http://www.killerhiphop.com/jay-z-says-nirvana-stopped-hip-hop-for-a-second/

Pharrell’s forthcoming book titled The Places and Spaces I’ve Been features interviews with figures like Buzz Aldrin, Kanye West, Anna Wintour, and Jay-Z. During his talk with Jay-Z, they talked about Nirvana’s impact on pop culture and how it “stopped” hip-hop.

“So, where were you mentally and physically when grunge music hit,” asked Pharrell. “Like where were you when you first heard, ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit?’”

Jay replies saying that he was in V-to-the-izz-A, also known as Virginia, Pharrell’s home state. But Jay being the thinker that he is, he quickly starts talking about grunge’s history. “First we got to go back to before grunge and why grunge happened,” says Jay. “Hair bands dominated the airwaves and rock became more about looks than about actual substance and what it stood for, the rebellious spirit of youth. That’s why “Teen Spirit” rang so loud because it was right on point with how everyone felt, you know what I’m saying?”

Jigga man then went on to say that grunge, Nirvana in particular, stopped hip-hop’s momentum. “It was weird because hip-hop was becoming this force, then grunge music stopped it for one second, ya know? Those ‘hair bands’ were too easy for us to take out,” he says. “When Kurt Cobain came with that statement it was like, ‘We got to wait awhile.’”

(end swipe)

So can we unpack this?

-----
Get over yourself.

but I'm sure folks will find a reason to get mad about it due to who said it.

The audiences were still pretty separate at that point. Some artists had crossover success at that time but hip-hop and grunge had very separate audiences.

Also throw in the fact that 1992-1994 saw some of the best hip-hop albums ever, I don't see that grunge really affected hip-hop's development at all.

Maybe this was just around my way, though. I can't speak for y'all.

Lots of white kids changed their whole style of clothes and music they listened to in 1991. I'm talking the 12 to 15 range. They went from wearing BK's and doing the running man to wearing flannel shirts and ironic self-deprecation overnight.

It really was a very fast cultural shift in white neighborhoods.

And you have to remember.....the 12 to 15 white demographic was HUGE for hip hop sales.

For white kids, the switch to grunge was really quick. Tehy jumped on it fast. But 95% of those white kids weren't really checking for hip-hop. They knew Hammer, Vanilla Ice, maybe "OPP" and other radio/MTV friendly stuff. These weren't the kids that would check for Wu-Tang, Snoop, Black Moon, Souls of Mischief, Redman, etc.

Also, grunge's reign on top was ridiculously short. It seemed to be over by 1995.

but you're timing is off. Those groups you mentioned came after the Nirvana explosion and didn't sell as well as Vanilla Ice, Hammer, NWA, Public Enemy, NBN, etc. And I think that's Jay's point.

Sales for hip hop went down after Nirvana broke big.

>but you're timing is off. Those groups you mentioned came
>after the Nirvana explosion and didn't sell as well as Vanilla
>Ice, Hammer, NWA, Public Enemy, NBN, etc. And I think that's
>Jay's point.

That's kinda my point. These acts came after Nirvana but while Nirvana was still on top, so hip-hop's momentum, creativity & development wasn't affected at all. MCs were still coming out with great music, including albums that are still revered 20 years later.

>Sales for hip hop went down after Nirvana broke big.

OK, if the white kids who were buying the popular hip-hop acts ran to grunge, then I guess I can see sales dropping. I wasn't thinking of this from a sales standpoint though. I was thinking more of growth and evolution. I really don't think grunge affected hip-hop's development (not including sales) at all. Black kids didn't flock to grunge & leave hip-hop.

> OK, if the white kids who were buying the popular hip-hop
>acts ran to grunge, then I guess I can see sales dropping. I
>wasn't thinking of this from a sales standpoint though. I was
>thinking more of growth and evolution. I really don't think
>grunge affected hip-hop's development (not including sales) at
>all. Black kids didn't flock to grunge & leave hip-hop.


Agreed....but it's Jay talking. Of course he's talking about sales/market share. All those groups that hit big like NWA, Hammer, Kriss Kross etc did so by selling records to white kids.

I haven't thought it through....but perhaps one could make the argument that Nirvana made hip hop retreat into a more african-american market. Less poppy with less sales. Seems to make sense on the surface. It would be awhile before hip hop was dominating white junior high schools again like it did again in the late 90's.

>Lots of white kids changed their whole style of clothes and
>music they listened to in 1991. I'm talking the 12 to 15
>range. They went from wearing BK's and doing the running man
>to wearing flannel shirts and ironic self-deprecation
>overnight.
>
>It really was a very fast cultural shift in white
>neighborhoods.
>
>And you have to remember.....the 12 to 15 white demographic
>was HUGE for hip hop sales.

I replied before reading anyone else's replies, but this is exactly what I was referring to.

_________________________________________
The Combat Jack Show is the best hip-hop related internet radio show
http://thecombatjackshow.com/

Crunchy Black

Around 1990 heading into 1991, rap was already starting to head towards being the commercially dominant form of popular youth music choice but hadn't quite scaled the mountain on a sales level that it would statistically by around 96/97.

There's a chance it would have by at least '93 or '94 but that alternative/grunge/whatever type of rock busting into the mainstream to supplant the Motley Crues/etc that were already losing steam gave that audience something else to focus on for a few years before Cobain killed himself, Pearl Jam committed suicide commercially, Alice In Chains fell off via drug addiction, etc.

The big dawgs of the late 80s early 90s (PE, Ra, BDP, Kane, etc) were sputtering and amongst the next wave even the '92-94 rap albums that we rightfully view as classics (36 Chambers, Enta Tha Stage, Illmatic, etc) weren't really big sellers comparitively speaking.

Only NWA offshoots (Chronic, Doggystle, Predator) were doing those big multi-platinum numbers or getting their videos played in heavy non-Yo-MTV-Raps rotation.

2Pac's 'Keep Yo Head Up' & 'I Get Around' got mainstream love but he didn't really have a #1 type of album until 'Me Against The World' in '95 which still paled in comparison to the numbers he'd do around the time of 'All Eyez On Me'.

