next Nirvana' but they seem to have been pretty quiet this year. A flash in the pan?

In Europe, a number of acts have changed the sound of the pop scene over the few years.. Artful Dodger, Craig David, Daft Punk and Mirwais, have all had their influences.. but rock music? Other than nu-metal, I can't see much development in rock at the moment at all.
posted by wackybrit at 9:47 AM on October 2, 2001


Pah. rock is dead, but you can still make a lot of money from it and, conversely, its an easy way to learn how to start playing music so its propped up from the top and the bottom. almostcool is right about Radiohead, and it's because of what they do that isn't rock.
one source of real innovation that's bleeding into the mainstream is coming out of turntablism - amon tobin, qbert, kid koala, beat junkies, coldcut, shadow, cut chemist. hell, kid koala was even toured with radiohead. orchestrated turntablism is the first fundamentally new style of music to come out in a while.
posted by badstone at 9:48 AM on October 2, 2001


for whatever reason, the year it came out, everybody bought Nevermind, myself included. Although I think it was as much about timing. Nirvana hit at a time when people were looking for something different. I don't know that they hugely influenced 'Rock' music per say as much as they altered the face of 'Pop' music. Not that there wasn't a change in Rock music at the time but I think Nirvana was merely part of that wave, along with Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and of course Alice n' Chains among others. Where as, in terms of the mainstream 'Pop' music milieu was more altered by Nirvana than others mentioned. That's a heavy burden some of you are putting on Radiohead, a band that, while good, doesn't seem to have quite a wide-ranging apeal.
posted by srw12 at 10:08 AM on October 2, 2001


At The Drive-In's been quiet this year, mainly, becuase they broke up. Yeah, yeah, they say they're on "hiatus", but the three non-afroed members have gone on to form Sparta, and the two afroed members (Omar and Cedric) have gone on to form "Mars Volta", but I don't think they have a website yet. Even if they wanted to reform ATD-I, their record label has gone out of business.

They broke up, because after 6 years of touring, and going nowhere, little things tend to get on your nerves. I guess they were just tired of it. That doesn't take away from their talent, tho.

Frankly, At The Drive-In was the best thing to happen to the punk scene, and music in general, since The Pixies/Nirvana. Some of their eariler, independent releases (In/Casino/Out, Acrobatic Tenement, Hell Paso) are better than "Relationship of Command".

There's a sad, sad shortage of really good argo-punk rock out there now that ATD-I is gone....
posted by SweetJesus at 10:09 AM on October 2, 2001


I think the Dismemberment Plan or maybe Juno will rule, once people get hip to 'em. But since one never really can predict or know what's gonna be the next big thing, it'll certainly be exciting to find out!
posted by black8 at 10:12 AM on October 2, 2001


Personally, for me, I think that out of Sweden, the Hellacopters are the most underrated band in the world. These guys can blow any band in the universe off the stage right now. They are actually playing, dare I say, straight-up rock and roll. Such a simple concept, that many bands of today seem to have forgotten about. Check them out folks! The newest guitar rock gods!
posted by punkrockrat at 10:16 AM on October 2, 2001


Maybe it's just because I lived in Olympia, WA for the last year and a half (home of K records and birthplace of Nirvana), but rock certainly doesn't seem dead there, nor in Seattle. Electronic music just isn't bitter enough or something. (must be why I like it so much)
posted by arielmeadow at 10:35 AM on October 2, 2001


the most influencial album of the 90s

That would be Loveless by My Bloody Valentine.
posted by rodii at 10:39 AM on October 2, 2001


one way in which nevermind -- a pretty amazing album -- ruined rock: it created a bunch of rock writers so eager to find and herald the next big thing, they wasted a lot of praise on records that were really nothing special at all. (for the best examples of this, read the pitchfork reviews of 'kid a' or 'amnesiac.')
posted by maura at 10:43 AM on October 2, 2001


I could see a little more twangy stuff creep in a la Giant Sand, Calexico, Sparklehorse, Willard Grant Conspiracy kind of bands. I love those bands, but are they really breaking new ground...I don't know. They're more a natural progression from Neil Young I guess.

