smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Stewart Mason" <craigtorso@verizon.net> |
| Subject | Re: Musical Cultural Question |
| Date | Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:59:46 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (1.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John L. Micek" <jlmicek@comcast.net>
>> I disagree. Nevermind was released in 91, and Nirvana were already
>> known to the more musically-knowledgeable before that.So you're
>> actually talking roughly 15-25 by that definition of Gen X, which
>> is
>> prime record-buying/gig-going time.
>
> I'll second that. I was 21 in 1991 when Nirvana reached its
> pinnacle. It was darn hard not to be affected by them on or the
> "alternative rock" boom that followed. The years between 91-95
> seemed like validation of the college radio that had preceded it.
> All that stuff had a huge impact on me. Some of the bands that
> flowered in that time (Sugar, VelCrush, Oasis, Blur) remain
> favorites to this day.
I guess my argument against Nirvana (I too was 21 when NEVERMIND came
out, incidentally...no, wait, I'd turned 22) is the flipside of what
you're saying: Nirvana were the culmination of college radio, at least
as much as they were the beginning of mainstream alternative rock. So
to my way of thinking, R.E.M. are far more generationally important
because they were, so to speak, the gateway band for so many people my
age. I know a *lot* of people around my age who consider R.E.M. the
first "alternative" band they liked, whether they jumped on board with
"Radio Free Europe," "South Central Rain," "Fall On Me," "The One I
Love," "Stand" or "Losing My Religion."
S
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.