This has been my analysis over the years - certainly since the decade of the 1990s ended. Grunge was almost a back-handed description of stripped down rock. Basically, crunchy music from the Pacific NW played by guys who weren't teasing their hair (or not much) and wearing flannel got labeled "grunge."

AIC is essentially a traditional heavy metal outfit - more in common - musically - with GnR or Queensryche, than with Nirvana. They do wear flannel. To a certain degree, this is also true of Soundgarden. At the end of the day, only Nirvana and folks actively trying to emulate what they were doing can fairly be called "grunge" - Pearl Jam was "more" similar to Nirvana than, say AIC or Soundgarden, but that may be reverse engineering on my part.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by ThePTExperience1969

Baton Rouge, LA

Member since Apr 2016

13360 posts

Posted on 10/10/16 at 8:04 pm to Ace Midnight

I'm inclined to agree with that assessment on crunchy music as applied to Pearl Jam, their general sound is very comparable to Zeppelin/Sabbath's using 90s' recording technology.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Cdawg

TigerFred's Living Room

Member since Sep 2003

59655 posts

Posted on 10/10/16 at 8:40 pm to Ace Midnight

quote:
Basically, crunchy music from the Pacific NW played by guys who weren't teasing their hair (or not much) and wearing flannel got labeled "grunge."

And lyrically they weren't singing/living about LA's 80's excess or cheesey ballads.

quote:
Pearl Jam was "more" similar to Nirvana than, say AIC or Soundgarden, but that may be reverse engineering on my part.

In a sense maybe. These two bands were gaining popularity by the time Nirvana and PJ hit though. Even though musically there was rock, metal, punk, they still seem to have a certain feel to them that binded them.

1 ...

Report Post

Music Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board