[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with these bands' music on its own, but the hype which surrounded them at their peaks was nauseating to say the least, but whose hype was the worse media monstrosity? You can always vote for a write in candidate.

[_tunic_]

oasis! My impression is that the British press tends to hype their music much much more. But perhaps that's because I read Dutch magazines, or back then anyway.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

agreed, I think Oasis' hype was the worst, but Smashing Pumpkins were up there.. the music press was acting like Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness was the most artistic record of the decade. I mean, hey, I get it, the grunge era wasn't very creatively stimulating, but lets not kid ourselves and pretend that by default this made Smashing Pumpkins brilliant art-rock

[Kuhb]

Interesting topic! Oasis is hugely over hyped. Open chord shitty ballads and boring Stones-esque rock. British mainstream "alternative" fucking sucks.

[Toilet & Bowels]

In the UK Oasis achieved a greater level of popularity than any other band in my life time, calling them hyped or over hyped seems weird because (regardless of what you think of their music - I'm not a fan) they were a cultural phenomenon around 95 - 97, and no other band that I can think of has had anything like the level of success here that they did. Smashing Pumpkins on the other hand were just another fairly popular band, and didn't particularly stand out from the crowd of alt/mainstream american rock for any reason, cf Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Dandy Warhols, etc.

[_tunic_]

but they were popular because they were in the press 24/7
I recall there was this continuous Blur Vs Oasis thing going on. I don't really like any of them, but in the end Blur won it big time. Just look at where both bands are now, and what they've achieved

Oh and I completely forgotten about the Mellon Collie album. I loved the Pumpkins, but basically only Gish. I disliked them more the more popular they got.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by _tunic_

s I disliked them more the more popular they got.

same here...

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

In the UK Oasis achieved a greater level of popularity than any other band in my life time, calling them hyped or over hyped seems weird because (regardless of what you think of their music - I'm not a fan) they were a cultural phenomenon around 95 - 97, and no other band that I can think of has had anything like the level of success here that they did. Smashing Pumpkins on the other hand were just another fairly popular band, and didn't particularly stand out from the crowd of alt/mainstream american rock for any reason, cf Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Dandy Warhols, etc.

It was kinda the other way around here in the States. But only during the Mellon Collie era. They stretched that album out for what felt like a lifetime, just cranking out single after single.

Before that they were kind of another face in the crowd, as far as I was concerned. Another non-Nirvana band. But after Nirvana split and Pearl Jam started slowing down, the Pumpkins were the biggest band in the country for about 18 months. I admit, there was a bit of a Beatlesque feel to the four-piece band with all the hit singles, but their reign was short lived. By 1998, they were basically done. Anything they've done since then has been more hated than not.

Oasis was big over here but not like they were in the UK.

[Severian]

I actually think I prefer Oasis. At least I can understand the Brit rock archetypal appeal of the combating brothers (Kinks) and the God complex overestimation of their own significance (Spinal Tap lol!)- they were a more fleshed out and radio friendly power chord version of the Stone Roses, who I fucking love. And yeah, they brought bit of low-grade Beatlemania to a generation that had lost its voice.
I feel nothing when I hear their songs, but that doesn't mean their songs weren't extremely well-executed pop tunes. I just kind of enjoyed that entire "Oasis V. blur" marketing campaign of NME's. Blur is a more quintessentially Brirish band, and a more artistic one at that. But Oasis introduced a lot of junior high school kids to the Beatles. The pumpkins were just a goddamn joke in the end. And they're still fucking going! My god!

I remember being excited by Siamese Dream... And yeah, Mellon Collie has some songs that still get me if they come on the radio and I'm in the right mood. For example, “Here is No Why” and “Muzzle.” They're just really classic sounding arena rock tracks.

But “Bullet w/ Butterfly Wings” was such an obvious attempt to recapture the vibe of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” that I can't believe it was as successful as it was. It was like Corgan had studied the lyrical approach of Kurt Cobain, and the post-grunge surprise breakthrough sound of the Downward Spiral, and said "hey, I've stumbled upon the formula for generation-defining alt. rock! Now let's see, I'll just put in a dabble of Cure and a pinch of Cocteau Twins, toss in some blue oyster cult, and the kids should be worshiping me as their savior within two weeks of hearing this.”