------------------------------------------
latest mixtape:
https://www.mixcloud.com/mistamonotone/music-to-smack-motherfckers-to/

mistamonotone - taboo
http://mistamonotone.bandcamp.com/album/taboo

@mistamonotone
IG: mistamonotone

of fickle suburbian fans, it's disgusting. who gives a damn what they think/thought? my hip hop didn't stop.

i didn't even realize Nirvana was a huge shift for rock music until WAY after the fact. and i DEFINITELY didn't see nor feel an impact in hip hop during their run.

nobody's acting like Cobain came thru & crushed the buildings for the genre on a creative level or amongst its ardent fans.

------------------------------------------
latest mixtape:
https://www.mixcloud.com/mistamonotone/music-to-smack-motherfckers-to/

mistamonotone - taboo
http://mistamonotone.bandcamp.com/album/taboo

@mistamonotone
IG: mistamonotone

I don't see anything disgusting about it.

Everyone's heard that commonly heard stat that 90% of the hip hop record buyers in the late 80's were white kids. I feel like I heard that a million times back then.

So all Jay's saying is that the hip hop market 'stole' those white kids from the 80's rockers for a short period of time. Young white kids turned their backs to rocknroll music and spent their money on hip hop records.

Nirvana was the catalyst that brought white kids back to rocknroll music.....opening the door for Metallica's Black album, Pearl Jam, etc. to dominate that demographic once again. It wasn't til around 96 or so that hip hop reclaimed the 12 to 16 white demographic....which is the most profitable one to have because of sheer numbers and purchasing power.

If anything, the "alternative" hip-hop groups at the time started enjoy a sales reinassance when Nirvana was getting big in '91/'92: Cypress Hill, Tribe Called Quest, De La, etc. There wasn't a genre-wide re-calibration along the lines of "Hmmm, how we do we sell to these audiences?" Rappers were already selling to that audience.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

But none of those groups were getting numbers like NWA, Hammer, Vanilla Ice, Beastie Boys or Run DMC. All pre-Nirvana.

Before Nirvana....hip hop was poised to completely OWN all youth (12 to 16) music culture. The only people buying rocknroll were older.

numbers contemporary to Nirvana. It wasn't like Nirvana caused kids to step buying Hammer albums, because "2 Legit" still went multi-platinum. Same with NWA. And tjhe Beastie Boys. And Nirvana certainly wasn't the reason Run-DMC stopped being commercially viable.

I'd liken it to most hip-hop "beefs" when one rapper claims to have ended another's career, but it's not really true. Hammer and Vanilla Ice ended their own careers, not Nirvana.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

Between the years 1991 to 1994 there is ONLY Dr Dre who represented hip hop on billboard charts. There was more representation before and after that three year period.

The reason, as is being argued by Jay, is that Nirvana made rocknroll cool for young white kids again and temporarily reclaimed a huge demographic that hip hop was in the midst of taking over. I think it makes for an intriguing argument.

>Between the years 1991 to 1994 there is ONLY Dr Dre who
>represented hip hop on billboard charts.

In that period you had, off the top, Cypress Hill, Beastie Boys, House of Pain, Ice Cube, Onyx, Naughty By Nature, and even Salt N Pepa all on the Billboard Charts on all selling millions of records. Yes, there were more groups on the charts after that, but I'm not really sure you could say hip-hop had more success before it.

>The reason, as is being argued by Jay, is that Nirvana made
>rocknroll cool for young white kids again and temporarily
>reclaimed a huge demographic that hip hop was in the midst of
>taking over. I think it makes for an intriguing argument.

And I think the argument doesn't hold. If anything, the genres probably had a symbiotic relationship during that era. A lot of the kids that were buying Nirvana albums were the same one buying Cypress Hill and Ice Cube albums.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

Really the aformentioned NWA offshoots were the only ones doing so.

By '97 as that scene had died off giving way to the Bushes-and-then-Creed you had Fugees, Big, Puff, Bone, Wu, Pac, etc all doing numbers close to the biggest rock acts of that era & eclipsing rock as a genre (which had been considered impossible) by the end of that decade.

Or when they did, it wasn't because their fans started buying Nirvana/Pearl Jam albums.

And it wasn't like rappers during that era were exactly clamoring to make albums like Hammer, Vanilla Ice, and the few mainstreams successes. Hip-Hop during '90-'91 was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of mainstream success. Young MC was looked at as a cornball. Tone Loc was viewed as a gimmick. Even Will Smith will say that most hip-hop listeners didn't take him seriously until "Summertime" (which came out in '91). Most hip-hop artist did the exact same thing and catered to the exact same audiences pre and post "Smells Like Teen Spirit." And most of them sold more records post Nirvana, not less. Were they reaching Hammer heights? No, but they were enjoy more success.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

arguably slowed hip-hop's takeover by a couple years (aka instead of 92-94 being the years it fully overtook rock it was more like 97 or so).

What was in between there is an indicator on why that didn't fully happen, despite (as we both would likely agree) from a quality level that 92-95/96 era was more fruitful on the hip-hop side then 97).

It wasn't the sole factor or even the biggest but it did factor in I would say.

More rap acts started to go multi-platinum during the early 90's than before. The Hammer and Vanilla ice crazes fizzled out. People forget that music tastes expanded widely during the early 90's. Country music started to have a much larger presence on the national stage. The year Nirvana's first album dropped, you had huge albums from Guns N' Roses, Garth Brooks, U2, Michael Jackson and Bolton. You have to be pretty dense to claim that grunge took away from hip-hop at all as total sales of hip-hop albums increased steadily from the 80s into the 90s. This idea that hip-hop was a major dominating force in pop music that grunge paused is ridiculous. Not that many hip-hop acts actually sold in the late 80's/early 90's. By the mid 90's, that changed. If anything, the diverse musical output of that time benefited hip-hop.

