…. I forgot my point.

1990 to about 1993 was a time where the so-called “Seattle sound” and bands with more traditional sounds (or other new sounds, FNM etc.) coexisted with little apparent contradiction, so long as the latter was willing to alter their appearance somewhat. Initially “grunge” was just a set of very good rock bands from the same city with new ideas infused with the old, the latter of which certainly included palm muting and/or guitar solos.* Those new ideas (especially AIC’s) thankfully became a permanent part of rock/metal’s vocabulary.

I would contend however that even the grunge innovators, in their later work during the less-enlightened era I described earlier, eventually became somewhat influenced by their own followers. For this reason my ratings for “grunge band” albums tend to start off quite high and rapidly decline.

*To be clear, I was not suggesting that such things are necessary or desirable, only that their absence for the radio/MTV music that emerged under the alternative label during the mid-1990s provided a sort of negative common thread to the otherwise ambiguous notion of “alternative.”

But there were some important things that bands aiming to exploit both terms certainly did have in common. These were the things bands must do — or not do — with given instruments to get or maintain distribution. For example, on guitar, solos obviously must be minimal or preferably avoided entirely. Distorted guitar should never be palm muted, only strummed loosely, etc. Similar boundaries and clichés emerged for other instruments and even lyrical content.

Briefly “alternative” stood in contrast to pop and “grunge” to mainstream traditional hard rock. But there was something Orwellian about the post 1992ish use of “alternative”, in that it promoted a sense of liberation and escape among those engaged in it while appealing to the lowest common denominator to obtain the broadest possible sales. No coherent genre can emerge when the style is synonymous with “sales.” If “alternative” brought with it the only route to success, then everything wanting to succeed (or survive) must be “alternative.”

I always hated the term as well as “Seattle sound”, which wasn’t one sound to begin with.

Great article, Vince.

I say this – grunge was a local movement that grew pretty big, and vanished pretty quickly. First wave of the movement got us here at Brazil at 1992 either – we had local MTV since a year back, and we saw – me included – long hair and flannel shirts *and garage bands* coming out of everywhere.

and I agree with you cause I tend to look grunge more like a movement, almost like a flash mob in social History, that gathered the alternative “meaning of music” and concentered the power of the kids to form a band, stand up for the music and reject what was established. In this aspect grunge music is really made only by a few albums (as you can easily say earlier records from Soundgarden and Nirvana, or later from Pearl Jam, are not grunge). but left a legacy in society that is bigger than the dozen albums that can be fitted definitely in the genre.

In what grunge bands are concerned, I’d say that Alice in Chains is the most important band of the genre. Nirvana, Soundgarden and even Pearl Jam drawed elements found in AIC’s music. It was not Kurt’s death that buried grunge; it was Layne’s.

To me, grunge as music started with Temple of the Dog and ended with Mad Season.

As for alternative, I have to say it is a pretty good label when used by listeners, and even independent labels – but loses all its meaning when industry uses it. I still tag many bands alternative in last.fm these days – for bands that passed out without knowing big media, or those still in the not-mainstream way of making rock. I wouldn’t say fuck alternative – I say fuck big players using a tag that only has a meaning from listeners point of view :D