I think the Sigur Ros - GYBE! stuff may turn a few heads, though the whole play-one-note-for-half-an-hour thing broders on grating sometimes. These bands are the only thing I've heard in the last little while that really sound different. Juno and Dismemberment Plan are quite good, but they didn't leap out as potentially large influences.

Spiritualized seem to be doing some innovative things, mixing some different tastes. I've heard similar things about Mercury Rev, though I haven't heard them myself.

But who am I to say? I'm listening to This Mortal Coil right now.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:45 AM on October 2, 2001


No more of this palatable for the masses bullshit. The masses are listening drooling at Britney Spears and sucking N'Sync's dick. And Frasermoo is still right. The only scene today that doesn't consistently suck is definitely the rave scene (although I'm not trying to imply that it doesn't suck, it just sucks in a much less consistant manner).

Ppl fucking shit up today - Kid 606, Lesser, Pisstank, Bogdan Raczynski, and oh yeah - this dude OokA MakA or some shit like that. Check out "IOU 600" and "Rekkid Selekta - Riddim Deflekta" for some really messed up stuff. Quite frankly, I'm tired of all this foo-foo shit. While I love Aphex Twin quite dearly, dude is getting old. I want to hear some aggressive boys who got raging hormones and something to prove.
posted by ookamaka at 10:51 AM on October 2, 2001


With you, Rodii...

I don't know if one current band will affect the masses the way Nevermind did. There are some good, even some innovative bands out there, but they probably won't win over the hearts and minds of mainstream America in the way that Kurt and Co. did. I can't exactly see the multitudes of mullets (mullet-tudes?) rockin' out to Mogwai in the Subway parking lot.
posted by acornface at 11:08 AM on October 2, 2001


While I would agree with you that Aphex Twin is getting a bit played out (from what I've heard, his new album isn't impressing me thusfar), but saying that the rave scene is the only one that doesn't consistently suck isn't really completely true. While there are people doing innovative things in the "rave" genre (and I can pick out tons of other genres where people are doing innovative things as well), there is an absolute ton of filler as well. I mean, do we really need 50 different Gatecrasher mix CDs and Dave Ralph pumping out a new CD every month?

Basically, for every genre, there is a more mainstream side, as well as a side that's doing more interesting things. I would agree with you that Kid 606 is doing some wicked stuff (along with Cex, Raczynski, and others), but the majority of the "rave" scene is watered down techno-trance crap that bores me to tears after 10 minutes.

There are innovators in just about every genre, you just have to dig a little sometimes.
posted by almostcool at 11:09 AM on October 2, 2001


"I can't exactly see the multitudes of mullets (mullet-tudes?) rockin' out to Mogwai in the Subway parking lot."

isn't this because mogwai, uh, like, wouldn't know how to rock if someone beat them over the head with a copy of 'diver down'? wanking =! rock. another fault of those crappy rock writers. does anyone else remember kurt cobain talking about how much he liked cheap trick?
posted by maura at 11:21 AM on October 2, 2001


tool stands out in my mind as one band that has become 'mainstream' without becoming mainstream. 'lateralus' is easily the most difficult-to-digest record to ever top the charts (it was number 1 the week it came out -- not sure how it's doing now). i mean -- there're prog-rock acts out there that aren't too terribly different; but they don't sell as many records. which goes to show that TOOL has something these bands do not, and any idiot can tell they have WAY more than the other popular bands. (i'm not a radiohead fan, but i do give them credit for being innovative) they've consistently evolved beyond their previous records each time out and have really defined a sound of their own. when you hear a TOOL song, you know it's TOOL right away. assuming musicianship will, at some point, become important again -- maybe there'll be some bands that'll grow out of what they've done.

it's a damn shame kyuss never got any mainstream exposure. i guess queens of the stone age are to an extent ... but it just isn't the same without john garcia (who's band 'unida' is damn good).
posted by aenemated at 11:42 AM on October 2, 2001


Anyone who says "rock is dead" has obviously given up looking.

Seriously, I have heard, found, and bought more CDs in the past year because of FilePile, postings on MetaFilter, reading weblogs, and just asking friends "who is this?"

Rock is alive and well, and it's not on your local Mega/Morning Zoo/The Edge/The Beat/Power radio station.