>
>More rap acts started to go multi-platinum during the early
>90's than before. The Hammer and Vanilla ice crazes fizzled
>out. People forget that music tastes expanded widely during
>the early 90's. Country music started to have a much larger
>presence on the national stage. The year Nirvana's first album
>dropped, you had huge albums from Guns N' Roses, Garth Brooks,
>U2, Michael Jackson and Bolton. You have to be pretty dense to
>claim that grunge took away from hip-hop at all as total sales
>of hip-hop albums increased steadily from the 80s into the
>90s. This idea that hip-hop was a major dominating force in
>pop music that grunge paused is ridiculous. Not that many
>hip-hop acts actually sold in the late 80's/early 90's. By the
>mid 90's, that changed. If anything, the diverse musical
>output of that time benefited hip-hop.

we're not talking about country music, Boyz II Men, early Mariah, etc.

we're talking about genres considerted hip/fashionable in that era which was basically rap & rock-morphing-into-alternative-rock at the time.

Hip-hop's ascent into being the dominant genre in that regard (which had never happened due to how new rap music was on the landscape but was trending that way by the late-80s already) was almost undoubtedly momentarily held off by there being a rock option in that window of 92-94 or so.

It doesn't mean there was some adversarial relationship between the two genres but it also isn't an accident that as grunge fell off the map quickly in the second half of the decade with hip-hop left standing that works most of us would consider even lesser than earlier began to outsell their predecessors by three to four times as much.

It doesn't mean that hip-hop didn't have its own momentum, it's just another in a list of factors.

of hip-hop at all, not in terms of sales nor cultural relevance. The premise of the argument relies on a non-existent zero sum game between grunge and hip-hop when they complimented each other. Hip-hop wasn't entering the 90's with a predestined path to cultural domination. I can't even believe that Jay-Z thinks that hip-hop "took out" hair bands. He really doesn't know what he is talking about.

> I can't even
>believe that Jay-Z thinks that hip-hop "took out" hair bands.
>He really doesn't know what he is talking about.

that's really not what he was saying, just that they posed as less of a threat for that youth-culture demo/dollar.

I'm glad that he didn't pose that scenario

>The big dawgs of the late 80s early 90s (PE, Ra, BDP, Kane,
>etc) were sputtering and amongst the next wave even the '92-94
>rap albums that we rightfully view as classics (36 Chambers,
>Enta Tha Stage, Illmatic, etc) weren't really big sellers
>comparitively speaking.
>
>Only NWA offshoots (Chronic, Doggystle, Predator) were doing
>those big multi-platinum numbers or getting their videos
>played in heavy non-Yo-MTV-Raps rotation.
>
I don't know what they sold because I didn't pay attention to that back then, but I remember Naughty, Onyx, and Cypress Hill getting major play like that in that time.

>
>>The big dawgs of the late 80s early 90s (PE, Ra, BDP, Kane,
>>etc) were sputtering and amongst the next wave even the
>'92-94
>>rap albums that we rightfully view as classics (36 Chambers,
>>Enta Tha Stage, Illmatic, etc) weren't really big sellers
>>comparitively speaking.
>>
>>Only NWA offshoots (Chronic, Doggystle, Predator) were doing
>>those big multi-platinum numbers or getting their videos
>>played in heavy non-Yo-MTV-Raps rotation.
>>
>I don't know what they sold because I didn't pay attention to
>that back then, but I remember Naughty, Onyx, and Cypress Hill
>getting major play like that in that time.

oh they definitely did, they were selling as well as say PE was a year earlier or even a bit better since they had actual singles that were hits but they were platinum acts.

it's been repeated since the mid-90s. what interesting is people will think it's particularly insightful NOW because of WHO said it.

try thinking of things another way sometimes.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

a 'broad overview' or in other words a 'simplification' of what happened, just that people would get mad about it in here anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxZuq57_bYM

------------------------------------------
latest mixtape:
https://www.mixcloud.com/mistamonotone/music-to-smack-motherfckers-to/

mistamonotone - taboo
http://mistamonotone.bandcamp.com/album/taboo

@mistamonotone
IG: mistamonotone

I've never heard the theory espoused that the Nirvana explosion made hip hop sales drop.

Top Albums 1991

http://www.musicimprint.com/Chart.aspx?id=C000054

Lies run sprints.
Truths run marathons.

http://twitter.com/Menphyel7


"F you Im better in tune with the Infinite"

what do you even mean by saying that?
it's a broad statement for one, and it's wrong for another

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

white folks was being white folks...

http://twitter.com/Menphyel7


"F you Im better in tune with the Infinite"

mainstream shit went to the backburner, but that's not the totality of Hip Hop is it?

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

the king of the mainstream..so you agreeing. yall niggaz just like to be contradictory sometimes.

http://twitter.com/Menphyel7


"F you Im better in tune with the Infinite"

I mean, really, you could even say hip-hop was starting to hit it's commercial stride by 1991. NWA, Ice Cube, and Ice-T all released albums that had gone and would go Gold or Platinum (and all already had a history of moving units). Heavy D, Tribe Called Quest, and 3rd Bass were going Gold. Hell, Cypress Hill were the break out hip-hop "stars" of the year. I don't really see Nirvana moving the needle either way.

If he's talking about Nirvana impacting commercial rappers at the time, I don't really see that either. MC Hammer was in the process of releasing bloated product and wearing out his welcome, but "2 Legit 2 Quit" still went triple platinum. And Vanilla Ice was widely accepted as a joke by all in 1991, but that's because he was Vanilla Ice, not because people started listening to grunge.

So yeah, just not seeing it.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

>If he's talking about Nirvana impacting commercial rappers at
>the time, I don't really see that either. MC Hammer was in the
>process of releasing bloated product and wearing out his
>welcome, but "2 Legit 2 Quit" still went triple platinum. And
>Vanilla Ice was widely accepted as a joke by all in 1991, but
>that's because he was Vanilla Ice, not because people started
>listening to grunge.
>
>So yeah, just not seeing it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll7FW1XoYzo
in 1992

Lies run sprints.
Truths run marathons.

