Music Banter - View Single Post - Why do people blame Nirvana for killing Hair Metal?
View Single Post
Old 10-01-2014, 06:08 PM   #39 (permalink)
Soulflower
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicwhore A-Z View Post
Great questions 'Soulflower'. To answer the thread question first, Nirvana simply received the most airplay not only on radio, but on MTV's 'Headbanger's Ball' AND '120 Minutes', respectively. Truth be told, there were only a handful of bands that "crossed over" like that at the time.

Also, a new generation of teens had emerged in 1991 and simply couldn't get behind what the hard rock bands of the 80's were doing. The tide was turning, so naturally the music of the era would follow suit. The music went into a darker direction, and rightfully so. You had the Gulf War, the Rodney King beating/police brutality in general, and the ultra conservative Bush/Quayle years. The social/political climate of the early 90's was our "late 60's", so to speak. Frankly, young people were searching for "the real deal" in popular music and many found it in bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and for myself, Warrior Soul. A band ( from New York by the way..., but who cares? Their scathing social commentary in the songs preceded the "heavier" direction rock would take in the coming decade in my opinion ) that got lost in the shuffle because they were somewhat on the cusp of "hair metal" and "grunge". Two labels that I despise by the way. But I digress ( ).

Having said all that, I think the BANDS of the era "blame" Nirvana more than the "people" do, so to speak. Personally, I blame the RECORD LABELS more than anyone else. Yes, the formula became tiresome, however, that "genre" made a SELECT few in the industry MILLION$! One could argue that "hair metal" suffers the same stigma not unlike disco a decade earlier. Fad or not, time has been kind to the music more than it's given credit for. Some in the radio business have deemed it "the new classic rock", rightly or wrongly.

Be that as it may, YES, the Seattle scene was definitely a breath of fresh air! It was a great time, and the shot in the arm that rock NEEDED at the time without question. While I can't say I was a huge fan of Nirvana, I loved Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, and the Melvins to name a few. Dark or not, the music simply ROCKED, and that's all that mattered to me. As a prodigy of the "hair metal" era, I absolutely embraced the early 90's with ease. Then again, I had just turned 21 a few weeks prior to Nirvana's 'Nevermind' release ( Sept. 1991 ), so clearly I was young enough to enjoy what was to come at that time. No qualms whatsoever from this Gen X-er! Good times, and GREAT thread ( ). Interesting comments everybody both pro and con.
Great post.

This is why sometimes I get bewildered with why some people don't care about how badly today's popular music is on this site lol I don't even listen to a lot of current pop music but it is something that is visibly different. I personally would give anything to have grown up in the 80's, 90's hell 70's since that mostly all the era of music I listen too.


If I had grown up in those era's I would be disappointed in how pop music has changed so badly for today's era.
You make a lot of good points. The music of the early to mid 90's overall is more social and political across the board and a lot of that has to do with the cultural and social issues/events that took place during that period.

I think record labels/industry definitely had some influence on their popularity just like they have control over how pop stars are marketed today.

I think Hair/Metal is not regarded the same as Disco. I think Hair metal gets way more respect. I actually think Disco deserves more respect than Hair Metal in in some ways but it is an underrated genre overall, fad or not.

I am lovin Nirvana so far! I love their edge!
Soulflower is offline   Reply With Quote