inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: Do you consider 2000s post-grunge a separate type of music from 90s post-grunge?

Written By: #Infinity on 09/09/15 at 1:01 am

Post-grunge enjoyed an extraordinarily long time in the mainstream, beginning in early 1994 with Candlebox's You and Collective Soul's Shine, then ending 16 years later with the last crop of radio hits by Daughtry and Three Days Grace. However, when discussing the genre, most people seem to distinguish 2000s groups like Hinder and Daughtry from older bands like Bush and Live. In both decades, post-grunge bands were bashed for supposedly cashing off of regular grunge, which detested corporate manipulation. However, the backlash seems to have been far more acute against the Creeds and Nickelbacks of the day, whereas a good amount of 90s post-grunge albums are actually considered classics by many, like Bush's Sixteen Stone, Live's Throwing Copper, and the Foo Fighters' first two LP's.

My main question for this thread is do you consider 90s post-grunge the same type of music as 2000s post-grunge, or do you see it as being closer to early 90s Seattle grunge?

My personal thoughts:  the similarities and differences across time vary by band, but in general I see 1994-2010 as one coherent era for the post-grunge movement, albeit divided into three sub-phases. Even though songs from the end of the period were generally much poppier than their distorted-guitar, rebellious ancestors from the beginning of the era, there's also a fair amount of overlap between the two ends, as well. For example, the very first post-grunge megahit, Shine, is just as blithely radio-friendly as anything Nickelback or Creed recorded in the 2000s (it's actually a great song on its own, but it certainly marked a commercial shift for alternative rock when it came out). On the other side, the Foo Fighters and Incubus continued to earn positive reviews for their respective original styles, yet simultaneously remained commercially relevant throughout the whole decade as well. It's common, anyway, for musical movements to peak during their early-middle years before turning more desperate and shallow later on, even though post-grunge was such a long trend that its mainstream lifespan more than tripled the original genre it was based off of.

Post-grunge did have a commercial transitional period from the spring of 1997 to the fall of 1999 (after Bush's Swallowed but before Creed's Higher), which sort of bridged the core 90s incarnation with the 2000s phase, and whose biggest hits were Tonic's If You Could Only See, Foo Fighters' Everlong, and Semisonic's Closing Time. The late 90s era of post-grunge lacked the sludgy guitars and socially conscious lyrics that often defined mid-90s post-grunge, but for the most part still sounded classic and wasn't completely pandering to the Hot 100. Though the period also introduced Creed, the band's first album was much darker and more structurally complex than what they released during the end of the millennial period. Even with all this in mind, however,, I would definitely not go as far as to say 2000s post-grunge was a completely different movement altogether.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2000s post-grunge a separate type of music from 90s post-grunge?

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 09/09/15 at 1:51 pm

I like this topic, as I've always been fascinated by Post-Grunge as a genre, and how it managed to really defy so many of the established music industry "norms" we've come to accept over the years. Using history as a guide, the lifespan of a music genre as a major cultural force is usually no more than five or six years max, and typically, it's even shorter than that (see the ill-fated "swing revival" of the 1990's). Despite that, Post-Grunge was somehow able to stay not just relevant, but the dominant style of rock music in terms of sales, for about fifteen years! That's pretty incredible when you think about it.

It's even more incredible when you consider that, during those fifteen years, Post-Grunge faced a serious challenge from not one, but two different newer, more edgy genres of rock, and somehow managed to outlast both. In the late '90s, with the whole grungy/Nirvana/Pearl Jamesque sound going on seven years in the mainstream, most people believed that Nu Metal was going to easily overtake it; however, Post-Grunge didn't just outlast Nu Metal, it arguably came out even stronger with the massive popularity of groups like Staind, Puddle of Mudd and Nickleback in the early '00s. The same thing happened in the mid '00s when many music pundits predicted that Post-Grunge would be killed off by The Strokes, The White Stripes and all of those other Garage Rock acts. But again, by 2007 when many of those groups were staring to fade, Post-Grunge was still doing quite well on the backs of Hinder and Daughtry.

As far as the question, I do think that each era of Post-Grunge does have something of it's own unique sound. The early groups like Bush and Candlebox were more "true" to the sound of the original Grunge bands, whereas many of the late '90s artists (think Vertical Horizon, Semisonic, Eagle Eye Cherry, etc.) borrowed a lot from the poppier, more "arena-friendly" sound of the Foo Fighters. A lot of the early-to-mid '00s Post-Grunge bands like Nickleback, Shinedown, Crossfade, Trapt, Chevelle, and Staind also have a similar sound to me, although I can't quite describe what it is.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2000s post-grunge a separate type of music from 90s post-grunge?