In that sense, yes
But there's a big 1992 marijuana leaf aka The Chronic in the room that begs to differ with Hov

If there's anything grunge and hip hop were chilling on the same street in 91 and 92 ...look at Lollapalooza

Eclectic Soul/Sunday, 2-4 PM est/89.3 WCSB.ORG

it was more like, grunge & hip-hop put a pincers move on pop culture that took out 80's pop excess and put a heavy premium on authenticity.

Go Smack yourself and then apologize to your hand for looking stupid - Case_One

http://i54.tinypic.com/nxros2.jpg

>In that sense, yes
>But there's a big 1992 marijuana leaf aka The Chronic in the
>room that begs to differ with Hov
>
>If there's anything grunge and hip hop were chilling on the
>same street in 91 and 92 ...look at Lollapalooza
>
>

Without Nirvana, their audience would not have had any other alternative but hip hop. I think Nirvana came and gave hip hop, in its growing g stages, a source of competition.

I do agree that people did gain crossover fans because I knew many but think of how much more quickly hip hop would've grown if it had no competition at all.

Good point!!

Eclectic Soul/Sunday, 2-4 PM est/89.3 WCSB.ORG

**************************************************

http://soundcloud.com/manic-choints/

www.twitter.com/itsmeManic

http://vimeo.com/mattferran

zzzz

I thought it was generally agreed that those records made Hip-Hop bigger than ever before amongst *that* demographic (I'm not counting Hammer and anilla Ice because they appealed more to a pop/teeny-bopper crowd). Most of the people who flocked to grunge would probably never have bothered with Hip-Hop at all; grunge just took over the hard-rock/metal demographic albeit with more crossover (which for the record the hairbands had in the 80's but were starting to lose)

And Metallica's "Black album" did more to kill hairmetal than Nirvana did. Hair-bands were already on its way out 1-2 years before "Nevermind" truly hit... Metallica on the other hand managed to go multi-platinum at a time when metal-(or "metal") bands were beginning to struggle compared with the 80's with a sound that, while more commercial than previously, was not hair-metal in the slightest. Actually, they outsold Guns&Roses 91 albums; if someone would have said in 88-89 that Metallica would outsell Guns'n'roses in the future, noone would have believed them. And I remember butt-rockers who previously never even bothered with Metallica flocking to that album. You think they would go back to Warrant, White Lion or Poison after that?

Saying Nirvana killed the hairbands have greater symbolic value though, I just think it's wrong...

as far as hip-hop in selling at that level.

>I thought it was generally agreed that those records made
>Hip-Hop bigger than ever before amongst *that* demographic
>(I'm not counting Hammer and anilla Ice because they appealed
>more to a pop/teeny-bopper crowd). Most of the people who
>flocked to grunge would probably never have bothered with
>Hip-Hop at all; grunge just took over the hard-rock/metal
>demographic albeit with more crossover (which for the record
>the hairbands had in the 80's but were starting to lose)
>
nah, stateside, there was plenty of cross-polination between the two genres in suburban environments (Axl was rocking that NWA hat for a reason, same with Ed Furlong & the PE shirt in the biggest-film of the decade) and on mainstream musical channels (pre-internet) stateside it was pretty impossible to not be aware of both regardless of what side of the fence you preferred.

>And Metallica's "Black album" did more to kill hairmetal than
>Nirvana did. Hair-bands were already on its way out 1-2 years
>before "Nevermind" truly hit... Metallica on the other hand
>managed to go multi-platinum at a time when metal-(or "metal")
>bands were beginning to struggle compared with the 80's with a
>sound that, while more commercial than previously, was not
>hair-metal in the slightest. Actually, they outsold Guns&Roses
>91 albums; if someone would have said in 88-89 that Metallica
>would outsell Guns'n'roses in the future, noone would have
>believed them. And I remember butt-rockers who previously
>never even bothered with Metallica flocking to that album. You
>think they would go back to Warrant, White Lion or Poison
>after that?
>
Metallica toured with Guns N Roses, so they were considered part of that same gang even if musically they weren't cut from that same cloth.

>Saying Nirvana killed the hairbands have greater symbolic
>value though, I just think it's wrong...

Nah, it's pretty much what happened. Metallica's ascendance was slow & steady plus intertwined, Nirvana's was immediate & more alien.

>as far as hip-hop in selling at that level.
>
>>I thought it was generally agreed that those records made
>>Hip-Hop bigger than ever before amongst *that* demographic
>>(I'm not counting Hammer and anilla Ice because they
>appealed
>>more to a pop/teeny-bopper crowd). Most of the people who
>>flocked to grunge would probably never have bothered with
>>Hip-Hop at all; grunge just took over the hard-rock/metal
>>demographic albeit with more crossover (which for the record
>>the hairbands had in the 80's but were starting to lose)
>>
>nah, stateside, there was plenty of cross-polination between
>the two genres in suburban environments (Axl was rocking that
>NWA hat for a reason, same with Ed Furlong & the PE shirt in
>the biggest-film of the decade) and on mainstream musical
>channels (pre-internet) stateside it was pretty impossible to
>not be aware of both regardless of what side of the fence you
>preferred.

I know there was a lot of cross-pollination; people were jamming Slayer and Ice Cube and PE and Suicidal Tendencies next to eachother here. That's not really the "cool" crowd I'm referring to though...
>
>>And Metallica's "Black album" did more to kill hairmetal
>than
>>Nirvana did. Hair-bands were already on its way out 1-2
>years
>>before "Nevermind" truly hit... Metallica on the other hand
>>managed to go multi-platinum at a time when metal-(or
>"metal")
>>bands were beginning to struggle compared with the 80's with
>a
>>sound that, while more commercial than previously, was not
>>hair-metal in the slightest. Actually, they outsold
>Guns&Roses
>>91 albums; if someone would have said in 88-89 that
>Metallica
>>would outsell Guns'n'roses in the future, noone would have
>>believed them. And I remember butt-rockers who previously
>>never even bothered with Metallica flocking to that album.
>You
>>think they would go back to Warrant, White Lion or Poison
>>after that?
>>
>Metallica toured with Guns N Roses, so they were considered
>part of that same gang even if musically they weren't cut from
>that same cloth.

