Favorite song on Kill ‘Em All?

Nirvana and grunge/alt rock in-general more-or-less served as a "reset button" for the times. 

For context:

(a) The record labels/music industry had sucked the life from glam/pop metal and needed a new "trend" for their cash cow.

(b) Grunge/alt rock was about tearing away a lot of the excessive "flash" and party atmosphere that went along with the whole glam/pop metal scene and replaced it with a more serious, depressive tone. Somewhat resurrecting the sounds of the late 60/early 70s heavy rock movement. 

(c) Punk did the same to classic/hard rock/glam rock in the mid to late 70s. Stripped everything back to the essence, nature and attitude of early rock & roll. 

Trad/thrash/power/etc. metal were pushed underground (at least in North America), but didn't die off like the glam stuff did.

In other words the only thing grunge ever "killed" was glam/pop/sleaze kind of stuff. 

Just my take.

1.  Hoglan said death metal killed thrash, not grunge.  I tend to agree.  Maybe Pantera too.
2. A lot folks were fans of the Beatles and tried to emulate them.  That doesn't make them "this generation's Beatles".  If you said it was Jellyfish, I'd agree.
3. Grunge also rejected the post-Van Halen notion of the guitar hero, and in the end there were no guitar heroes (except Jerry Cantrell, who I personally consider more metal than grunge).
4. The great hard rock/glam bands of the 80s were mostly on their last legs by the time grunge overtook them.  The new bands coming up were hot garbage:  slaughter, trixter, firehouse, etc.  Bands like Whitesnake, Dio, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, etc. were FAR worse than they had been years before.

Exactly right! Grunge did not kill actual metal. Metal thrived and morphed in the 90's and flourished into new things. People were moving away from slayer and thrash and diving into the new genre called death metal and this other thing called black metal.

ha we were writing the same thing at the same time lolz

Dustofyears wrote:Exactly right! Grunge did not kill actual metal. Metal thrived and morphed in the 90's and flourished into new things. People were moving away from slayer and thrash and diving into the new genre called death metal and this other thing called black metal.

Plus there were just more bands in general.

But black metal was FAR inferior to thrash, and I would argue it wasn't metal at all.  Closer to punk in ethos in how it was all about "the message" and the band's image than the actual riffs.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Dustofyears wrote:Exactly right! Grunge did not kill actual metal. Metal thrived and morphed in the 90's and flourished into new things. People were moving away from slayer and thrash and diving into the new genre called death metal and this other thing called black metal.

Plus there were just more bands in general.

But black metal was FAR inferior to thrash, and I would argue it wasn't metal at all.  Closer to punk in ethos in how it was all about "the message" and the band's image than the actual riffs.

Right!

Black metal (at least the early "raw" stuff) always shared that DIY thing with punk.

Temple of blood— Nirvana WERE the Beatles of their generation and they are coined as such officially, and for good reason. It's not my words. But I agree with them. Soon as Teen spirit hit the scene HELLO NEXT BEATLES. Huge impact. There has been no band since the beatles that had such significance and impact and hasn't been since Nirvana left the bulding. Thus: Beatles of their generation.
The music scene forever changed in the small amount of time their whirl wind blew everything down, just like the beatles in their small amount of time.

But they're nowhere near as talented as the Beatles, for one.

And how exactly can a band be "officially" the Beatles of their generation?

Nirvana = 50 million sold
Beatles = 600 million albums sold

Temple of Blood wrote:But they're nowhere near as talented as the Beatles, for one.

And how exactly can a band be "officially" the Beatles of their generation?

Nirvana = 50 million sold
Beatles = 600 million albums sold

Again, of THEIR generation! I am not saying they are as big as the Beatles no one is. Nirvana have been coined and quoted as  "THe Beatles of their generation numerous times. Name me a band that has had that much impact since the beatles...you can't and still can't...therefore the reason they get called "The beatles of THEIR generation.

StevenCressler wrote:

Superjuice wrote:This gives me an excuse for a rant:

I don't hate Nirvana, but 'Heart Shaped Box' is the most unappealing song I've ever heard on MTV or radio.  And that's saying something.  And Heart Shaped Box makes me wanna take up 'cutting' with glass shards as a hobby.

I like that song...

 Now, put the needle down son...

Grunge didn’t kill metal, but it ushered in the age of angsty, whiny, boring rock dominating the mainstream, which it still does to this day

And yeah I guess you could compare Nirvana to the Beatles in that they were huge trendsetters, for better or for worse (worse in this case)

I’m known as the Mozart of my generation.

Seth there is no mainstream rock toady... unless you count Foo Fighters...I don't understand that... mainstream should make you wish Grunge was back if anything...ed sheeran, billy eilish, taylor swift..this your mainstream now... Rock is dead in the charts of mainstream and anything they do call rock is anything but! The mainstream in the 90's was a colorful one. Now it's empty as a dying man;s flask in a desert.

Dustofyears wrote:Seth there is no mainstream rock toady... unless you count Foo Fighters...I don't understand that... mainstream should make you wish Grunge was back if anything...ed sheeran, billy eilish, taylor swift..this your mainstream now... Rock is dead in the charts of mainstream and anything they do call rock is anything but!

