What if...?

[Elrothiel]

Ohkie... everyone's always goin' on about Nirvana and how they "saved" rock n' roll.

Well... how bout this for a what if question!!!

WHAT IF NIRVANA NEVER EXISTED!!!?

What would the rock world be like?

Post your thoughts here, and don't say somethin' silly like "Well if Nirvana didn't come along, then some OTHER band woulda done exactly the same thing"

OK.. lets change it slightly then... What if the entire "grunge" movement never happened?

 

[TheRaven]

I don't think it would've made much difference. I think rock was the catalyst for metal, nu-metal and rap. I don't think you'll see any long-term effects on the music scene by grunge. It was more of a splitting off or a diversion than a whole new movement.

Raven

[anythinggoes]

well there would be no foo fighters i dont know what effect in america but in England we would of probably be plodding along as we did idont remember any english band being inspired by Nirvana except Bush so maybe they would of been bigger

[pilferk]

We'd have a huge hole in the ozone layer and we'd all be baking in the sun because of it.

There's just no way that we could've supported all the hairspray that would have still been in use if grunge hadn't come along.

But seriously, it's tough to say.

I'm not the biggest fan of grunge, or Nirvana for that matter (though I give the devil it's due because Nevermind is fucking brilliant....especially, I think, for those of us who were in HS at the time). ?While I have a slight fondness for flannel, I agree with Axl (on the GTA:SA) that we're not lumberjacks.

You have to realize that Grunge wasn't just a reflection of rock music. ?It was a reflection of our society (and yes, I know that sounds corny). ?It was the antithesis to not only hair metal, but to the sort of excess that the late 80's saw flowing through the entire country. ?It was rock rebelling against itself, on some levels, but even more rebelling against "the norm" and the sort of cookie cutter corporate image that the country (and much of rock music) had sort of fostered in the 80's.

But, of course, that's not your question:

I think Rock would have spiralled, even more quickly, into obscurity without Grunge. ?Grunge, at least, kept it afloat, and relevant, for a bit longer. ?You would have had overblown hair metal acts and underblown "wanna be" corporate rock acts rulilng the roost (you know, sorta what we have today, except it's overblown grunge acts, or nu-metal acts, or you get the picture....). ?

Rock would have "died", essentially (just like it has countless other times in the cyclical music business), and awaited a good shot in the arm from someone who could make it relevant again.

[Jamie]

If Grunge and especially Nirvana never happened guitar solos would still exist and people would still sing in high voices, two essential ingredients in rock n roll. Grunge did more to kill RnR than it did to save it.

[Sakib]

I think that glam rock would still be popular

[Mandy.]

Less people would hate Guns N'Roses.

[Elrothiel]

Rock would have "died", essentially (just like it has countless other times in the cyclical music business), and awaited a good shot in the arm from someone who could make it relevant again.

Ahhh.... but what would have made it relevant again? What kind of rock would have made rock n' roll relevant AGAIN?

Do you think that perhaps there would have been a slight break, and people would skip out all the random shit that came after 94... and there would have been an influx of complete and utter awesome rock n' roll and everyone would be happy again?

Did Nirvana... in "saving" RnR... actually in fact kill what could have been the best years of rock n' roll ever?


Jeez we're really diggin' in deep aren't we!

[Walk]

I think rock was the catalyst for metal, nu-metal and rap.

You think wrong. Heavy metal is about a Romantic, Indo-European cultural revival, and epic ideals. Rock and roll had nothing to do with it.

[Jamie]

I think rock was the catalyst for metal, nu-metal and rap.

You think wrong. Heavy metal is about a Romantic, Indo-European cultural revival, and epic ideals. Rock and roll had nothing to do with it.

Ya think? Well seein as the first metal band (Black Sabbath) were inspired by the Beatles and many after that by Led Zeppelin and Sabbath themselves, and the fact that pretty much the exact same instruments are used, I disagree.

[pilferk]

Rock would have "died", essentially (just like it has countless other times in the cyclical music business), and awaited a good shot in the arm from someone who could make it relevant again.

Ahhh.... but what would have made it relevant again? What kind of rock would have made rock n' roll relevant AGAIN?

Do you think that perhaps there would have been a slight break, and people would skip out all the random shit that came after 94... and there would have been an influx of complete and utter awesome rock n' roll and everyone would be happy again?

Did Nirvana... in "saving" RnR... actually in fact kill what could have been the best years of rock n' roll ever?


Jeez we're really diggin' in deep aren't we!

