Talk:Grunge/Archive 2

message: "independent-rooted music genre" - what an odd phrase. What does it mean?
:The genre became popular in the mainstream, but its roots were in the indie rock scene. -- LGagnon 00:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's a very awkward phrase. Is that how genres with roots in indie rock are described among enthusiasts? Might a better, more "encyclopedic" phrase be used?→Encephalon | T | C 11:49:52, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
* Perhaps a phrase such as "music that reflected punk rocks "do it yourself" (DIY) ethos..." would have been more lyrical prose. Hamster Sandwich 23:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer something like a "genre rooted in the Indy scene" - Indy makes some sense. --MacRusgail 16:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "independent-rooted" 

message: I think RnB, the old style, not the Destiny's Child type, is one of the most neglected areas of influence on Grunge. I'm not sure if all bands were influenced by it, but certainly I often thought the singing on Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots' records was sometimes noticeably blues influenced. Nirvana was less obviously influenced, but then again they covered a lot of Leadbelly's songs, notably "Where did you sleep last night?" --MacRusgail 09:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blues as a stylistic influence 

message: I see that they're now surrounded by spaces; most major US and UK style manuals now recommend no spaces. It would be easier for non-specialist editors if a single character were used, rather than the html code. Tony 01:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  m dashes 

message: Is it fair to call grunge a fad? I think we should have discussed this first before adding that category. After all, grunge still has popularity to this day. Nirvana's box set didn't sell well on a wave of nostalgia alone, after all. I'm reverting the article for now; we can add the category back if there's a good argument for it given. -- LGagnon 19:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fad category

message: Before the “Grunge” craze most musicians, like everywhere, were poor. Weather and local occupation like logging made thick flannel shirts and heavy black boot common, rugged and cheap… Second hand stores were filled with these types of clothing and it was practical for the weather in Seattle… During the grunge craze the second-hand stores couldn’t keep em in stock and national cloths outlets would sell pre-worn flannels for big dollars… At this time most Seattle bands decide to rebel against this obvious mass marketing of the “grunge” look and decided get rid of the work boots and flannels in Seattle… —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grilledcheezy (talk • contribs) 17 Oct 2005.
: Pretty much what we already say: "The "fashion" did not evolve out of a conscious attempt to create an appealing fashion, but due to the inexpensiveness of such clothes and the warmth that they provided for the cold climate of the region. The media, rather than focusing on the music, would give this fashion a heavy amount of exposure. In the early 1990s, the fashion industry marketed "grunge fashion" to a widespread audience, charging relatively high prices for clothing that they assumed to be popular in the grunge scene." -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Important read for “Grunge” Fashion

message: Nu-metal is an offspring of grunge? Hardly. It's metal; it doesn't even sound like a decendent of punk like grunge is. It may rip off a few elements of grunge, but I'd hardly consider it a true decendent of it. 
On another note, it would be nice if people discussed major changes to the article before messing around with it. It's a featured article, and that should give reason not to mess around with it carelessly. -- LGagnon 00:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does mean that it is quite close to it, and that should be taken into consideration so that random edits do not destroy the featured-level quality of it. -- LGagnon 13:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agrred, but i thought that i would clear up something that seemed an obvious flaw in the logic of the spokesperson. Leyasu 13:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nu-metal?

message: It's unfortunate that nobody discusses adding new bands beforehand. Again, we have bands being added to the Prominent bands list without discussion, despite their controversiality. The new ones added seem to be pre-grunge punk bands, not grunge themselves. Anyone have a different opinion? -- LGagnon 05:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not absolutely sure which you are referring to, but I removed Dead Moon, who are simply not grunge. On the Mono Men (pretty sure that's how they spelled it, not Monomen as it was added) and U-Men, I could go either way. Certainly in terms of the breakout of grunge as a popular genre, they are pre-grunge; I'm also not sure either qualifies as "prominent". On the other hand, if they had been still around and playing when grunge broke out, everyone would count them as part of the genre. I think we should probably drop them from the list as non-prominent. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New bands on the list

message: ::::A slightly off topic question to LGagnon.  For footnote five, you mention most grunge bands outside the Pacific Northwest are posers.  How about give example of ones that aren't.  L 7 was from LA and on Sub Pop.  They are a good canidate I think.--128.59.143.41 19:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: L7 had a rather grungy sound to them. They are often considered riot grrl, but they fit well into the grunge genre as well. And like I said, most bands from outside the scene were post-grunge. -- LGagnon 02:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote #5

message: Saying that Thrash Metal was mentioned as influencing Grunge music in the movie Hype! isn't good enough to use under "origins" or in the body of the article as "inspired by". Who said it? In what context and what was exactly said? What was the exact line? I am considering replacing it with Heavy Metal as an influence. Heavy metal seems to be generally agreed upon as an influence by participants in the discussion area and WesleyDodds has come up with a cite for it.
hey, most bands in the Grunge scence were heavily influenced by Classic Rock, I would like to see something in the artcicle about that
:Could you cite a source for that, or at least not throw it in there without discussing it first? -- LGagnon 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but the thing about Classic Rock is that it really isn't a genre.  It's more a classification for all major rock bands from a certain era that have been accepted in the "canon" of the form, so to speak.  Anyways, the Classic Rock bands that are the primary influences for grunge bands (Zeppelin, Sabbath, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, etc.) are already covered under the heavy metal classification.  WesleyDodds 02:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyways, the Classic Rock bands that are the primary influences for grunge bands (Zeppelin, Sabbath, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, etc.) are already covered under the heavy metal classification.  Question time, why if the bands are Classic Rock, on earth are they on a bloody metal genres article? And if its not a genre, why on earth is Classic Metal listed as a genre? Leyasu 03:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, my arguments are coming together.  Like I have stated in the template talk for Heavy Metal, I do not consider metal a completely different form of music from rock music; it is a rock genre, just like punk, alternative, prog, psych, etc. are.  And Classic Metal (from reading the article) seems as arbitrary an application as Classic Rock Which is not to say they are completely useless, just that they refer to loose categorizations created years after the fact.  What makes those bands more classic than the 70's wave of Zeppelin, Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc.?  But I don't want to get side-tracked on other arguments.  My statement here is that classic rock cane surely be listed in the template for this page, but I don't think it's necessary. WesleyDodds 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What you consider is not fact. Fact is, its not a form of Rock music. That would be the same as saying Symphonic Metal/Neo-Classical metal is a form of Classical music. Or that Gothic Metal/Doom Metal are Gothic Rock. Its wrong, and doesnt work. If your going to say Classic Rock, you need to be listing Classic Rock bands, not ones on the Classic Metal article. Seriously, you really need to be making articles that agree with each other, not that contradict each other because someone is wanting to force their opinion to be there, in place of a musical fact. Leyasu 06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not continuing the "metal is/isn't a form of rock music" debate here, so let's drop it. Consequently I don't see how classic metal is involved, unless the bands overlap categories.  I listed Classic Rock bands, which are also heavy metal bands.  Pink Floyd's considered classic rock, but they're art-rock/prog/psych, and have no influence on grunge, so I feel listing heavy metal should be simple enough clarification.  But like I said before, if everyone else thinks we should list classic rock for reference purposes (to better help people who don't know anythign about grunge to understand its roots) I don't really mind.  WesleyDodds 07:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in adding classic rock. The only "classic rock" bands that matter are already considered metal. And classic rock isn't even a real genre anyways; it's a radio format. -- LGagnon 18:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it isn't a kind of music, it's a radio format.  Something is only Classic as opposed to Modern.  You have Modern Rock radio stations (stuff from the current decade), Classic Rock (stuff from the 60s an 70s mostly) and Oldies (50s and 60s), and now even something new called "Classic Alternative" (late 80s and 90s).  The only non-heavy metal bands to have significance I think were already mentioned.  In particular for Nirvana, the Beatles (Rock) and Creedance Clearwater Revival (Roots Rock).
--128.59.143.41 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur  WesleyDodds 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrash Metal backlash 

message: You have not proven Hype! wrong, and you have not give so much as one source to back your opinion. You have no right to change the article based on your POV. Your academic dishonesty is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. -- LGagnon 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leyasu, stop it

message: Let's not turn this into a revert war. Instead, cite a source that proves it wrong. Cite something instead of just throwing your POV around. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not POV. As I've said before, I have a source in the article already that proves you wrong. If you do not have one of your own, you should not remove the info I got from it. -- LGagnon 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war

message: I really can't bring myself to slog through all of the above. Could someone give a summary, preferably neutrally worded, of what is in contention about the content of the article (not about people's views of each other's competence and motivations)? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for summary