Yeah the “true” mainstream music isn’t rock at all, but I’m talking about the mainstream in rock specially. Like what you hear on modern rock radio stations. Mostly whiny emo crap like linkin park, etc

seth wrote:

Dustofyears wrote:Seth there is no mainstream rock toady... unless you count Foo Fighters...I don't understand that... mainstream should make you wish Grunge was back if anything...ed sheeran, billy eilish, taylor swift..this your mainstream now... Rock is dead in the charts of mainstream and anything they do call rock is anything but!

Yeah the “true” mainstream music isn’t rock at all, but I’m talking about the mainstream in rock specially. Like what you hear on modern rock radio stations. Mostly whiny emo crap like linkin park, etc

okay I'll take your word for it. The radio still plays 90's rock on certain channels but there is no rock as far as in the recent modern day charts is what I'm saying. Anyway my goodness I could've written a book.

C ya later

Dustofyears wrote:Kurt's Lyrics are amazing. Guys mind is on another planet.

here's an example

Meat-eating orchids forgive no one just yet
Cut myself on angel hair and baby's breath
Broken hymen of Your Highness, I'm left black
Throw down your umbilical noose so I can climb right back


That's some Alice in wonderland  nightmare trip right there.
Incredibly creative! his lyrics are all like that. That genius writing. But some people just like stuff spelled out for them I guess. Fair nuff each their own.

Some people don’t like his abstract style. His lyrics were like weird poems. He was the musical equivalent to Salvador Dali or Pablo Picasso. They all were abstract and weird! Some call them geniuses. It’s in the eye of the beholder.

Why can’t we have both bands that have plain straightforward lyrics, and also abstract lyrics that make you think?

MagnusPrime wrote:Nirvana and grunge/alt rock in-general more-or-less served as a "reset button" for the times. 

For context:

(a) The record labels/music industry had sucked the life from glam/pop metal and needed a new "trend" for their cash cow.

(b) Grunge/alt rock was about tearing away a lot of the excessive "flash" and party atmosphere that went along with the whole glam/pop metal scene and replaced it with a more serious, depressive tone. Somewhat resurrecting the sounds of the late 60/early 70s heavy rock movement. 

(c) Punk did the same to classic/hard rock/glam rock in the mid to late 70s. Stripped everything back to the essence, nature and attitude of early rock & roll. 

Trad/thrash/power/etc. metal were pushed underground (at least in North America), but didn't die off like the glam stuff did.

In other words the only thing grunge ever "killed" was glam/pop/sleaze kind of stuff. 

Just my take.

You nailed it! 

Very well said and observant.

seth wrote:Nirvana is, in my opinion, THE most overrated band ever to exist. And they spawned the worst rock genre that continues to spread its whiny, angsty influence on mainstream rock today

I think the Foo Fighters are way more overrated. Every time Dave Grohl releases a new song, the radio stations play the heck out of it! No matter what. 

I think Cobain had a much better voice than Grohl and better music. Many of the well known Nirvana hits are so catchy they get stuck in my head all day. Some say the key to great songwriting is the ability to write a memorable song. Simple can be good. Less can be more. 

Not everyone is wired to enjoy the complexity of YES or Mahavishnu Orchestra.

Temple of Blood wrote:And how exactly can a band be "officially" the Beatles of their generation?

Nirvana = 50 million sold
Beatles = 600 million albums sold

Generally speaking… in terms of being leaders of a new musical revolution. 

We’re not talking about numbers and total albums sold. But if we were, the Beatles were around 25+ years before Nirvana. That padded the numbers a bit. And they had more albums than Nirvana.

Besides the Foo Fighters, I also can’t stand Green Day. 

They are the two most overrated bands on rock radio.

People go insane for the Foo Fighters. I don’t know their music very well, but what I’ve heard is fine, but not enough to justify the obsession. (I feel the same way about Taylor Swift).

Foo fighters aren’t quite as bad as nirvana, but definitely extremely overrated. Green day as well. “Do you have the time to listen to me whine?” no I do not. As for Taylor Swift, yeah I don’t get the obsession, sounds like generic vapid pop to me, and I don’t think any of us are in her audience demographic (young white women)

seth wrote:Foo fighters aren’t quite as bad as nirvana, but definitely extremely overrated. Green day as well. “Do you have the time to listen to me whine?” no I do not. As for Taylor Swift, yeah I don’t get the obsession, sounds like generic vapid pop to me, and I don’t think any of us are in her audience demographic (young white women)

From what I've heard of TS she does sound like above average pop, but yeah, pop isn't my style.

Pethead wrote:People go insane for the Foo Fighters. I don’t know their music very well, but what I’ve heard is fine, but not enough to justify the obsession. (I feel the same way about Taylor Swift).

I like a few songs from the first two albums. But they lost me when Grohl tried to be the darling of rock radio. He seems to write just to be radio friendly. Very pretentious. 

Although nowhere near as good as the original, he did attempt a cover of Baker Street by Gerry Rafferty. I give him some credit for doing that.