Best Band: 90s Seattle Era. - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Best band: 90s Seattle Era
Nirvana 47 31.13%
Alice In Chains 40 26.49%
Soundgarden 15 9.93%
Pearl Jam 18 11.92%
Stone Temple Pilots 6 3.97%
Mudhoney 6 3.97%
Other 17 11.26%
Tad 2 1.32%
Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2008, 01:24 PM   #31 (permalink)
Aural melody discerner
 
Miltamec Soundsquinaez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: in a truck down by the interstate
Posts: 347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
To me Alice In Chains just sound like some dreary 80s stadium rock band only a little bit heavier.
That doesn't make sense. 80's stadium rock wasn't dreary. It was hairspray, and cocaine, and cheese. AIC may have some heavy songs like, Rooster, or Man in the Box, which get heavy in the chorus, but the verses sound nothing like 80's stadium rock. It is way, way slower.
Quote:
To me it sounded like a ball-less soul-less dirge.
As I mentioned in the above post, their music was extremely slow, which is pretty anti-80's pop. You could argue that they tried to sound like Nirvana, but I highly doubt that, since their most successful album came out the same year as Nevermind.
Quote:
I guess the acoustic stuff was a novelty but at the end of the day they just sounded like a stadium rock band trying to play acoustically , if I wanted that i'd listen to a folk band doing it properly.
That contradicts your earlier statement that they were a stadium rock band, only heavier. So, they had some heavy songs, and they had some acoustic songs. So what if a band wants to explore their plethora of emotions through varying styles? Also, I have to give a nod to Staley over Cobain. I think Kurt was a better lyricist, and a great singer, but Staley could croon and shriek like no other. He had an incredible range in his voice from the low octave voice common in his verses to the high pitched shrieking in Rooster. He also had one of the loudest voices in rock, next to Chris Cornell.
Miltamec Soundsquinaez is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 01:51 PM   #32 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsed2lguy View Post
That doesn't make sense. 80's stadium rock wasn't dreary. It was hairspray, and cocaine, and cheese. AIC may have some heavy songs like, Rooster, or Man in the Box, which get heavy in the chorus, but the verses sound nothing like 80's stadium rock. It is way, way slower.

As I mentioned in the above post, their music was extremely slow, which is pretty anti-80's pop. You could argue that they tried to sound like Nirvana, but I highly doubt that, since their most successful album came out the same year as Nevermind.

That contradicts your earlier statement that they were a stadium rock band, only heavier. So, they had some heavy songs, and they had some acoustic songs. So what if a band wants to explore their plethora of emotions through varying styles? Also, I have to give a nod to Staley over Cobain. I think Kurt was a better lyricist, and a great singer, but Staley could croon and shriek like no other. He had an incredible range in his voice from the low octave voice common in his verses to the high pitched shrieking in Rooster. He also had one of the loudest voices in rock, next to Chris Cornell.
There were so many things wrong with your refutation, just responding would be like writing an essay.

And, er, you're giving him a nod for being a better vocalist? Hell, Christina Aguilera's got more range than the lot of them. Besides, Kurt wasn't only the better lyricist, he, surprise, was a much better SONG WRITER TOO!
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 01:57 PM   #33 (permalink)
Aural melody discerner
 
Miltamec Soundsquinaez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: in a truck down by the interstate
Posts: 347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
Bush I'll admit had a (small) number of good songs that almost feel as if they could have been lost Cobain tracks. But the band, let's face it, were a totally shameless, despicable, almost comically derivative Nirvana rip-off. Hell. They even got Albini to produce their follow-up album.
Ha, that's not true. If a band was able to sound even close to Nirvana. They would probably be given mad props for it. Like Silverchair sounded a little bit like them, and they're pretty good. You chose to call Bush a comically derivative Nirvana rip-off. The drumming is similar, but the guitars, and the singing aren't even close to similar.

Quote:
Pearl Jam are mostly devoid of decent songs - even TEN on reflection had its share of filler.
Ha, that's not true. Most of the Cd was made up of singles, and other songs like Black, Bottom, and Porch are basically the best songs on the CD. You saying an album that is completely listenable from start to finish, had it's share of filler, is laughable.

Quote:
Alice In Chains provide the blueprint for bands like Staind.
That's a good point, although Dysfunction was a good album. AIC have no control over what other bands choose to emulate them. If anything, they were innovative, and came from the soul. You saying that AIC were generic rock is pretty laughable. I didn't even like them for the first 10 years they were on the radio. Their music isn't very pallatable. If you can get into bands that almost sound like they're trying not to sell records. I.E. Rush, Pink Floyd, then you will probably like Alice In Chains.
I refrain from comment where Soundgarden are concerned. I still have to listen to Badmotorfinger.[/QUOTE]
Miltamec Soundsquinaez is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:12 PM   #34 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsed2lguy View Post
Ha, that's not true. If a band was able to sound even close to Nirvana. They would probably be given mad props for it. Like Silverchair sounded a little bit like them, and they're pretty good. You chose to call Bush a comically derivative Nirvana rip-off. The drumming is similar, but the guitars, and the singing aren't even close to similar.
Well done for understanding what "rip-off" means!