[Severian]

I really don't think I agree that the grunge era was necessarily lacking in creativity. Look at the main influences of the most notable bands of that period: Nirvana was this strange amalgum of Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, Pixies, Melvins & The Ramones. Soundgarden was equally indebted to the Melvins if not more-so, and they had the most convincingly authentic blend of punk and metal of all the Seattle-invasion bands.

Pearl Jam is underrated. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I genuinely think they had some fucking great moments in their early career. Between Vs and Yield, I saw them several times and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't floored by their energy on stage during those first few years, and impressed by their willingness to be strange in the mid-late '90s. Vitalogy is a weird fucking record, for a 6xplatinum #1 album. And as much as they may have settled into middle of the road status now, it doesn't detract from the fact that they had some really great rock tunes scattered throughout their discography.

I still get chills from songs like “State of Love & Trust” and “Tremor Christ” and “Spin the Black Circle” and “Go”... I could go on.

And their influences weren't the most traditional either. Early PJ was woefully indebted to the worst elements of Jane's Addiction. But once they got their vibe going they were more reminiscent of Neil Young, and clearly they picked up a lot from Sonic Youth and REM.
I also have to hand it to them for their ethic. They were weird and reclusive and I think they genuinely cared less about success than Kurt Cobain ever did.

And Mudhoney is great, fuckin' classic butt-punk. Stoogified Sabbath disciples with a truly "fuck you" spirit.

And honestly, I hate to retread old ground but Nirvana was an extremely creative band. Look at all the influences that a complete listen to their discography yields. They're responsible for many 90s teens getting into bands like Flipper and The Germs, not to mention Leadbelly.

But Alice in Chains sucked. Candlebox sucked. But they were second stringers at best. I have nothing but respect for Nirvana, and the work done by Pearl Jam and Soundgarden (in the '90s) and Mudhoney (throughout their career).

And what about the lesser known Pacific Northwest artists that helped draw attention to the suburban goin on around Seattle and Portland and Bellingham and Eugene and Oly? What about Dead Moon? One of the most undervalued bands of that era (or the one preceding it)... The Wipers? Fucking conceptual punk of Hüsker Dü quality. A flawless discography that put Portland on the map!

The worst thing about grunge was the overexposure. Bands like Nirvana should have never been placed in front of Kurt Loder's microphone.

Oh, shit, and Tad! What about fucking Tad? That mothetfucker is still pumping out albums and projects, and they hold up.

...anyway. Unwound was on the fringes of the movement too, and they're simply one of the greatest bands ever.

Fuck I have to keep my rambling music tirades to more realistic lengths. Perhaps I should employ a stop watch, henceforth.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

Fuck I have to keep my rambling music tirades to more realistic lengths. Perhaps I should employ a stop watch, henceforth.

Dont trip this was really a 90s throwback nostalgia thread anyway. To be sure, fuck whatdead_battery says, im not necessarily stuck in the 90s.. actually I quite enjoy the 2000s. I watched a legit political analyst, older dude, last nite say "first id like to give propz to the three senators.." word! You just wouldnt see shit like that in the 90s

[Genteel Death]

Babes in Toyland have always been the underrated band of the grunge phenomenon in the 90s for me. Great musicians, vocals, attitude and seemed willing to restrain from being sucked into the fame bullshit so many of these bands were so drawn in but kept on criticising to get their credibility points from fans who sometimes, luckily, had more imagination, smelled the bluff and move on. Kurt Cobain wanted his next record to sound like ''Automatic for the People'', remember? I like that record myself but is it an alternative to anything? In that respect I think someone like Courtney Love has always been more sincere than Kurt Cobain himself, and their respective bands' music doesn't sound so different to me now. She's still alive though, which doesn't work to her own advantage.

