Red Mosquito

Strat wrote:Honest question.

Do any of you (McP mostly) really believe rock music was not important? Or is it "its just musi, you didn't develop a cure for being gay, calm down" sort of thing.

I truly believe that was a powerful time. Not as much of the 60's music scene and revolutions and all that but I do feel it truly had an impact on social behavior and norms

Did anything really "important" stick, though?

Sure. Record executives found a way to balance between faddy marketable niche and legacy product development. MTV made a lot of money, too.

Art isn't important. Life is meaningless. Nothing has value. Ed is a name dropper. Billy Corgan is a douchebag. Siamese Dream is great. En Utero is probably better, but I'd rather listen to Siamese Dream. I am not broke.

I don't doubt for a moment that the bands in the early 90's really thought they were accomplishing something...probably akin to a smaller version of the impact of the 60's.

But unlike those boomer bands, this group was coming up within a massive, well-marketed, savvy billion dollar industry that had learned all about how to toe the line (and where to humor artists) from the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

If you want to point to an impact from that era (late 80's/early 90's), it is the explosion of smaller labels and recording studios. The number of recording studios more than doubled in that era, thanks in large part to increasingly enterprising indie acts and the lowering cost of digital equipment.

Of course, most of those labels are now owned by major labels. Most of those bands are moneygrabbing. Most of the music they made aged really, really poorly.

In short,

Strat wrote: I truly believe that was a powerful time. Not as much of the 60's music scene and revolutions and all that but I do feel it truly had an impact on social behavior and norms

This. The 90s was an incredible time to grow up if you were a music junkie.

McParadigm wrote:I don't doubt for a moment that the bands in the early 90's really thought they were accomplishing something...probably akin to a smaller version of the impact of the 60's.

But unlike those boomer bands, this group was coming up within a massive, well-marketed, savvy billion dollar industry that had learned all about how to toe the line (and where to humor artists) from the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

If you want to point to an impact from that era (late 80's/early 90's), it is the explosion of smaller labels and recording studios. The number of recording studios more than doubled in that era, thanks in large part to increasingly enterprising indie acts and the lowering cost of digital equipment.

Of course, most of those labels are now owned by major labels. Most of those bands are moneygrabbing. Most of the music they made aged really, really poorly.

In short,

Ok fine, it was a music marketing machine that changed music forever. But what about the entrails and their markings on culture/subculture. and dont point to the grunge clothing ads.....

It really felt like something else was going on. The voice of a generation sort of thing felt real to an extent.

and I guess the fact it impacted commerce as much as it did was something.

ITs a romantic period for me, no doubt. But it was clearly the last period where "rock stars" were born.

theplatypus wrote:And Jimmy Chamberlin was a better drummer than Dave Grohl.

I like Jimmy but he relied far to heavily on snare rolls. He was a very one dimensional drummer. I t worked within the contexts of SP but he rarely added a different element to the songs.

BC is probably correct in his assessment of writers. I don't think EV had enough output in the '90's to be considered.

McParadigm wrote:I don't doubt for a moment that the bands in the early 90's really thought they were accomplishing something...probably akin to a smaller version of the impact of the 60's.

i respectfully disagree

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Strat wrote: I truly believe that was a powerful time. Not as much of the 60's music scene and revolutions and all that but I do feel it truly had an impact on social behavior and norms

This. The 90s was an incredible time to grow up if you were a music junkie.

Hell yeah. There was so much good music, too. And, it aged just fine for me, which is really all that matters. Could care less what some cynics in here say.

All of these surging periods are exceptions, and very short lasting. It was basically the late 60s where the counterculture was massive, the original punk movement to a smaller extent, and then the early 90s, with alot of gestative period in between. How influential were The Beatles during the height of the disco boom in 1977? Not very. These things are meant to fade. Judging the artists against themselves in these "peak" eras is just myopic. The industry and pop culture rules have changed several times over within 15 years in each of the above instances. Which is why I find all of these "post-whatever moneygrab" conversations laughable.

I've read it three times now, and I'm still not sure I understand what's being said.

Well, regarding the "Survivor's guilt" comment, the one thing that Corgan has no idea about is what it was like to be Eddie Vedder in the nineties. He knows that, and you can see the resentment he has for it. Just because you screwed around with Courtney Love doesn't make an authority of all things Grunge. Am i wrong but every time Cobain gets brought up, Vedder is always complementary and grateful ("We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Kurt). Corgan was probably the second-best song writer of the nineties, which pretty much is the second-tallest midget award. As you can tell, I'm in the opinion that the whole Nivana/Cobain genuflecting is a bit much. I don't doubt their impact, but as a career, the sample size just isn't there. Whose to say Nirvana wouldn't have become just a different version of Pearl Jam or U2, slowly putting out inferior albums, drowning in money and getting jerked off by everybody all the time. In Corgan's case, everything sans the money, which is why Corgan is bitter. And I get it, the amount of money Vedder has made is probably ridiculous (whadaya say, 1/4 billion?), but its a bad look, and Corgan looks scary enough.

If it's not small-time professional wrestling or a tea house I don't want to hear about it.

Debating what this guy thinks about artistic credibility and his merits as a songwriter sure seems a little pointless. Wouldn't you agree?

However, I agree that Siamese Dream is a better album than both Vs and In Utero. I still can't stop myself from cranking the volume every time I hear the beginning of Cherub Rock

Oh, and this one

Corgan on Stern today was maddening. What a prick. Blasted PJ and Foo. He's gotta just be trying to make some publicity for his latest crap release.
What I hate the most is that he backtracks after every swipe he takes. If thats the way you feel, own it. Don't try and sugarcoat it in the next sentence.
He is delusional if he really thinks that next to Nirvana, SP is the most influential and important. Has he never heard of AIC or Soundgarden?

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy- ... -fighters/

For the link-lazy.

Corgan first compared the work of Pearl Jam to both the Smashing Pumpkins and Nirvana:

“No. Not even close. I think they were derivative and the work speaks for itself. If you listen to the band’s work, and I know they have a tremendous fanbase and they should, they’re a great band but you know, I’m a Beatles guy, a Stones guy and a Kinks but if you go to a lot of those other bands they just don’t have the work. I just don’t think Pearl Jam have the songs. If you stack my songs up, Cobain’s songs up and that band’s songs up, they don’t have the songs. They’re a great band, still an arena act, they’ve been getting it done for a long time and I have to bow to that but it’s a mystery to me on how they have because I just don’t get it. They don’t have the songs. People will take that the wrong way but speaking competitively, they are my competitors and I have to say who am I competing against & why.”

Corgan also said the following when asked about potentially collaborating with Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder:

“I would have to understand his motivation, we were friends at one point so it’s not like there is a relationship train-track there. I haven’t been in a social frame with the guy in I don’t know how long but I think a lot of people are transformed by fame. I knew one person and then there was another person. I’m another person so maybe he felt the same way about me. You can’t blame the guy though, he was on the cover of TIME magazine, not me and dealt with a level of fame that I never dealt with.”

God, what a douchebag. "They just don't have the songs," as if that's some kind of objective fact. And I'm not even saying that as a PJ fan, but as someone who appreciates good debate about art. What he's saying is meaningless.

so billy corgan is eddie vedder's competitor but ed just doesn't hold up musically to corgan's work? this makes little sense.

also, re: the time magazine reference - does everyone here know that Ed actively protested being put on the cover at the time it happened? I mean, regardless of Ed's sell out/complacency mentality now he was a pretty big hater of the media during that shit. and very vocal about it.