Are Nirvana, Kurt Cobain, and the Grunge scene as a whole overrated?

Grunge as a whole was underwhelming. Nirvana was the best of that lot, although Soundgarden had a few songs that blew Nirvana away. Unfortunately, there was only one album from Soundgarden that I liked (Badmotorfinger) and even that one has a few songs that seem to be on there as filler. Rusty Cage and Jesus Christ Pose are amazing songs regardless of genre. I never cared for Pearl Jam, STP or any of the others.

Yes, grunge is very overrated.

 

Well ok this is the way I see it. Most of the hair/glam metal bands are not really well metal. Maybe a few here and there. But for the most part they were more hard rock. Same thing with most of the Nu-Metal bands. The one thing you will find in most metal genres is that they have a sound that is the same. What I mean here is take a Death Metal band take there slowest song and it will still be Death Metal because they stay to true to what the style sounds like.

With Nu-Metal, Hair/Glam Metal, and even Metalcore they are all over the place with there sound. Also half the bands are not even metal. Example Nu-Metal is supposed to be rap and metal mixed together. A number of the band thrown under the label though don't mix rap and metal and really are just Hard rock bands.

 

It's overrated. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, but it didn't really "save" music. People were obviously pissed off with the overproduction of the 80's, so if Grunge hadn't taken off, something equally as gritty (like Thrash or Death Metal) would've been dragged to the mainstream in its place. As it is, I'm glad Grunge got the big push, because early 90's Thrash was pretty good. Don't want major labels screwing up decent bands.

To be honest, maybe Black Metal would have been funny instead of grunge. Screw one suicide, Black Metal had Church Burnings, Suicides, Murders, Satanic Imagery and absolutely no production values. And that's just in one band...

 

So, do the bands define the genre, or does the genre define the bands?

Either way, it seems awfully restrictive.

 

True, though it seems that bands define genre more than the other way around.

 

It's a marketing tool, that's all. And a damaging one. Too often do otherwise talented musicians try to limit themselves to a specific genre, and it seems to hurt their musical creativity.

 

The music is really what defines it. Though you need bands to start it. The problem is and I have found this true with Gothic Metal to half the bands that are thrown in there don't even play the style of music. A few example are Drowning Pool, Chevelle, and System of a Down. The don't fall under in of the makes Nu-Metal what it is. So how can they be Nu-Metal?

But any ways that's getting of topic so I will stop there. If you want to hear more just PM me or something.

Metallica was able to do that all on there own.

 

I don't think anyone's into subsubsubgenre classification as much as metalheads. It must have been tough being a metalhead before someone got it together and organized a database. The techno people are actually a little more hardcore, but I'm convinced their system is an elaborate hoax because no one would really use names like glitch or IDM for music. One of the great things about the '90s alternative scene was that you only had to nod knowingly and say "Great band, great band" or "Great record, great record" whenever someone said the word "seminal" and you were in.

 

I don't really like going that far into subsubsubgenres. To me there is Heavy Metal then below that is Death Metal, Black Metal, Doom Metal, Thrash Metal, Power Metal, Progressive Metal, Gothic Metal, and Symphonic Metal. The only subsubgenre I will go with is Melodic Death Metal But really I think the whole thing should be renamed from where it started Gothenburg Metal. Other then those genres that are below Heavy Metal the rest just are not there.

 

That's already far too many names for subgenres of metal. Ridiculous.