[Genteel Death]

One of the most annoying traits of Nirvana is that as good as their feminism, anti-homophobia, anti-racist stance was, they created a culture where marginal people, outsiders are accepted and therefore never listened to because someone more visible than you is always saying what you can't say in a better way than yourself because of their ambitious agenda, with more privilege, access and emphasis on what's being said, rather than content based on reality. Thank you but not thank you. Even David Bowie managed better in terms of influencing mass culture. The music itself isn't even that weird or interesting anyway.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

Babes in Toyland have always been the underrated band of the grunge phenomenon in the 90s for me. Great musicians, vocals, attitude and seemed willing to restrain from being sucked into the fame bullshit so many of these bands were so drawn in but kept on criticising to get their credibility points from fans who sometimes, luckily, had more imagination, smelled the bluff and move on. Kurt Cobain wanted his next record to sound like ''Automatic for the People'', remember? I like that record myself but is it an alternative to anything? In that respect I think someone like Courtney Love has always been more sincere than Kurt Cobain himself, and their respective bands' music doesn't sound so different to me now. She's still alive though, which doesn't work to her own advantage.

Yeah, I agree- Live Through This sounds like it could be a Nirvana album... the difference is only really in the individual styles of the players. Courtney didn't play like Kurt... she rarely actually played at all.. and nobody in Hole's history had the same frustrated delivery that Cobain put into his playing, or Grohl put into his drumming. Aside from a few fleeting moments of originality, Hole sounded polished and precious compared to Nirvana. But most of Hole's pre-Celebrity Skin material sounds like overproduced Nirvana B-sides.

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by Severian

she rarely actually played at all..

Like what??? She didn't play guitar or sing?!??

[Genteel Death]

It's interesting though that a band like Oasis with their cigarettes, alcohol and whatever seem like a bunch of squares waiting to marry some Masterchef celebrity compared to a bunch of idiots like Smashing Pumpkins.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

One of the most annoying traits of Nirvana is that as good as their feminism, anti-homophobia, anti-racist stance was, they created a culture where marginal people, outsiders are accepted and therefore never listened to because someone more visible than you is always saying what you can't say in a better way than yourself because of their ambitious agenda, with more privilege, access and emphasis on what's being said, rather than content based on reality. Thank you but not thank you. Even David Bowie managed better in terms of influencing mass culture. The music itself isn't even that weird or interesting anyway.

That is not a fair analysis. While nirvana didnt have a singular image or message, their cultural impact and footprint is undeniable. Before nirvama people listened to guns&roses and michael jackson records, after nirvana they listened to a slightly more diverse blend of bands. Also, courtney love more sincere?? Youre totally fucking trolling us right? Listen, I honestly think live through this is one of the best records of the 90s.grunge.era but lets not kid outselves, courtney love may just be the epitome of plastic, manipulative, and outright lying people to ever walk this earth

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

That is not a fair analysis. While nirvana didnt have a singular image or message, their cultural impact and footprint is undeniable. Before nirvama people listened to guns&roses and michael jackson records, after nirvana they listened to a slightly more diverse blend of bands. Also, courtney love more sincere?? Youre totally fucking trolling us right? Listen, I honestly think live through this is one of the best records of the 90s.grunge.era but lets not kid outselves, courtney love may just be the epitome of plastic, manipulative, and outright lying people to ever walk this earth

I'm not analysing anything. Grunge never existed anyway,

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

Hole sounded polished and precious compared to Nirvana. But most of Hole's pre-Celebrity Skin material sounds like overproduced Nirvana B-sides.

I see you haven't really delved into Pretty On the Inside but its ANYTHING but polished yo

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

Babes in Toyland have always been the underrated band of the grunge phenomenon in the 90s for me..

I totally agree, I LOVED Babes In Toyland and I especially thought they were having actual fun which is so important. Nirvana initially were so successful because simply put, they weren't trying to be, they were just having fun. After the shit hit the fan, Nirvana looked like they stopped having fun. Popularity is a double-edged sword, you get the exposure and opportunity for gigs your band always wants, but you also start to lose the fun factor as it increasingly because a four-letter word kind of work or job.. I also enjoyed Verucca Salt

[Genteel Death]

Nirvana were great for me because I discovered The Wipers through them. I love this band so much to this day.