So did Soundgarden and Faith No More on that very tour. I think that very tour was very important from a symbolic standpoint; it was a "changing of the guard"-type of tour; kind of like when van Halen and AC/DC opened for Black Sabbath in the late 70's. And Axl's behaviour on the tour and the negative reactions made it explicit...
>
>>Saying Nirvana killed the hairbands have greater symbolic
>>value though, I just think it's wrong...
>
>Nah, it's pretty much what happened. Metallica's ascendance
>was slow & steady plus intertwined, Nirvana's was immediate &
>more alien.

I don't agree. "Heavy" Alternative rock was slowly rising throughout the 80's and by 89-90, pretty much "everyone" thought it would be the next big thing which is why bands from Janes Addiction to Faith No More and Living Colour to AIC and Soundgarden to Dinosaur JR and Sonic Youth etc. got major deals within a couple of years.

And Metallica's jump in sales from "...and justice" to "Black album" was massive. No other bands from their scene ever came close (well, Megadeth but not really); they were alone and their massive breakthrough was to me the *real* change, not Nirvana...

into the superstar band realm.

The whole 'Metallica is finally making a video!' thing was hyped to death in '89 & then when 'One' came out it ignited things to a level where they were a multi-platinum act so that all the next album needed to do was come out & it was gonna sell five/six million regardless because the momentum was already built.

They'd already had already been on Monsters of Rock, even Master of Puppets had probably crept to platinum by the time And Justice came out & definitely been platinum by Black Album.

It just so happened 'Enter Sandman' was a monster & they streamlined their sound to be a bit more of a shiny/palatable version of themselves (before they'd become a full-on parody of themselves shortly thereafter).

That's not really remotely comparable to the jump of Nirvana becoming rock's biggest-seller off their first single of their major-label debut in a matter of a month or two after making their indie-label debut around the time of And Justice.

>into the superstar band realm.
>
>The whole 'Metallica is finally making a video!' thing was
>hyped to death in '89 & then when 'One' came out it ignited
>things to a level where they were a multi-platinum act so that
>all the next album needed to do was come out & it was gonna
>sell five/six million regardless because the momentum was
>already built.

Yes but Metallica built that momentum themselves and since the difference in sales was so big coupled with the fact that hairmetal was slowly dying *and* the fact that the many additional millions who bought Metallica were former hair-metal fans, it carries bigger weight to me-I don't have any recollections of Metallica crossing over too much outside of the hard-rock/metal realm which Nirvana did. Yet, "¤Black album" still sold more than "Nevermind" and I know for a fact that many former hair-metal fans didn't like Nirvana but loved Soundgarden and Alice In Chains who both benefitted just as much from Metallica as they did from Nirvana and the Seattle-connection; those bands were not punk but rather sluggish riff-rock-just like the Black album...

>That's not really remotely comparable to the jump of Nirvana
>becoming rock's biggest-seller off their first single of their
>major-label debut in a matter of a month or two after making
>their indie-label debut around the time of And Justice.

Nirvana was part of a "¤scene" that was starting to gain serious momentum in the early 90's; they just happened to be the act that truly made it which gives them great symbolic value but ignores the fact that Alice In Chains, Soundgarden and numerous others were already on the brink of making it (¤shit, AIC had already done so).

You always make it seem like all those bands made it thanks to Nirvana and "Nevermind" which just isn't true; the wheels were already in motion, "¤Nevermind" jsut took it to the next level and walked through the door others had helped open. To me, Metallica's mega-breakthrough carries bigger weight to me because their *scene* had nothing to do with it and was in fact practically irrelevant commercially; thrash was never close to being the next big thing...

>>into the superstar band realm.
>>
>>The whole 'Metallica is finally making a video!' thing was
>>hyped to death in '89 & then when 'One' came out it ignited
>>things to a level where they were a multi-platinum act so
>that
>>all the next album needed to do was come out & it was gonna
>>sell five/six million regardless because the momentum was
>>already built.
>
>Yes but Metallica built that momentum themselves and since the
>difference in sales was so big coupled with the fact that
>hairmetal was slowly dying *and* the fact that the many
>additional millions who bought Metallica were former
>hair-metal fans, it carries bigger weight to me-I don't have
>any recollections of Metallica crossing over too much outside
>of the hard-rock/metal realm which Nirvana did.

You don't? I do. Only difference is Metallica seemed to have no female fans comparitively speaking.

Yet, "¤Black
>album" still sold more than "Nevermind" and I know for a fact
>that many former hair-metal fans didn't like Nirvana but loved
>Soundgarden and Alice In Chains who both benefitted just as
>much from Metallica as they did from Nirvana and the
>Seattle-connection; those bands were not punk but rather
>sluggish riff-rock-just like the Black album...
>
>>That's not really remotely comparable to the jump of Nirvana
>>becoming rock's biggest-seller off their first single of
>their
>>major-label debut in a matter of a month or two after making
>>their indie-label debut around the time of And Justice.
>
>Nirvana was part of a "¤scene" that was starting to gain
>serious momentum in the early 90's; they just happened to be
>the act that truly made it which gives them great symbolic
>value but ignores the fact that Alice In Chains, Soundgarden
>and numerous others were already on the brink of making it
>(¤shit, AIC had already done so).
>
None of thoes bands were 'making it' in a way comparable (Alice In Chains was trying to get in on the hard-rock but not fully catching, same with Soundgarden who were opening for GNR during Badmotorfinger) because neither of those groups were going to do so on their own.

The mainstream didn't know or gave a fuck about the Seattle 'scene' when Nirvana broke.

>You always make it seem like all those bands made it thanks to
>Nirvana and "Nevermind" which just isn't true; the wheels were
>already in motion, "¤Nevermind" jsut took it to the next level
>and walked through the door others had helped open.

That would be more Jane's, Faith No More, Chili Peppers & Lollapalooza than Metallica.

