To answer the 'grunge' thing; I can't fathom that by the year 1992 Grunge was considered 'dead'. The 10 major bands of the grunge movement were (in order of 'importance'):

1. Nirvana: had released 3 albums by 1992 (bleach, nevermind and incesticide); In Utero and their UnPlugged didn't come until 1993/94. By 1995 they were (no pun intended) dead

2. The Pixies: Without The Pixies grunge would never have existed. If you need proof, listen to "Doolittle". They broke up in 1992; but that's saying that grunge died when the PARENTS of grunge died. This would be like saying that Prog Rock died when Peter Gabriel left Genesis. Absolute rubbish.

3. Radiohead: Perhaps the one band to escape grunge unharmed. The reason is, that unlike other bands they were able to disguise their sloppy rock-and-roll. But they were just starting in 1992 and in fact at that point were just 'one hit wonders'.

4. Pearl Jam: By 1992 had just release 1 album, the seminal Ten; they still had a whole career in front of them and although one could argue they left grunge for the pastures of Rock-and-Roll only means that they learned how to play their instruments.

5. Rage Against The Machine: Released one of the most important albums of the 90s in 1992 (Rage Against the Machine) and went another 8 years before breaking up.

6. Soundgarden: Had released 5 albums by 1992 with their most identifiable album (Superunknown) - perhaps the quintessential grunge album - still 2 years away.

7. Mudhoney: The most 'underrated' of the Seattle bands; they had released 4 albums by 1992 and are still selling out shows. While they never made it big, they're probably just as responsible for kids starting bands as Nirvana if you want to talk sheer numbers.

8. Alice in Chains: Released Dirt in 1992. If you sense a pattern here it's because almost every band RELEASED an album in 1992; but keep in mind grunge is a combination of punk and rock-and-roll; the punk genre is KNOWN for its prolific (if not high-quality) album releases with bands not-uncommonly releasing 2 albums a year.

9. Stone Temple Pilots: released 'core' in 1992; it took 2 more years for people to realize the album wasn't by Pearl Jam. Regardless, it seems counter-intuitive that all of these grunge bands who were just STARTING signaled the DEATH of a genre.

10. REM: while they released 'automatic for the people' in 1992; in 1994 they released Monster, signalling that grunge had reached the pop-masses. No longer was grunge for your pissed-off malcontents, it was also for your arty-malcontents and female-malcontents and everyone else. To this day, all people know of the phrase "What's the frequency, Kenneth" was that REM wrote a song of that name.



Given the longevity of these bands on a whole, I find it odd that the genre they defined would be called a fad. If you want to pick a year that signalled the end of grunge I would argue that 1995, the first full year without Nivana is the year to choose.



To answer the socio-economic question, I would think that there absolutely is. When times are good, the music is forced on you; people have unlimited disposable income and are willing to dole it out to the latest ms. thing that comes along; when times get rough the chaff separates from the wheat as people have to pick and choose which bands are worthy of their money and deep inside while people want to see Brittney, they don't want to pay any 'real' money for it, because they know it isn't any good.



Well, I've gone on much longer than anticipated and probably short-shrifted the last argument because I think it's a question worth looking at. Just not today.

---Jeff---