Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
August-September 1991 is arguably one of the greatest two-month periods in the history of rock music. So many classic, iconic rock albums that continue to have impact decades later were released.
The reason this is in the "vs." forum is because many of these albums were very clearly associated with two places: Washington State (mostly Seattle) and California. In many ways they reflected the places and their character at the time.
So my question is - which set of albums released during this period do you think are better, do you think better reflect their place and time, and have had a greater impact.
California Albums:
Metallica - Self-Titled (Black Album) - Released August 12, 1991
Guns N' Roses - Use Your Illusion I & II - Released September 17, 1991
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik - Released September 24, 1991
Washington Albums:
Pearl Jam - Ten - Released August 27, 1991
Nirvana - Nevermind - Released September 24, 1991
Soundgarden - Badmotorfinger - Released September 24, 1991
For me, the Seattle sound of Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Soungarden and Alice in Chains was far more impactful and much better music. Considering the small population of Washington compared to California made it even more amazing.
I voted for Washington, but I am getting very annoyed with the antipathy people have toward bands like Guns N' Roses. In addition, I find it ironic that three-minute, quasi-punk rock songs are considered more "sophisticated" than five-minute, quasi-prog rock songs.
I voted for Washington, but I am getting very annoyed with the antipathy people have toward bands like Guns N' Roses. In addition, I find it ironic that three-minute, quasi-punk rock songs are considered more "sophisticated" than five-minute, quasi-prog rock songs.
The point of grunge was never to be sophisticated, if anything it was a reaction against how inauthentic popular music was (seen as) becoming, a desire to bring back raw, visceral displays of emotion.
It was also about grunge bands' politics and image as much as the music itself. When Kurt Cobain said he wished he were gay to anger homophobes, and Eddie Vedder scrawled "Pro-Choice" on his arm at a concert, at the time popular musicians doing that was pretty subversive, even though now no one would notice or care.
This would be a tie if your subbed out the Use Your Illusions for Appetite for Destruction.
That was 1987, but seemed to take a little bit to widely catch on.
Anyway, I still voted California, but not based on Metallica. They could rock hard I suppose, but their shtick wasn’t my thing.
Grunge was all sorts of awful: Cynical, jaded, depressing, angst-ridden, and it all seemed fake and contrived. Musically, the result was mixed at best. Politically, it was absurd.
Not that California was any better in some of those areas, but at least you had a chance at being entertained by it.
I didn’t ‘get’ Nirvana when they came out and I still switch the station or thumbs-down the song when they come on. Best thing to come out of grunge was the Foo Fighters, who aren’t even grunge.
In hindsight, even hair bands may have been better than a lot of the early-90’s stuff.
That was 1987, but seemed to take a little bit to widely catch on.
Anyway, I still voted California, but not based on Metallica. They could rock hard I suppose, but their shtick wasn’t my thing.
Grunge was all sorts of awful: Cynical, jaded, depressing, angst-ridden, and it all seemed fake and contrived. Musically, the result was mixed at best. Politically, it was absurd.
Not that California was any better in some of those areas, but at least you had a chance at being entertained by it.
I didn’t ‘get’ Nirvana when they came out and I still switch the station or thumbs-down the song when they come on. Best thing to come out of grunge was the Foo Fighters, who aren’t even grunge.
In hindsight, even hair bands may have been better than a lot of the early-90’s stuff.
I actually love those Soundgarden and Pearl Jam albums but I've never really liked Nirvana. Mostly because I don't really like punk music and Nirvana was basically a punk band.
I never understood what Grunge was anyway. All those bands sounded different to me - the main common factor was that they were all from Seattle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