Despite having a 'less commercial' sound Metallica was considered more part of the hard-rock pedigree already out be it Def Leppard, Guns, Motley Crue, AC/DC, whoever.

To me,
>Metallica's mega-breakthrough carries bigger weight to me
>because their *scene* had nothing to do with it and was in
>fact practically irrelevant commercially; thrash was never
>close to being the next big thing...
>
It carries more weight to you likely because you prefer their music but Metallica was closer to being the last big record of the prior rock along with Use Your Illusion than the sea change of a new era and it was something that they'd been building up to throughout the 80s.

This always seems silly to me when we're discussing the perspective of me in the U.S. at the time & you in Sweden anyway.

Metallica's black album essentially contained sluggish, 70's riff-rock with a strong Sabbath-vibe; the pop-metal bands didn't. In fact, it was the first successful album in that style for years and it helped re-open the door for that type of music commercially. ALL grunge-bands who made it except Nirvana who were more pop/punk also played sluggish, 70's riff-rock. However, you seem to think that the fact that they came from Seattle and wore flanell was more important.

EDIT:And the mainstream might not ahve given a fuck but the metal-mags *and* the indie-press had been writing about it for years, it was in the air as was heavy alternative overall.

the bottom line is none of those bands (in particular, Soundgarden & Alice In Chains who you brought up) would have made it to superstar band status due to the Black Album if Nevermind never existed.

Metallica was already double-platinum big by '89, Enter Sandman was massive by summer of '91 & those two acts were already flailing trying to come in behind the metal scene for two full years and not busting a grape commercially to say nothing of the bands signed/pushed immediately the wake of it (Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, STP, Helmet, etc) or the older bands (Butthole Surfers, Meat Puppets, PIxies) that got another look.

That was Nirvana's success that did that, not Metallica's.

Metallica were a known entity for six years by then, their logo was on every jean-jacket of every kid smoking across the street from every suburban middle/high-school in the U.S. dating back to the mid-80s.

Their success was seen as a band slowly building from devoted fan niche status into mainstream over a period of time, it was not viewed as ushering in a new movement.

They were touring with Bon Jovi in 1987 & Guns N' Roses in '91.

I'm not in here talking music theory or trying to argue that Nirvana played some new form of rock that had never been done before because the influences on a musical level are fairly obvious, I'm saying Nevermind's success was in fact the bellwether for what the industry & the new audience it was trying to feed considered to be a new era.

Metallica was simply not seen the same way no matter how much you may want them to be.

They were seen as part of the same audience/demo as AC/DC or Guns, just a harder/darker version.

Most Metallica fans at that time hated Nirvana as far as I can tell & still mostly do now that I think about it.

Is it

a)the massive impact of Nirvana?

or

b)the record that should get the credit for killing the hair-bands, something Metallica never was BTW, regardless of your attempts to make it sound like it was the same scene. I know for a *fact* that even in amrica in the 80's, Metallica did not have the same crowd as Bon Jovi or Poison or Skid Row or even Guns'nRoses; if anything, they took over Iron Maiden's audience in the late '80's, just like Maiden took over Priest's five years earlier. the Black album changed that and gave Metallica a partially new crowd.

FACT: Metallica became more popular, no other "heavy" band from the 80's did. They outsold a band like Skid Row in 91 who had previously been way more successful. They managed to get genuine crossover hits with songs that were not power-ballads (and some power-ballads too of course), how many "heavy" bands succeeded with that in the early 90's? They outsold Guns'n'roses who were the biggest rock-band on the planet and they were a band with *roots* in not just "true" but also *extreme* metal rather than the pop/sleaze/glam-scene.

You don't find these things note-worthy? I very much do and none of this had anything to do with Nirvana as you yourself correctly pointed out.

And that many Metallica-fans hated Nirvana but dug AIC and Soundgarden, that's irrelevant when those bands became two of the biggest bands in the next few years? You don't think that contributed to their sales?

And BTW, what does me coming from sweden have to do with anything? Why would that perspective change shit?

>Is it
>
>a)the massive impact of Nirvana?
>
Yes, that's part of it.

>or
>
>b)the record that should get the credit for killing the
>hair-bands, something Metallica never was BTW, regardless of
>your attempts to make it sound like it was the same scene. I
>know for a *fact* that even in amrica in the 80's, Metallica
>did not have the same crowd as Bon Jovi or Poison or Skid Row
>or even Guns'nRoses;
not exactly the same but similar enough that they toured with the two biggest ones on that list, you don't hear CC DeVille, Sebastian Bach & Brett Michaels whining that Metallica's success killed their careers while I've heard that sentiment from each in regards to Nirvana.

You didn't see Axl's crazy ass carrying a gun around the MTV Awards due to his being angry & his relevance threatened by Metallica.

if anything, they took over Iron Maiden's
>audience in the late '80's, just like Maiden took over
>Priest's five years earlier. the Black album changed that and
>gave Metallica a partially new crowd.
>
Maiden's, AC/DC's, GNR's, their own growing one, etc.

>FACT: Metallica became more popular, no other "heavy" band
>from the 80's did. They outsold a band like Skid Row in 91 who
>had previously been way more successful. They managed to get
>genuine crossover hits with songs that were not power-ballads
>(and some power-ballads too of course), how many "heavy" bands
>succeeded with that in the early 90's?

which bands were signed as a direct-result of Metallica?

which of that next wave from 91-96 were pushed as 'the next Metallica'?

their success was in a lot of ways unprecedented but it was always considered to occupy a space that was their own, not as a line of demarcation or the end of something & beginning of another.

It was something that built slower & more organically.

They outsold
>Guns'n'roses who were the biggest rock-band on the planet and
>they were a band with *roots* in not just "true" but also
>*extreme* metal rather than the pop/sleaze/glam-scene.
>
>You don't find these things note-worthy? I very much do and
>none of this had anything to do with Nirvana as you yourself
>correctly pointed out.
>
Sure, it's noteworthy but it was already long in progress by '91 & the GNR Tour (and the way Axl behaved, along with the fact that Metallica were outplaying them) helped to open them up to that crowd.