(on the subject of indie rock, I just read a good book called Our Band Could Be Your Life. About indie rock from '81 - '91. Featuring chapters on bands like Mudhoney, the Minutemen, Beat Happening, Husker Du, and lots more...)
posted by perplexed at 11:42 AM on October 2, 2001


Kafkaesque and I are as one.
posted by rodii at 11:46 AM on October 2, 2001


Maura: I certainly remember Kurt digging on the Cheap Trick, the Guns n'Roses, the Duran Duran, the Heart (for pete's sake, Barracuda?!!?!?!) Kurt Cobain was as sheeped into radio rock/pop as the next kid. It is as appalling to me to see the whole "Nirvana were the harbingers of all good post-90s rock" and second coming of the Beatles-esque nonsense as it is to see the NSync hordes and Britney worshipers. Same coin, flip side. If Justin Timberlake blew his brains out tomorrow, ten years from now we'll be talking about he and his boy band cohorts changed the face of popular music forever. . .
posted by Dreama at 11:46 AM on October 2, 2001


Rodii has a point with My Bloody Valentine, but you can draw a straight line from them to the early release of Zaf Tig's seminal "Embonpoint." The roiling guitars, studied drumming, and just the whole ethereal-shading-into-trip-out ethos set the stage for a whole lot of navel-gaze bands.

I saw them in '84 in Portland, OR, whacked out of my mind on X, and holy smokes. I'll never be the same.
posted by Skot at 11:47 AM on October 2, 2001


Skot--you were at the '84 show? Wasn't that back when the Roseland was still the Starry Night? Holy crap! I'm sure you don't remember 'cuz you were out of your mind, but I was the chick with the blue and white hair in the front left.

The Zafs rule.
posted by frykitty at 11:50 AM on October 2, 2001


i have to second the "our band could be your life" recommendation. great book. and yeah, skot, i saw the 'tig at the old knitting factory, back when it was on houston. gosh, haven't thought about them in a while.
posted by judith at 11:51 AM on October 2, 2001


whacked out of my mind on X, and holy smokes. I'll never be the same

I don't know about never be the same, but I can certainly see their influence on many of the late 80s-early 90s bands coming out of the Pacific Northwest. And they did put on a great show.
posted by OneBallJay at 11:52 AM on October 2, 2001


Holy Shit! I thought I was the only Zaf Tig fan on here!!! I never got a chance to see them, but I have all of their albums. Fucking amazing band...and so juicy. I can't beleive that rock like that came out of the 80's.
posted by fred wilhelm at 11:53 AM on October 2, 2001


Kafkaesque and I are as one.

Shh! Do you want everyone to know we're the same person?!
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:57 AM on October 2, 2001


Nirvana may have been a bit passe for the cool crowd on MeFi, but they were probably the most influential band in the last 10 years.

Let's put it this way. Elvis changed music in the 50s. But he was basically looting lesser-known black music of the time. It doesn't matter. He's the guy who got the songs on the radio, and that made him influential. And rich.

In pre-Nirvana days, there was the metal crowd. And the punk crowd. And all the other crowds. Never the twain did meet. The punk crowd listened to loud, angry music - just like the metal crowd. After Nirvana, the powers in the record companies and the radio stations became more open to bands that spanned genres, or were less easy to pigeonhole. Before Nirvana, alternative rock didn't cut it on radio because radio claimed there was no audience for it. Nirvana proved them wrong.

So I'm saying that Nirvana opened the door, just like the Sex Pistols did a decade or so earlier. They were catalysts of extreme change in the musical ecosystems of their time.

Of course, there ain't anything like that now. And a big change is long overdue.
posted by websavvy at 11:58 AM on October 2, 2001


If you liked Zaf Tig, and seriously who'd have thought they were as popular as they are here, you should probably Gnutella or Morpheus or whatever somewhere for the band they're totally derived their sound from. There's an old German band from the 60s called Saft. I was introduced to them by my cooler-than-everyone-in-his-head hipster older brother, Lord only knows how he found out about them, and you can see their influence all over Embonpoint and Hourglass.
posted by cCranium at 12:04 PM on October 2, 2001


