The finest band to ever come out of the USA

fyl2u said:
Well, Loudwire would disagree with you: "Often compared to Nirvana's Nevermind and Alice in Chains' Dirt as one of the most influential albums of the '90s, the album debuted at No. 1 and has been certified five times platinum by the RIAA."
10 Facts About Soundgarden's 'Superunknown'

As would Dave Grohl:

Click to expand...
We've had this conversation before I'm sure. The 90s were practically ower before it even came out. But that aside, what was really all that influential about it? It's was more throwback than influential.

You mention not liking the Strokes at all, that's fair enough, I'm not a huge fan myself, but in This Is It there is an influential record. Superunknown was just more of the same.
 
Last edited:


chriswallace85 said:
We've had this conversation before I'm sure. The 90s were practically ower before it even came out. But that aside, what was really all that influential about it? It's was more throwback than influential.

You mention not liking the Strokes at all, that's fair enough, I'm not a huge fan myself, but in This Is It there is an influential album. Superunknown was just more of the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we have definitely had this conversation before.

Superunknown came out in 1994 so I don't know how you can say the 90's were "practically over" when it came out. And it very much wasn't "more of the same". As Dave Grohl says in that clip, it was so far above what everyone else was doing that it raised the bar for everyone.

Perhaps by thinking it came out later in the 90's than it actually did, you've assumed it was "more of the same" because of thinking that albums that came after it were actually before it?

I just had a listen to a couple of Strokes clips and they just sound like a 70's throwback to me. I don't hear anything particularly innovative in there.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "influential". There were certainly a boatload of bands doing a similar thing to The Strokes around that time, presumably influenced by them, but then again they're not doing anything particularly taxing. Personally I'd suggest that the reason there haven't been more bands that sound like Soundgarden is because they were a very difficult band to imitate due to the high standard of musicianship, his practically inimitable vocals, and their incredible songwriting proficiency.

Anyone can stick a fuzzbox over the vocals and drone on like they're high. Not everyone can sing like Cornell. ;)
 
fyl2u said:
Yeah, we have definitely had this conversation before.

Superunknown came out in 1994 so I don't know how you can say the 90's were "practically over" when it came out. And it very much wasn't "more of the same". As Dave Grohl says in that clip, it was so far above what everyone else was doing that it raised the bar for everyone.

Perhaps by thinking it came out later in the 90's than it actually did, you've assumed it was "more of the same" because of thinking that albums that came after it were actually before it?

I just had a listen to a couple of Strokes clips and they just sound like a 70's throwback to me. I don't hear anything particularly innovative in there.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "influential". There were certainly a boatload of bands doing a similar thing to The Strokes around that time, presumably influenced by them, but then again they're not doing anything particularly taxing. Personally I'd suggest that the reason there haven't been more bands that sound like Soundgarden is because they were a very difficult band to imitate due to the high standard of musicianship, his practically inimitable vocals, and their incredible songwriting proficiency.

Anyone can stick a fuzzbox over the vocals and drone on like they're high. Not everyone can sing like Cornell. ;)
Click to expand...
Naa I knew it was 94 - pretty late in the day, especially where the grunge scene was concerned. It was the end of the party.

The Strokes heralded a new wave of indie-pop that's barely shifted in the 15+ years since. They set the trend - something Soundgarden certainly never did. Musical proficiency doesn't come in to it I'm afraid, but you're probably being quite disparaging of a bunch of really quite talented art-school 'kids' in favour of some long-haired stoners. And as great a singer as Cornell was, I seriously doubt there were too many interested in imitating him.
 
Arkle said:
Loudwire - Wikipedia

That's a fairly genre specific magazine.
Click to expand...

I was fairly genre-specific with my original claim. :)
chriswallace85 said:
Naa I knew it was 94 - pretty late in the day, especially where the grunge scene was concerned. It was the end of the party.

The Strokes heralded a new wave of indie-pop that's barely shifted in the 15+ years since. They set the trend - something Soundgarden certainly never did. Musical proficiency doesn't come in to it I'm afraid, but you're probably being quite disparaging of a bunch of really quite talented art-school 'kids' in favour of some long-haired stoners. And as great a singer as Cornell was, I seriously doubt there were too many interested in imitating him.
Click to expand...

I think plenty would if they could.

Me for one. :p
 
Last edited:
fyl2u said:
I was fairly genre-specific with my original claim. :)


I think plenty would if they could.

Me for one. :p
Click to expand...
Aye, "rock". Pretty broad genre.


Maybe they would - the point is though the fact Casablancas et al. cannot sing like Cornell never held any of them back. He was a great singer - amazing. Doesn't make him influential.
 
zwartekat said:
X were one of the first US punk bands to get heard over here. The first album 'Los Angeles' is very good although fyl won't like it because it doesn't have 4bn key changes and a zillion key modulations.
Click to expand...

I remember they were big favourites of Sounds in the early 80s and probably the only punk band to feature a guitarist in Billy Zoom who grinned constantly at the audience throughout every gig he played.:D
 

Back
Top