smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | rob@splitsville.com |
| Subject | =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiAxOTkxPw==?= |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:41:10 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (1.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Good points all, but it's not really Nirvana's fault that the record co's went after (for the most part) awful, second rate clones. They didn't create the Frankenstein monsters, the companies did.
Those bands like Poison, Winger, Crue really were the enemy in my mind. The 'mats sell next to nothing, while Poison sells millions?? At least Nirvana were credible (in spades).
As for killing off power pop, I think it rebounded fairly well with Oasis/Blur/Supergrass and a few others in 1995, 96. And if Lee Mavers of the La's could only have kept his head together...
>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: info@noceanstudios.com
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Sent: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:17:12
>
>Rob wrote:
>> Well, certainly a somewhat monumental year due to
>Nirvana's Nevermind
>> hitting the chart.
>> That should be the lead and end story to every
>music discussion about
>> 1991. Just imagine
>> what passed for 'popular rock' before their
>arrival. All that hair
>> spray...Ug
>>
>Not to open a can of worms here, but... I'd go back
>to hair spray and
>teen-oriented rock in a heartbeat, if it meant
>Nirvana never happened. Their
>debut started the devolution of the music industry
>as we know it. I'm not
>saying they were a bad band, but their arrival
>changed the way labels went
>after artists, and also led to the watering-down of
>"popular" music. A lot
>of the non-urban stuff we hear on the "top 40"
>radio these days is directly
>related to "Nevermind".
>
>And don't forget, grunge put the knife in the heart
>of the nascent power pop
>uprising that was just happening in 1991. I bet
>Matthew Sweet feels the same
>way I do...
>
>Don
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.