This thread is not a challenge of or an attack on your personal tastes. But I'd like you to describe your position on my following thoughts. Simply answer my questions. :)
I'd like to know why that particular movement of anxious rebellion stood out as the prime nineties rock movement. For that's what I've understood of people's consideration of nineties rock, they think of grunge and the faux-Beatlesness of britpop. That's kind of the two bigs that got a legacy in rock music consumption today, and that's fine. But I don't get it. Neither feel particularly groundbreaking or rebellious; I wouldn't consider that particularly relevant to the value of a piece of music in itself, of course, but the problem comes to me when people romantize it as such. I don't understand people's criteria and wish to know whether I've gained the wrong impression of people's general tastes or not. Why do they find grunge groundbreaking, well, do they even do that?
My befuddlement concretely arises when people discuss grunge as a genre. It's pretty much secluded to the nineties; if someone plays 'grunge' today, they are just playing rock. Grunge varies so little from the alternative rock in general - both prior and post nineties - that it's a kinda pointless term to use about a musical style. Or am I wrong? I'd prefer if I were. I like when people in general turn out to be smarter than me. It's always a good thing when people are smart.
I personally consider the two fundamentally groundbreaking rock movements of the nineties to be post-rock and shoegaze, and when I casually mention those two to people they go like :huh:
I personally like both britpop, "grunge", post-rock and shoegaze as well as plenty of other musical movements of the nineties. I have no aesthetic necessity for music to be rebellious or groundbreaking. I just listen to music for the sake of itself. I don't want to promote specific aesthetic criteria, nor to convert people into embracing them. People may like what they want. I find issue if their aesthetic preferences aren't internally consistent, however. Liking Miles Davis because one thinks he is a great folk singer, for example, is pretty dumb.
I'd like to know why that particular movement of anxious rebellion stood out as the prime nineties rock movement. For that's what I've understood of people's consideration of nineties rock, they think of grunge and the faux-Beatlesness of britpop. That's kind of the two bigs that got a legacy in rock music consumption today, and that's fine. But I don't get it. Neither feel particularly groundbreaking or rebellious; I wouldn't consider that particularly relevant to the value of a piece of music in itself, of course, but the problem comes to me when people romantize it as such. I don't understand people's criteria and wish to know whether I've gained the wrong impression of people's general tastes or not. Why do they find grunge groundbreaking, well, do they even do that?
My befuddlement concretely arises when people discuss grunge as a genre. It's pretty much secluded to the nineties; if someone plays 'grunge' today, they are just playing rock. Grunge varies so little from the alternative rock in general - both prior and post nineties - that it's a kinda pointless term to use about a musical style. Or am I wrong? I'd prefer if I were. I like when people in general turn out to be smarter than me. It's always a good thing when people are smart.
I personally consider the two fundamentally groundbreaking rock movements of the nineties to be post-rock and shoegaze, and when I casually mention those two to people they go like :huh:
I personally like both britpop, "grunge", post-rock and shoegaze as well as plenty of other musical movements of the nineties. I have no aesthetic necessity for music to be rebellious or groundbreaking. I just listen to music for the sake of itself. I don't want to promote specific aesthetic criteria, nor to convert people into embracing them. People may like what they want. I find issue if their aesthetic preferences aren't internally consistent, however. Liking Miles Davis because one thinks he is a great folk singer, for example, is pretty dumb.