That's a good question, but now you're asking for a view into an alternate time line and I'm just not existential enough to give you one.? I don't know what would have "revived" rock or if the dormancy would have just started earlier and lasted as long as it has.

I tend to THINK that, had Grunge (which means no Nirvana, No Pearl Jam,..and lots of others) not come around, we would've just started the dormancy earlier.? You could see some signs of that happening, anyway, just before Nevermind went mainstream.? But I can't say that, had the dormancy started earlier that someone else playing some other type of music might not have come along sooner to "revive" the genre...and led to a reniessance, of sorts.

But I can say that, since Nevermind, the pickings have been slim.? Some bands that I thought might bring rock BACK to prominence (Audioslave, The White Stripes, The Vinyls, etc) haven't really done what I thought they'd do.? Their material HAS been strong...but not strong enough to rest control away from the awful pop music that's invaded.? Not that that surprises me.? I mean...look at the late 70's and early 80's.? There was about a 10 year block of time when pop ruled, and slowly rock took back the ground it had lost, to about 1985-ish.? Then, in the early to mid 90's,? pop came back into prominence and has ruled since.? Again, it's a cyclical pattern that you can follow back dor decades....

Which, of course, means we're due for some rock and roll resurgance sometime soon.? And you can start to see it on the fringes, again....creeping it's way back in.? Hopefully, maybe, someday soon we'll get to see something (*cough* Chinese Democracy *cough*) come along and rip rocks balls back to the forefront of music....

[gilld1]

Perhaps a better question would be: ?What if the hair scene didn't become a parody of itself and the bands put some thought into their songs? ?Hair metal was dying already, Metallica was helping kids rediscover black jeans a t-shirts and not zebra prints!

Why is grunge so despised on this board? ?Is it because they didn't dress like fags and prance around? ?It was scene about the music and not image.

Grunge was and still is rock.

[Jamie]

Why is grunge so despised on this board? ?Is it because they didn't dress like fags and prance around? ?It was scene about the music and not image.

Grunge was and still is rock.

But it is about the music as far as I'm concerned and Grunge music sucked, it was just 3-4 minutes of some guy moaning about how much he hates himself and how despite his millions and millions he's still a miserable old fuck. When I think rock I think of bands like GnR and the likes tearing society a new arse and just basically taking it apart not some guy moaning the whole time. And leaving guitar solos out of his music!

[gilld1]

Nirvana does not equal all other bands from Seattle.  Mother Love Bone, Soundgarden, AIC, and Pearl Jam do so much more than "moan".  That we be like saying all Hair bands were just like Winger.

Yeah, November Rain sure was tearing society a new one wasn't it?

[Elrothiel]

Gilld1... if all you're gunna do is just big up grunge instead of answering the question, then I suggest you just turn around, and walk outta here before someone drags you out.

Don't let the metaphorical door hit yer ass on the way out!


(Just for the record, I don't hate grunge... just not a huge fan)

[Walk]

Ya think? Well seein as the first metal band (Black Sabbath) were inspired by the Beatles and many after that by Led Zeppelin and Sabbath themselves, and the fact that pretty much the exact same instruments are used, I disagree.

The instruments don't matter; the notes do. Sabbath liked the Beatles because EVERYONE liked the Beatles back then, and they did do a lot of drugs (), but the musical structures are very unlike rock and roll. Granted, some early songs are rock, like Paranoid, but songs like Into The Void, Black Sabbath, or Electric Funeral are metal. The first wheel was kind of square-ish, you know.

Led Zeppelin is an odd one. They're a blues-rock band at heart, but they have metallish moments, like Immigrant Song, Achilles Last Stand, and the whole "epic" and "folk" feelings that songs like The Battle of Evermore, Black Mountain Side, and so on. Most bands that cite them as an influence probably admire the experimental element of their music, since there isn't a single style that one can put on Led Zeppelin, except "rock", but that's meaningless.

A lot of metal bands respect KISS ( ), so I wouldn't put too much weight on influences. When someone's work is 90%+ original, it doesn't matter where the influence is from.

[Markus Asraelius]

Then, Eddie Vedder would be blamed for the start of the Grunge era.

[gilld1]

Who da fuck are you, skynny girl?  I'm just giving food for thought and it looks like you're starving!

[axl_rose_700]

Nothing for me, I'd still have Stone Roses, Oasis, Gnr, Verve, The Who, Zeppelin so I'd be happy as larry

[Jonathan]

We probably wouldn't have Foo Fighters..

And we wouldn't have In Utero.....