Firstly, I never said they were similar to Nirvana. I said they had a small number of songs that ALMOST sound as if they could have been lost Cobain tracks. As for them being a Nirvana rip-off, not that I thought I'd ever have to EXPLAIN something so elementary, but the meaning is that they were TRYING to imitate Nirvana and to sound like them in every way. It was Gavin Rossdale's vision. His inspiration. His heart and soul.

Quote:
Ha, that's not true. Most of the Cd was made up of singles, and other songs like Black, Bottom, and Porch are basically the best songs on the CD. You saying an album that is completely listenable from start to finish, had it's share of filler, is laughable.
The point that you don't think it's filler doesn't change anything at all. It's totally listenable from start to finish... to you. Others think much of it is bland crud. And it is .



ON TOPIC OF TEN:

Why Go, Porch, Garden, and Wash are all work songs. "Release" is just dull.

Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 02-24-2008 at 02:21 PM.
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:21 PM   #35 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

In my own personal opinion, Soungarden was just as good as any of them. I am suprised that STP is not getting any votes. I always did like them. Most of these bands would tune in low C, instead of the standard 440. Thats why I like Staind so much. Killer low bottom end.
Necromancer is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:22 PM   #36 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass View Post
In my own personal opinion, Soungarden was just as good as any of them. I am suprised that STP is not getting any votes. I always did like them. Most of these bands would tune in low C, instead of the standard 440. Thats why I like Staind so much. Killer low bottom end.
AH AH so you're a Staind fan. Sorry, man. Everything makes sense now.
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:28 PM   #37 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsed2lguy View Post
That doesn't make sense. 80's stadium rock wasn't dreary. It was hairspray, and cocaine, and cheese. AIC may have some heavy songs like, Rooster, or Man in the Box, which get heavy in the chorus, but the verses sound nothing like 80's stadium rock. It is way, way slower.
Bands like U2 , Simple Minds & INXS were hairspray , cocaine & cheese were they?

Quote:
As I mentioned in the above post, their music was extremely slow, which is pretty anti-80's pop. You could argue that they tried to sound like Nirvana, but I highly doubt that, since their most successful album came out the same year as Nevermind.
Don't see what that has to do with anything , the album also came out during the shoegazer era and those bands played much slower stuff , that managed to appeal to me.

Quote:
That contradicts your earlier statement that they were a stadium rock band, only heavier. So, they had some heavy songs, and they had some acoustic songs. So what if a band wants to explore their plethora of emotions through varying styles? Also, I have to give a nod to Staley over Cobain. I think Kurt was a better lyricist, and a great singer, but Staley could croon and shriek like no other. He had an incredible range in his voice from the low octave voice common in his verses to the high pitched shrieking in Rooster. He also had one of the loudest voices in rock, next to Chris Cornell.
Don't see how it's a contradiction , a stadium rock band doing acoustic songs is hardly unheard of. I hardly call having a some heavy songs & a some acoustic songs as a plethora of styles , sounds like your typical stadium rock bunch of songs. A fast rocker , a sensitive ballad , a singalong anthem , a few mid-paced rockers in the middle of the show , nothing wrong with that but hardly an 'alternative' to what was already around before it.
As for his vocals you can have the biggest range in the world , if I think the songs are total garbage it's all meaningless.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:32 PM   #38 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

(Everything makes sense now). I dont know the meaning of that, but I like just about every style of music out there. This subject on 90s grunge is only the tip of the iceberg. Peace.
Necromancer is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:34 PM   #39 (permalink)
Aural melody discerner
 
Miltamec Soundsquinaez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: in a truck down by the interstate
Posts: 347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
Well done for understanding what "rip-off" means!

Firstly, I never said they were similar to Nirvana. I said they had a small number of songs that ALMOST sound as if they could have been lost Cobain tracks. As for them being a Nirvana rip-off, not that I thought I'd ever have to EXPLAIN something so elementary, but the meaning is that they were TRYING to imitate Nirvana and to sound like them in every way. It was Gavin Rossdale's vision. His inspiration. His heart and soul.
You don't have to explain that to me. I never said I don't know what rip-off means. Also, I clearly stated that the guitars and vocals sound nothing alike. Bush heavy guitar riffs might be close, but the higher pitched, more subtle, transitional riffs are nothing like Nirvana, and can't really be compared to anything. If Gavin's sole purpose in life was to imitate Nirvana, then I doubt he would write Comedown. Let's look at the lyrics:
I don't want to come back down from this cloud,
it's taken me all this time to find out what I need,
Hardly sounds like Cobain.

Quote:
The point that you don't think it's filler doesn't change anything at all. It's totally listenable from start to finish... to you. Others think much of it is bland crud. And it is .
If you don't like it, then don't listen to it. I, personally like the albums from start to finish, and albums that you can put in, and don't have to skip one track on are nice, and extremely rare.



ON TOPIC OF TEN:

Why Go, Porch, Garden, and Wash are all work songs. "Release" is just dull.[/QUOTE]
Miltamec Soundsquinaez is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:55 PM   #40 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsed2lguy View Post
If you don't like it, then don't listen to it. I, personally like the albums from start to finish, and albums that you can put in, and don't have to skip one track on are nice, and extremely rare.
Nah, there are loads of such albums. If you're listening to the right sorts of music. No arrogance/offense intended. Just, in a very restrictive scene, there aren't that many albums where you can listen all the way through and not skip, like you say. Across the board, however, there are loads of albums good all the way through.
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Closed Thread


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.