>And that many Metallica-fans hated Nirvana but dug AIC and
>Soundgarden, that's irrelevant when those bands became two of
>the biggest bands in the next few years? You don't think that
>contributed to their sales?
>
>And BTW, what does me coming from sweden have to do with
>anything? Why would that perspective change shit?
>
it's just based on me having no idea how any of this was viewed in Sweden & readily admitting I'm viewing this only thru the lens of how this played out stateside.

>not exactly the same but similar enough that they toured with
>the two biggest ones on that list, you don't hear CC DeVille,
>Sebastian Bach & Brett Michaels whining that Metallica's
>success killed their careers while I've heard that sentiment
>from each in regards to Nirvana.

I know they say that and I think it's bullshit because they were all on the way out before people in general even knew who Nirvana was. And those are just the tip of the ltter; what about all the dozens of Cinderella's and RATT's and Kingdom Come's and Enuff Znuff and White Lion and Great White ad nauseum who were played out long before Nevermind hit. That they got outsold by a band who started out around the same time (or even before them), came from the underground and were frequently dismissed as noise in the 80's is quite significant and the Black album made it "official" so-to-speak because not only were Metallica bigger4, they were the *biggest*


>Maiden's, AC/DC's, GNR's, their own growing one, etc.
>

They didn't take over AC/DC's crowd before the "Black album". However, AC/DC were losing ground to the pop.metal acts in the 80's. The Metallica-thing was a different matter. The reason Metallica made it so big even before the Black album was because they-unlike most other thrash-bands-managed to truly capture the disgruntled Maiden/Priest/Dio crowd (NOT the same as the AC/DC crowd or the pop-metal crowd even if there was some cross-over)

>>FACT: Metallica became more popular, no other "heavy" band
>>from the 80's did. They outsold a band like Skid Row in 91
>who
>>had previously been way more successful. They managed to get
>>genuine crossover hits with songs that were not
>power-ballads
>>(and some power-ballads too of course), how many "heavy"
>bands
>>succeeded with that in the early 90's?
>
>which bands were signed as a direct-result of Metallica?

When? I could name hundreds of thrash-bands in the 80's that were signed to indies as a direct result of Metallica. The thrash-bands that got signed to majors-especially after "...and justice" were of course also directly signed because of them. Pantera is another one.
If you mean after the Black album, I know that Corrosion of Conformity got signed to a large extent because of them. Of course, you are all about "relevance" and "impact" so I won't even go there...

>which of that next wave from 91-96 were pushed as 'the next
>Metallica'?

What does that have to do with anything? This "cultural impact" shit you are pushing has nothing to do with music or sound, it's just bullshit I don't care about...

>
>>not exactly the same but similar enough that they toured
>with
>>the two biggest ones on that list, you don't hear CC
>DeVille,
>>Sebastian Bach & Brett Michaels whining that Metallica's
>>success killed their careers while I've heard that sentiment
>>from each in regards to Nirvana.
>
>I know they say that and I think it's bullshit because they
>were all on the way out before people in general even knew who
>Nirvana was
it's the opinion of people that were actually in it & like it or not perception is reality.

. And those are just the tip of the ltter; what
>about all the dozens of Cinderella's and RATT's and Kingdom
>Come's and Enuff Znuff and White Lion and Great White ad
>nauseum who were played out long before Nevermind hit.
a couple of those bands were never even very big anyway & their fall was inevitable but in the case of Cinderella they were still a platinum act in 1990, if anything their style shifted to a rootsier sound (more Stones/Aerosmith influence) over the glam they initially were on when they came into the scene, you could probably credit Guns N Roses or even the Black Crowes for that.

In fact, now that I think about it that rootsier-blues-rock sound (which even old bands like ZZ Topp were getting back to by 90) could have been more the way things went if not for Nirvana coming in & building upon the burgeoning 'alternative'/Lollapalooza scene that Nirvana's success kicked into orbit.

That
>they got outsold by a band who started out around the same
>time (or even before them), came from the underground and were
>frequently dismissed as noise in the 80's is quite significant
>and the Black album made it "official" so-to-speak because not
>only were Metallica bigger4, they were the *biggest*
>
It's testament to Metallica being a more enduring act, sure. However they coexisted amongst these acts way too long to be confused for a changing-of-the-guard.
>
>>Maiden's, AC/DC's, GNR's, their own growing one, etc.
>>
>
>They didn't take over AC/DC's crowd before the "Black album".
>However, AC/DC were losing ground to the pop.metal acts in the
>80's. The Metallica-thing was a different matter. The reason
>Metallica made it so big even before the Black album was
>because they-unlike most other thrash-bands-managed to truly
>capture the disgruntled Maiden/Priest/Dio crowd (NOT the same
>as the AC/DC crowd or the pop-metal crowd even if there was
>some cross-over)
>
>>>FACT: Metallica became more popular, no other "heavy" band
>>>from the 80's did. They outsold a band like Skid Row in 91
>>who
>>>had previously been way more successful. They managed to
>get
>>>genuine crossover hits with songs that were not
>>power-ballads
>>>(and some power-ballads too of course), how many "heavy"
>>bands
>>>succeeded with that in the early 90's?
>>
>>which bands were signed as a direct-result of Metallica?
>
>When? I could name hundreds of thrash-bands in the 80's that
>were signed to indies as a direct result of Metallica.

I thought it was pretty apparent I was talking about in the wake of the Black Album.

The
>thrash-bands that got signed to majors-especially after
>"...and justice" were of course also directly signed because
>of them. Pantera is another one.
>If you mean after the Black album, I know that Corrosion of
>Conformity got signed to a large extent because of them. Of
>course, you are all about "relevance" and "impact" so I won't
>even go there...
>
>>which of that next wave from 91-96 were pushed as 'the next
>>Metallica'?
>
>What does that have to do with anything? This "cultural
>impact" shit you are pushing has nothing to do with music or
>sound, it's just bullshit I don't care about...

If you don't care about it, you're probably in the wrong conversation when we're talking about which album/act was more responsible for the seismic shift in the landscape in '91 and/or it shouldn't bother you that it was Nevermind and not the Black Album that gets the credit for that.

