I think that for lots of the "grunge" bands provoking the establishment was part of what they were doing. I mean Kurt and Krist kissed on Saturday night live. I think that maybe it was just more provocative on a personal level as opposed to a political one, but still provocative. I mean Pearl Jam took on ticket master, their video for Jeremy, etc.

I mentioned prog. Just sort of in passing, though.

Forgot about this:



I think grunge was a originally a pretty definite sound, with Mudhoney, Green River and a few other bands actually fitting under a similar stylistic umbrella with the Melvins as sort an antecedent. (Soundgarden may even have legitimately fit into this at first, but I've never listened to their early stuff so I don't know, and I think Nirvana's Bleach is closely in this same vein.) Then MTV got a hold of it, and it applied to every new major label rock band from Seattle. By 1991 or so those big four bands - Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains - all sounded pretty different from each other, but, aside from Pearl Jam, I think they started out with a lot of shared aesthetics. PJ is the only one that really never belonged there, IMO.

you're right, I didn't consider TV in the 90s to be establishment but in fact it is. like another word for mainstream.though I mean, all these "grunge" bands looked pretty much like punks but they played way more elaborated. soundgarden is an interesting story. they could have been labeled prog as well, at least at the end, but they were from seattle so they HAD to be something like "grunge".

Grunge has nothing to do with punk beyond minor influence

That is a ridiculous thing to say. Many of the "grunge" bands considered themselves punk rockers.


I would say lots of the grunge bands are more "punk" than what passes for it currently.

grunge was more punk than it was grunge.

Is anyone bothered by the use of punk to describe artistic intent even though the final product may or may not sound like it belongs in the genre?

I'm typically not bothered, especially if i agree. But if i don't agree, i'm flabbergasted.

I think it's the only way to describe it. Unless you fall back on the old Justice Stewart on porn, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

"Mr. Narrator, this is Bob Dylan to me." - D. Boon, Minutemen

That pretty much sums up my definition. The essence of Punk is DIY. A few people with an idea get together and try to express it, regardless of how skilled they are with their instruments. I've always thought of it as modern folk music. But by folk music, I'm referring to it as a way of approaching music, rather than a style defined by artists such as Dylan, Baez and the Guthries.

For me, folk music is about bringing music back to the masses and democratizing it again. Its about going to a place like Chicago's Old Town School, banging around with a bunch of people of varying skill levels and actually participating in the music rather than listening to those of elite skill. You couldn't play progressive rock with your friends in the garage, but you could get your friends together, learn root notes, three chords and a simple drum rudiment and have a ball. Maybe you'd get better, maybe you wouldn't, maybe you'd have a decent lyricist, or maybe every one of your songs would use dead and head at least once in a couplet. It didn't matter.

It was about who you were, and having a direct connection to the music. If you could piss a few people off along the way, so much the better.

If you are talking about it as a description of a particular sound, then I'm pretty sure a music major could define the characteristics of a typical mass-market Green Day/Strokes/Dwarves punk song structure and arrangement in academic terms, just as you could with the Beatles. But the Ruttles weren't the Beatles, and just 'cuz it sounds punk, doesn't mean that it is punk.