Pretty much when you see a band try to get back to its roots by sounding bluesy, that's when the band has lost its relevance. However, when Zaf Tig began using a Hammond Organ on a regular basis, they became better for it.
posted by Avogadro at 12:05 PM on October 2, 2001


their influence all over Embonpoint and Hourglass

Hourglass is my favorite Zaft album. The sound of the recording is so much fuller when you compare it to their earlier work. Its funny to see how the band really shapped up from Embonpoint to Hourglass.
posted by fred wilhelm at 12:10 PM on October 2, 2001


Don't have much time to contribute now, but... Zaf Tig?? What drivel. They have to be the most derivative band since, shit I don't know, Pop Will Eat Itself, and at least they were kidding. All attitude and faux-shoegazer wank. Bleh. No offense, Skot. Don't hurt me.
posted by rodii at 12:27 PM on October 2, 2001


Where the hell do you get off, rodii? Good grief, appreciating music is a matter of taste, not some "I'm better than you competition." Zaf Tig made damn fine music -- I'm sorry you didn't like it.
posted by OneBallJay at 12:31 PM on October 2, 2001


websavvy: Let's put it this way. Elvis changed music in the 50s. But he was basically looting lesser-known black music of the time. It doesn't matter. He's the guy who got the songs on the radio, and that made him influential. And rich.

Let's see . . . what's in the Sun Sessions CD? You mean black songs like Bill Monroe's "Blue Moon of Kentucky" Or "I Don't Care if the Sun Don't Shine?" on which E he sounds like he should be singing through a megaphone, as if out of the '20s or earlier? If you want to get into the more R&B oriented stuff and out of the Sun era, maybe "Hound Dog," written by the Jewish songwriting team of Leiber and Stoller? Only the dancing and clothing is, in the early days, where the more obvious black style is to be found. Otherwise, it's a mix of country, R&B and pure pop, which is what his entire musical career was about.
posted by raysmj at 12:34 PM on October 2, 2001


when Zaf Tig began using a Hammond Organ on a regular basis, they became better for it

Ugh! That's like saying that Billy Joel really became a rock influence when he recorded Nylon Curtain. At the risk of sounding like a "they were cool when only I listened to them" poseur, Zaf (does anyone really call them 'tig?) was at their best when they didn't have any organs at all.

CC: I agree with you to a point on Saft - there is a similarity of sound (esp. Z's "Pear Shaped" vs S's entire first album)

Rodii: Bite me.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 12:37 PM on October 2, 2001


I think Politicis, Religion and Music are the most dangerous topics on MeFi.

Here's an idea. When anyone says such-and-such band sucks, just substitute *John Tesh* for the name of the band. Then we can all be happy.

But wait. Maybe someone likes John Tesh. How bout Captain and Tenielle? Nobody likes them right?

Hmm. Harder than I thought. Someone likes every band. Let's not get offended so easily, and also not be so harsh in our assessments. Or not. Not that I'm telling you what to do or anything.

Unless you want me to.
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:38 PM on October 2, 2001


Pop Will Eat Itself

You make it sound like "Beaver Patrol" was a fucking joke. Have some respect, man.
posted by Skot at 12:42 PM on October 2, 2001


I saw Zaf Tig on their first nationwide tour. They were still not very well known so they hit the small towns like Springfield. Wow, best live band ever. At least back then. Ever since the incident with the drummer, I hear they haven't been up to par.
posted by daveadams at 12:53 PM on October 2, 2001


Wesp Rulez, Guido Dr00lz. Drummers come (and cum) and go - IYKWIM, AIKYD.

I'm KazAA'ing for old Zaf as we speak.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 12:53 PM on October 2, 2001


Ever since the incident with the drummer, I hear they haven't been up to par.

This is understating things dramatically. After the drummer fiasco, their lead singer Damien Fialkow split as well, and they dissolved for a long time.

Then, as if things couldn't fucking get worse, they reformed in Europe--minus Fialkow, replacing him with some new German lead singer/dipshit--and started touring again as a fucking power-pop group.

It's just so goddamn sad. Here's their terrible (German) website.
posted by Skot at 12:59 PM on October 2, 2001


CUJoe, you ignorant slut. Just because a band can successfully play their organ doesn't give you license to criticize. The Hammond provides a rich, deep, throbbing tone that you can't achieve with rinky-dink guitar strings.

