Discussion Main / Post-Grunge

I did mention that good post-grunge does exist in the OP. If I could expand on that, to me personally it's guilty pleasure rock. I like listening to the radio when I tire of my headphones, so I'm pretty used to it (also, a friend who likes to crank the speakers is big into the genre). It has that quality of being a kind of pop that, whether it validates itself or not, ultimately sounds legitimately good if you can turn your mind off. In 20 years, I'm sure people will look back on it fondly, like they have with Glam and Disco.

To be honest, that's about the only positive thing I can say about the genre. If you have any objective observations that can present it in some positive light, feel free to add it (just keep it in the style of the rest of the OP).

PS: I think Alter Bridge is incredible, partially thanks to their post-grunge qualities, not in spite of them. I also think Art Of Dying is greatest incarnation of post-grunge to ever emerge, while not having to rely on other genres to accomplish this (Stone Sour, Flyleaf and Three Days Grace come to mind on that front). Yes, I believe the genre is capable of true musical quality.

I guess just as a guy who thinks there's like five genres of music (rock, pop, metal, rap, and country), I can't physically hear the difference between bands listed on here and bands listed on the grunge page. I just don't think the assumption that the music is written to be commercial is inherently a bad thing. I mean, if they just made music without caring if it sounds good then we get stuff people don't want to listen to. I wouldn't feel right making a major change to the article though since I'm really biased. I mean, of the bands listed I have almost all of them in my collection, and 3 Doors Down, Nickelback, and Foo Fighters are some of my absolute favorite bands.

How about you highlight a piece on the page that sticks out to you. I'll see if I can write it differently, in a more neutral light.

i'm personally a big fan of Post Grunge (most Breaking Benkamin Style) I also like Thrash and Death and other sorts of extreme metal, so i can tell you that not all 'metal heads' just blow off the genre because its mainstream.

I don't want to write a dissertation on it, so I'll be frank: People think Post-Grunge suck because it took up from grunge and watered it down.

Most grungers can't stand it because of this. Heavy metalers are split, but many say it helped to lead to Nü Metal. Those who support it tend to prefer Alternative Metal, Deathcore, and Metalcore I've learned. Fans of old school hard rock say that it doesn't have anywhere near the power of heavy rock from previous generations, and that it perpetuated a need to bring rock stars "down to Earth." Seems amiable, until you realize that rap stars and pop stars suddenly became unapologetic rock stars, whereas rock musicians were almost chastised for trying to do the same. This is thanks to Glam Metal for one, as things back then got a little too ridiculous. Punk fans weren't fans of post grunge because it was corporate.

That's why it's not popular. It has connotations of being corporate. That label heads wanted to make family friendly versions of Nirvana, Alice in Chains, and Pearl Jam that otakus would forever more plaster onto AM Vs. Soundgarden's exempt because c'mon: strip them down and you have stoner rock and doom metal. The very antithesis of modern rock.

Some of her Jagged Little Pill work reminds me of Live's Throwing Copper, so you can go ahead but make sure to take out that bit near the bottom about Flyleaf being the only female-fronted example.

Don't forget, if you're a rock band with any semblance of alternative mannerism and you came out between the following years: 1994—1999: you're automatically labeled post-grunge. I've personally never thought of Morissette as 'grunge' in any way, but I don't see why others wouldn't. And thus post-grunge may be applicable.

It seems like most of what people try to label the 90s post grunge bands as (particularly Bush, Silverchair, and Candlebox) is usually a bunch of crap. They try to seperate the genres based on pretty much nothing. Usually excuses they put down are "4/4 time signature, polished sound, focus on lyrics, and a non-depressing tone". Ok, most nirvana songs are in 4/4, nevermind was an extremely polished album as well. Nirvana is also pretty much the only band that didn't put effort into their lyrics (as Cobain down right didn't give a damn....even though people somehow call him a lyrical genius) and most bands weren't even depressing with their sound. The fact is critics created the terms as a way to kill off the genre mostly. I think its CLOSER to a valid term when we reached bands like creed since they generally took influences from gunge and added them to other sounds. However it seems like nearly every mainstream rock band these days gets labeled as it without any proper reasoning (are you really gonna tell me Poets of the Fall have the slightest bit of grunge influence?) Sorry I went off on a rant here but I've grown annoyed with people putting down good bands simply because of some stupid label critics put on them.

Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, The Melvins, TAD, and several others veered way off from 4/4 multiple times in their discography. The Melvins are so famous for their bizarre methods of playing that they're not even identifiable as a genre. Actually, that goes for most Grunge artists, as "Grunge" is meant to be a label for the scene, not necessarily something meant to identify a sound. Post-Grunge was used to describe such a wide swath of bands that I'm surprised this didn't just label every single rock band since 1994. That's what most magazines do anyway.

Not that I like most of it, it's still what I grew up with.