>Sure, it's noteworthy but it was already long in progress by
>'91 & the GNR Tour (and the way Axl behaved, along with the
>fact that Metallica were outplaying them) helped to open them
>up to that crowd.

So? *They* became big, the other-initially more successful-bands lost. The Black album made it official...

>
>>Sure, it's noteworthy but it was already long in progress by
>>'91 & the GNR Tour (and the way Axl behaved, along with the
>>fact that Metallica were outplaying them) helped to open
>them
>>up to that crowd.
>
>So? *They* became big, the other-initially more
>successful-bands lost. The Black album made it official...
>
>
They didn't become big, they'd been big, they had the talent/focus/loyally-built-in-fanbase to build upon that from there & not self-destruct long enough to peak with this album.

I don't take anything away from them, even if I was never a big fan of their music & their music after this album was unbearable from what I remember.

>I don't agree. "Heavy" Alternative rock was slowly rising
>throughout the 80's and by 89-90, pretty much "everyone"
>thought it would be the next big thing which is why bands from
>Janes Addiction to Faith No More and Living Colour to AIC and
>Soundgarden to Dinosaur JR and Sonic Youth etc. got major
>deals within a couple of years.

No way. Nirvana exceeded those bands in sales because of the teeny boppers you alluded to earlier. And noone saw that coming. There were millions of 12 and 13 year olds whose cd collections had a Vanilla Ice album, an MC Hammer album, a few other scattered pop albums and then 'Nevermind'. You're alluding to an older audience and that's not the demographic that made Nirvana #1. It was little kids getting "nevermind" for Christmas. (check the timing)


>And Metallica's jump in sales from "...and justice" to "Black
>album" was massive. No other bands from their scene ever came
>close (well, Megadeth but not really); they were alone and
>their massive breakthrough was to me the *real* change, not
>Nirvana...

This might be different in Europe.....because heavy metal always maintained a fan base there. My perception in North America....heavy metal was EXTREMELY unpopular amongst the youth. There's no way that the Black Album sells what it does without the Nirvana explosion happening first. As a youth who liked punk rock and metal in the late 80's I can attest to how incredibly unpopular it was. Hip hop was the trend and Nirvana changed that.

I haven't analyzed it enough.....but I took a look at the top selling hip hop albums of all time. It seems to support the claim that there was a huge hole between the years 1991 to 1995 save for Dr Dre projects. Noone else was moving big units....even though it's probably my favourite hip hop era.

>There's no way that the Black Album sells what it does
>without the Nirvana explosion happening first. As a youth who
>liked punk rock and metal in the late 80's I can attest to how
>incredibly unpopular it was. Hip hop was the trend and
>Nirvana changed that.


Black Album blew up months before Nevermind in the USA as well. Are you saying that the demographic that primarily bought the Black album were middle-aged or even 20-somethings?

And it couldn't have been "¤extremely" unpopular considering how many records in the style in the late 80's/¤early 90's that went platinum. But yes, it was starting to lose momentum:enter Metallica with their biggest album. And Soundgarden and Alice In Chains and even fucking Pearl Jam were all hardrock or in the case of the two former, even metal-bands; they just tagged it differently and gave it a slight makeover...

Yah....I think my memory was off there. Cause the Black album came out in the summer and Nevermind started getting played around Oct/Nov and culminated around Dec/Jan.

What I DO remember is all the white bboys who made fun of me for liking Metallica liked Nirvana before they converted to Metallica. So yes...culturally speaking....the Metallica fans represented an older demographic. And the Black Album's change in style helped it to appeal to hard rock fans who didn't necessarily like thrash. So, in a sense, I'd argue that the Black Album's success was in the fact that Metallica was able to reel in alot of OLDER listeners who didn't pay attention to them before.

But again, in Toronto....there were very few hard rock/metal fans younger than 20 at that time. Until Nirvana. I went to see Metallica several times in my youth and was always the youngest person there....at least from what I could see. Point being....Metallica didn't 'steal' or 'convert' hip hop fans to rock music. I'd argue that Nirvana did.

...and I think you could have counted the people over 20 on two hands. If anything, the Black album made Metallica more palatable to older, more "¤classic rock"-type listeners who were put off by the hectic, jerky rhythms of thrash.

At the same time, the album introduced younger listeners raised on hair/¤pop-metal and thrash to 70's riff-rock.

The *musical* importance of that album and its success for 90's heavy rock should not be underrated; its approach pointed towards both the sluggish feel of most grunge to the midtempo groove-thrash of Pantera. Almost over-night, both the hectic approach *and* the hedonistic, "¤let's fuck groupies" party-hearty vibe of the 80's disappeared from the mainstream in the wake of its success...

Grunge and hip-hop co-existed without negatively impacting each other. In fact, the early 90's was a good time for eclectic music in that vein. Hip-hop hadn't even really hit its full stride when grunge started, so that's a pretty vapid comment.

and it did.....theres really no debating it. it didnt STOP it. They didnt fight. It wasnt a struggle. But it diverted the attention to grunge for a hot second. You definitely saw a lot less wiggers when Nirvana came around lol


----------------------

GrandeMarshall "800"
Andreena "Naked EP"

but it basically sums up exactly what I saw when I was 13. A WHOLE bunch of white kids converted from being hip hop listeners to grunge listeners overnight. They threw out all their clothes and got new wardrobes.

And these kids made up a HUGE share of the record buying market.

Unfortunately, I admit that I can't sufficiently quantify this perception. Nonetheless, it happened where I lived.

>Grunge and hip-hop co-existed without negatively impacting
>each other. In fact, the early 90's was a good time for
>eclectic music in that vein.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

was a good track though

cause rap wasnt really dominating the charts when Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Silverchair etc were killing it

If it was a conversation between the audience and Hiphop..when Nirvana came it was definitely a situation like "oh wait hold that thought for a second, whats this?" type of moment

----------------------

GrandeMarshall "800"
Andreena "Naked EP"