As for the Wesp vs. Guido debate, I have nothing to say to a person that uses "dr00lz" on a regular basis, or drools on a regular basis, for that matter.
posted by Avogadro at 1:00 PM on October 2, 2001


For those fans of skronky, stripped-down rock music, I highly suggest you check out Internal Wrangler by Clinic (out on Domino Records domestically). It's a 30-minute slab of absolutely excellent music. Sometimes art-punk, sometimes just plain weird, these fellows are awesome, even if I can't quite tell what in the hell they're saying. Review. Amazon link.
posted by almostcool at 1:19 PM on October 2, 2001


Wurlitzer-Boy, you must now and forever be my enemy. I bet you think ELO rocks, too.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 1:35 PM on October 2, 2001


Why does it really matter whether "rock is dead" or not? What does that even mean? Does it make you feel like dancing, or not?

I don't know what "rock" even means anymore. The genre has been cut, split, spliced, and melted so far that every music I hear seems to have some rock in it, and some sub-variety of rock or other seems to have a little bit of every other kind of music in it.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:15 PM on October 2, 2001


rock hasn't interested me for a while. i'm not trying to feign condescension (far be it for me...), but i was just trying to think about the last time i got excited about a rock CD, and all that came to mind was when i started getting into the get-up kids. then again, maybe i should shutup, because i actually liked nirvana... and yes, even hole (live through this, only.).
posted by lotsofno at 3:59 PM on October 2, 2001


Joe: see you in Metatalk.

Skot: Beaver wha? Is that one of the German albums? I kind of lost track after "Gina Lollobrigida." Thank god.
posted by rodii at 4:26 PM on October 2, 2001


at their best when they didn't have any organs at all.

that's what i thought he said.
with a tip of the hat to stavrosthewonderchicken, i declare: ping! we have a winner!
posted by quonsar at 4:56 PM on October 2, 2001


I turned 49 two days ago; I bought "Nevermind" on September 11. Nothing to do with the tragedy. It's just that I read a great New Yorker review of Nirvana's career which I wanted to use in my arts criticism class the next day and I'd always loved the two or three Nirvana songs I'd heard.

I'm a jazz musician, and usually dislike rock. The chords seem random in rock...but Nirvana has turned this into a positive...ahhh, I can't explain this briefly...but here's one more Nirvanic note:

My nine-year old daughter, who has been a Backstreet Britney Mandy Moore Degrees fan for a few years, after hearing Nirvana, told me, yesterday, "I used to be into pop, but now Nirvana is my favorite band."

Me, I'd vote for Monk or Trane. But the genius of Nirvana got the attention of an old fart like me. Hmmm.
posted by kozad at 6:04 PM on October 2, 2001


You can't know who's the next big thing. It's fun to guess at (when it doesn't devolve into arguing over whose tastes are right), but why not mention who deserves (to me) to make it (so we can all call them sellouts and feel betrayed and left behind):

Old 97's (and, to a lesser extent, Ryan Adams)
Underworld (R.I.P.)
Rosenbergs
Fountains of Wayne
Massive Attack
Laptop
MC Paul Barman (never happen)
Roots
Billy Bragg (why not?)
Deltron/ Del tha Funky Homosapien
Superchunk
and a million others I forgot.
posted by yerfatma at 7:08 PM on October 2, 2001


kozad, good to know I'm not the only geezer here!

I also found Nirvana compelling. I apologize for my ignorance about most of the other bands of the period. I became interested in other styles of music by then. But I know a kickass rock band when I hear one, and Nirvana Kicked Ass. Whatever the hell it was - alt rock, grunge, punk, Seattle samba - it made me reach for my volume knob.

As for the future? Who the hell knows? I think we're due for a new movement of some kind. Seems like most of the standard sources of inspiration have already been recycled a few too many times. Although I have been waiting for another jazz-rock revival...
posted by groundhog at 7:20 PM on October 2, 2001


I am 30, and I have to say, I'm with the old guys. Nirvana made me want to crank it up to 11. The general opinion lately seems to be that we must spaz out about any successful band getting good reviews, and moan and groan about them making money hand over fist, while some little known bar band that everyone seems to love but for some reason no one knows anything about eats bologna backstage.
To hell with it. I am going to admit it.
I like Nirvana. I like STP.
I also liked Pearl Jam, damnit.
and occasionally, I pull out the old hair band albums and play them real loud too.
Makes me feel good.
Isn't that what it is all about?
"Hello, my name is Brad, and I like the stupid bands."
posted by bradth27 at 8:40 PM on October 2, 2001


