Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Grunge only appeared after the fact for many of those bands that got caught up in the Industry's epithet for that music. No one was waiting around for Nirvana, the flagship of Grunge to appear, before they could make "Grunge" music. And it isn't a term many of those bands identify with or embraced. As with other genres, e.g. The Beatles and British Invasion, or Rites of Spring and Emo, or Ramones and Punk.
|
Disregarding your accusation that those bands are somehow industry assembly line productions, how does that make them not Grunge? Grunge has a specific sound (I could pull up any of myriad definitions that all say it essentially is just emotive vocalizations and distorted guitars with a specific emphasis on a synthesis of sorts of prevailing alternative rock forms of various kinds and heavy metal) that wasn't unique to Seattle. Ergo, regardless of your personal opinion of their quality (something I won't argue one way or another because why?) Babes and King are both Grunge bands (this also being substantiated by the democratic genre voting process on Rate Your Music, which lists both as possessing that as their primary genre descriptor). Also, the rock music establishment's (and its artistic critics') consistent evasion of classification has nothing to do with the predominant fact that all of those labels do indeed apply to those bands. Though I would make a point of distinction that British Invasion is a complete media hype label that really doesn't define a particular sound, while Emo and Punk do indeed apply to (increasingly broad) specific styles that can be defined.
Well, the answer is that it doesn't - it was a good old fashioned ad hominem that really had nothing to do with the prevailing argument that you've now talked me into having, but it was essentially me letting off steam about the fact that mainly rock listeners are very into making label after label after label and then 1. not sticking to them the second someone in a different geographic area does the same thing and must then be given a new one 2. uses them mainly for hype instead of proper categorization 3. has silly petty arguments over them because they've refused forever to come to a consensus; meanwhile, jazz and "classical" are reduced to maybe five or so forms a generation and somehow can work without a hitch because people are less interested in compulsive labeling and media hyping (at least in that specific way) and more interested in tracking larger movements and stylistic syntheses, etc.