Written By: ArcticFox on 09/11/15 at 2:07 am

I think of the mid '90s post-grunge 1994-1996 as "first wave post-grunge". I don't consider Candlebox post-grunge. They sound pretty much exactly like early Pearl Jam and mellow Nirvana. I also think "Zombie" by the Cranberries is real grunge as well. Ditto with Stone Temple Pilots's 1994 hits "Vasoline" and "Interstate Love Song".


I like this topic, as I've always been fascinated by Post-Grunge as a genre, and how it managed to really defy so many of the established music industry "norms" we've come to accept over the years. Using history as a guide, the lifespan of a music genre as a major cultural force is usually no more than five or six years max, and typically, it's even shorter than that (see the ill-fated "swing revival" of the 1990's). Despite that, Post-Grunge was somehow able to stay not just relevant, but the dominant style of rock music in terms of sales, for about fifteen years! That's pretty incredible when you think about it.

It's even more incredible when you consider that, during those fifteen years, Post-Grunge faced a serious challenge from not one, but two different newer, more edgy genres of rock, and somehow managed to outlast both. In the late '90s, with the whole grungy/Nirvana/Pearl Jamesque sound going on seven years in the mainstream, most people believed that Nu Metal was going to easily overtake it; however, Post-Grunge didn't just outlast Nu Metal, it arguably came out even stronger with the massive popularity of groups like Staind, Puddle of Mudd and Nickleback in the early '00s. The same thing happened in the mid '00s when many music pundits predicted that Post-Grunge would be killed off by The Strokes, The White Stripes and all of those other Garage Rock acts. But again, by 2007 when many of those groups were staring to fade, Post-Grunge was still doing quite well on the backs of Hinder and Daughtry.

As far as the question, I do think that each era of Post-Grunge does have something of it's own unique sound. The early groups like Bush and Candlebox were more "true" to the sound of the original Grunge bands, whereas many of the late '90s artists (think Vertical Horizon, Semisonic, Eagle Eye Cherry, etc.) borrowed a lot from the poppier, more "arena-friendly" sound of the Foo Fighters. A lot of the early-to-mid '00s Post-Grunge bands like Nickleback, Shinedown, Crossfade, Trapt, Chevelle, and Staind also have a similar sound to me, although I can't quite describe what it is.


I don't agree. I think the late '90s didn't have any post grunge. I see a lot of power pop, pop rock, roots/country/blues rock, acoustic rock, jangle pop, electronic rock, dance rock, ska, and pop punk. I actually think people moved away from grunge for a few years before coming back more polish than before in 2000.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2000s post-grunge a separate type of music from 90s post-grunge?

Written By: #Infinity on 09/11/15 at 4:32 am

I don't agree. I think the late '90s didn't have any post grunge. I see a lot of power pop, pop rock, roots/country/blues rock, acoustic rock, jangle pop, electronic rock, dance rock, ska, and pop punk. I actually think people moved away from grunge for a few years before coming back more polish than before in 2000.

But what about these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBG7P-K-r1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfg6-4mBs6Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg-HZd4Lb2Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkcbxjWG9Mc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnfoZ8gnIhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp2P6JKc1QE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqWRaAF6_WY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBqjGd3fHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZwSqX6J5hs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W05cPXpUHGI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGytDsqkQY8

I know you said the late 90s didn't really have "big" post-grunge hits, but in retrospect, it really doesn't seem like the genre declined in popularity at all during this time.  Not only did a fair amount of these tracks dominate the radio airplay charts and even the Hot 100, the Foo Figthers' Colour and the Shape is generally considered the group's best album, and was certainly the most commercially successful.  I think the reason so many people overlook late 90s post-grunge is because of how it was sandwiched between the 1994-1996 period, when post-grunge first made a significant splash in the mainstream, and the 2000-2010 period, whose biggest acts did better on the charts and lived in greater infamy than the 90s stuff in general.

1997 and 1998 were pretty strange times for rock, actually, because britpop and regular grunge were both gone during that time, but nu-metal and second wave pop punk had not arrived yet.  It was really defined by hodgepodge of all sorts of pop rock, without one clearing dominating the rest.  Regarding pop punk, just as 1997-1999 was for post-grunge, I see Ixnay on the Hombre, Nimrod, Dude Ranch, and Americana as transitional albums for the pop punk movement, between the Dookie/Stranger Than Fiction/Tragic Kingdom era of the mid-90s and the full-on commercial 2000s style that began with Enema of the State and truly took off in mid-2001.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2000s post-grunge a separate type of music from 90s post-grunge?

Written By: ArcticFox on 09/16/15 at 12:42 pm

"If You Could Only See", "I Will Buy You a New Life", and "Closing Time" all sound straight out of the mid '90s. They have much more in common with "Tomorrow", "Zombie", and "Vasoline" than they do with "Hanging By a Moment", "It's Been Awhile", and "Like a Stone" (which I just consider regular pop songs). The late '90s songs definitely rock harder and still sound angry in comparison to the whinier, more relationship-driven early aughts songs.

Check for new replies or respond here...