I think the Dismemberment Plan or maybe Juno will rule, once people get hip to 'em

Rock is far from dead. Go see the Plan live when they come to your town, and you'll be a believer. It's a punk rock dance party freakout, mang. Unfortunately, I think they're window has already passed. I don't believe Interscope dropped them when they did. They could've been huge, given the lack of anything else interesting out there to compete with(though part of me is glad they aren't, because that means I can go see them in small clubs instead of mega-stadia.) They're incredibly catchy and danceable, but still intelligent, experimental, and relevant. In short, they rock.

Which was what made Nirvana great, too. They weren't revolutionary, they were just a really fucking good pop/rock band, with a little bit of intelligence going on, that did a good job of mixing some diverse influences into something new(see Beck, who's the absolute master at this.) That's all it takes, though it must be harder than it seems, given the dearth of, well, anything interesting out there in the mainstream at the moment.

I like Juno, Mogwai, Godspeed, Sigur Ros, et al, but they're rather acquired tastes. I think they're are too obtuse and inaccessible to ever hit it big, really. They might be influential with musicians, but never with the masses, in this climate anyway. That'd be about the equivalent of classical music getting on MTV. It just ain't happening.
posted by jdunn_entropy at 12:09 AM on October 3, 2001


<pedantry>Crap, crap, crap! Their window.</pedantry>

Incidentally, I guess the real reason Nirvana will always have a place in my heart is that they're how I found out about the Pixies, Fugazi, Sonic Youth, and on down the line. Even if you don't like their music(and I still do), you've got to give them props for dragging a lot of great music at least partially into the limelight with them. It saved this small-town teenager from a youth soundtracked by Winger and Dokken and Poison, at any rate.
posted by jdunn_entropy at 12:19 AM on October 3, 2001


I don't think it is about selling out or being cooler than the next band. Nirvana got airtime. They sold records, and they broke the strangle hold of the power ballads and hair bands which was the current pop trend.

I look around and listen now and see far too many trends. Nothing stands out as dominate like what we had at the end of the 80's. For every n'Sync you have a Tool. For every Spears you have a Coldplay. Aaron Carter to Outkast.

I just don't see the industry being homogenous enough to expect another Nirvana anytime soon. Perhaps the next defining moment will be someone that spans all these genres.

We need a new Elvis. heh

thankyouverymuch
posted by Blacktooth at 1:00 AM on October 3, 2001


I wonder what band will have the biggest influence on the next 10 years of rock 'n roll?

My mom. She might not be a band, but she kicks ass, d00d.

More meds! I'm fading fast, kids!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:22 AM on October 3, 2001


not trying to turn this into a tool thread, but they are an amazing band. some of their work is radio-friendly, with somewhat convinient breaks around the 3 minute mark. but, most of their albums are not easily digested, as aenemated (nice name) pointed out.

if anything, tool has moved their sound away from mainstream with every release, yet the band continues to draw a crowd. i was listening to them from back in the day, and i am amazed at the diversity in the crowd that i saw at their latest concert. the band is talented, and is bringing an almost orchestral sound back to rock that hasn't been popular for many years. is tool busting out a prog-rock movement?
posted by mich9139 at 6:41 AM on October 3, 2001


there is one thing nirvana is defintely responsible for. they convinced a whole generation that anyone could play the guitar and start a band.
posted by mich9139 at 6:48 AM on October 3, 2001


I just don't see the industry being homogenous enough to expect another Nirvana anytime soon. Perhaps the next defining moment will be someone that spans all these genres.

I wonder how many times those words have been said. People were definitely saying it before Nirvana broke.

there is one thing nirvana is defintely responsible for. they convinced a whole generation that anyone could play the guitar and start a band.

So did the Ventures, and the Byrds, and the Velvets, and the Sex Pistols, and the Replacements, and...

It's all about who was around during your moment, whenever that was.
posted by rodii at 10:00 AM on October 3, 2001


Come on, argue with me, dammit.
posted by rodii at 11:28 AM on October 4, 2001


« Older For Serious Pancakionistas Only...  |  Strom Thurmond collapses in Se... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments