Can't fault people who got into Nirvana before they got into independent music. Some of us were born too late.

Skronk wrote:Can't fault people who got into Nirvana before they got into independent music. Some of us were born too late.

Not a fault issue, Skronk, but it's an odd phenomenon. I feel like a loser cos I was a bit too young to appreciate 1976-77.

On a seperate note, I find it odd that Nevermind is used as the dividing line... and it definitely is.... as opposed to Jane's Addiction's Nothing's Shocking, which truly ushered in the Alternative thing.

Nothing's Shocking was too over looked by regular record shoppers to really be the dividing line. Nevermind really brought the underground and mainstream closer together in people's minds. For better and for worse.

It's all about perception.

Richard wrote:

Skronk wrote:Can't fault people who got into Nirvana before they got into independent music. Some of us were born too late.

Not a fault issue, Skronk, but it's an odd phenomenon. I feel like a loser cos I was a bit too young to appreciate 1976-77.

On a seperate note, I find it odd that Nevermind is used as the dividing line... and it definitely is.... as opposed to Jane's Addiction's Nothing's Shocking, which truly ushered in the Alternative thing.

Too much Navarro metal shredding.

Ben Adrian

benadrian wrote:I'm glad there's a wide variety of ages on this board. It's just weird to think how old I was when some people were getting into their first bands.

I find myself using the explosion of Nirvana as kind of a dividing line. There's something difficult to describe, but I almost feel a difference in people depending on when they got into independent/punk rock; pre or post Nevermind hitting.

Ben Adrian

Well, seeing as how I was listening to punk/independent music long before Nirvana, they really represent a different dividing line for me. I really liked "Nevermind" and "In Utero" quite a lot. It's the fact that almost every band that came after them felt they had to squish themselves into that mold, that really really turned me off. At that point, I really went for the power electronics/neo-folk type of stuff (which I did like previous to that, mind you) partly because I felt it would at least never be co-opted by commercial radio. I was listening to Whitehouse/Throbbing Gristle/Death in June/Current 93/Nurse With Wound from the get go, and it seemed to me at the time like the final frontier in music unassailable by commercial interests.

benadrian wrote:
Too much Navarro metal shredding.

You really think that was the problem?
I think it was more an issue of catchy pop hooks a la
Teen Spirit as opposed to the weird funk / psych / prog / metal attack that Perry brought.

Teens just weren't feeling Jane Says for some reason.
Skronk can explain it better obviously.

Skronk, be the voice of your generation.

benadrian wrote:I'm glad there's a wide variety of ages on this board. It's just weird to think how old I was when some people were getting into their first bands.

I find myself using the explosion of Nirvana as kind of a dividing line. There's something difficult to describe, but I almost feel a difference in people depending on when they got into independent/punk rock; pre or post Nevermind hitting.

Ben Adrian

This could be a useful qualifier but there has to be a limit on the "swing"; it's not fair to somebody who was too young to buy their own records when Nevermind came out. I'd say, anyone who was in high school when Nevermind hit, would be a good 4-year range.

Myself, PRE. Kids used to ask "are you a Buddhist" when I had "NIRVANA" Sharpied on my backpack. That was when I was digging "Mr Moustache" and before preps latched onto "S.L.T.S."

Skronk wrote:Can't fault people who got into Nirvana before they got into independent music. Some of us were born too late.

Oh, I'm not saying anyone's like of independent/punk music is invalid or wrong or at fault or suspect.

I'm sure people have written thesises (what is the plural of thesis?) or the cultural relavance of the success of nirvan and how it affected underground music culture.

To me, the best I can put it, is it removed the stigma of liking agressive, socially unacceptable music to the general population. I mean, I BARELY beat Nirvana. I went to my first all ages, punk rock shows in 1988, and wasn't a regular 'til 1990. But still, there was a sense of danger, a sense that at any moment something crazy could happen, and one could be injured or fucked up. Cops still hassled even the tames of all ages shows.

Nirvan hit, and in my midwestern town, the all ages shows became the cool places to be. The danger seemed to drain away. The cops saw the illegal punk rock shows as a somewhat safe place for the kids to go AND it kept them off the high priced shopping streets and bar crawl areas which were formerly plagued by skaters and bumming punk rockers.

Music, at least loud and agressive music that wasn't metal, became less a statement of purpose and more of an amusement park ride. People got on, got an ultimately safe thrill for a while, then got right off and got on with normal life.

Anyway, that's all I should say while on the clock!

Ben Adrian

"Theses".

It rhymes with "feces."

Colonel Panic wrote:"Theses".

It rhymes with "feces."

Makes sense.

Ben Adrian