Here's how I see it. The punk phenomenon was what it was because it pitted the punk bands against the so called establishment. They did the same with grunge. But how do they journalists still have an arguement when those very punk musicians liked many of those 'bloated' bands? Johnny Rotten was a Floyd fan and I've heard from someone who chatted with him outside a Duran Duran concert, he admitted to liking them. Captain Sensible or someone else from the Damned was on the Amazon.com artists section talking of how he liked the first King Crimson album and elsewhere he said he liked the Moody Blues. They called punk 'back to basics' but if you had that kind of approach what innovation would you ever have? I'm glad that punk existed, it's something else to listen to, but they had this attitude where they would have gladly done away with everything that had been achieved from Zappa, Beatles etc... a three chord Ramones or Chuck Berry song can only hold my interest for ... actually it doesn't 'interest' me much. I like melody and evidence of song writing, not fuzz guitars played within a 3 minute song span, I think punk was a music journalist phenomenon, they constantly have to drum up its impoitance for it to survive, because the music doesn't sell itself. Ironically these are the pretentious people, because they have to come up with the 'less is more' maxim all the time. Anytime people devote something to their craft, without trying to turn it into some kind of philosophy (punk, U2, REM, Radiohead) they say it's either pretentious (prog rock) or shallow (Duran Duran, Van Halen). And if punk blew away everything ... look at the bands that were the anti-thesis of punk, that started in 78: Van Halen, Dire Straits, Police, Kate Bush. Floyd were yet to release the Wall. Disco was huge. The same thing happened with grunge. They were trying to whitewash history as it happened. Nirvana were mainstream right? Well then let's judge them by mainstream standards. It was Pearl Jam that swept all the awards back at the 91 Grammy's and they were played a LOT more than Nirvana on Mtv, But now they would have you believe Kurt is the biggest thing of the 90s just like REM is now somehow the poster band of the 80s. I clearly remember that GN'R and Metallica absolutely dominated the airwaves along with PJ, so exactly how was grunge dominant then? Pearl Jam wasn't grunge. We always hear how grunge killed hair metal? But who were the other big bands from then? Def Leppard were HUGE, No.1's, airplay etc.. and so was Bon Jovi. Van Halen had a No.1 album on the billboards in 1995; I thought hair metal was dead? If Poison was a joke (they are) how come Every Rose is still a well known number? Motley Crue went to the top five in 1997.The way I remember it, the legend of Nirvana just exploded after Kurt killed himself. The constant behind the music specials made everyone think there was nothing in the 80s till kurt came alone and set it right and went wrong when he died. Well hair metal was around before Kurt and in some ways outlived him - it was only the record company fickleness that killed them. But not entirely, because the fanbase is still around. We just don't have any good albums to buy. Another thing. Rock didn't need grunge to remedy things. Groups like Skid Row and Motley Crue were already going in a different direction, towards more heaviness. Pantera were topping the charts without comprising themselves. All this was done without grunge, only it was ignored by the media. So Nirvana 'achieved' very little, These are just tales spun by the media because it sounds romantic, ooh punk blew away that and grunge did this. And America deposed Saddam and the Iraqi's cried with joy. :rolleyes:I wasn't around for punk but I know for myself that things were not as its portrayed.