On the Distinction between Grunge and Metal

Moise respectfully dissented to my list of ten essential metal albums on the ground that the list did not include Nirvana. After I asserted without explaining that Nirvana is not metal, but grunge, he responded thusly:

I suppose I am a silly person who cannot separate the subtle distinction between "Alice in Chains" as "Metal" with "Nirvana" which is so obviously grunge one would be an idiot for saying they're hardcore.

Now, a defense of Nirvana as Metal.

I agree that their most popular album "Nevermind" has little of anything to do with Metal. But their earlier work, Bleach and their later masterpiece, In Utero, are so obviously rooted in metal.

Maybe we would be helped by a definition Kelly? What does "metal" mean? If your saying that Nirvana can't be metal you must have a different definition than I.

(I understand you would never find Nirvana in the "metal" section at a Tower Records, but to me it has all the emotion and guitars that would make up metal) Sorry for the misused "quotes".

I certainly don't think the distinction between grunge and metal is that obvious, actually. My overstatement was meant to be humorous. But regardless, I can no more define "metal" or "grunge" than you can define "punk" or anyone can define "classical." Perhaps what we call classical or baroque was once seen as a diverse mixture of different genres which have disappeared with time, and perhaps in time grunge will be viewed as metal. I suppose only time will tell.

As a general matter, the view of grunge as distinct from metal came from its origins. Instead of growing out of a highly theatrical, bluesy European influence, it grew out of a pessimistic, punky Seattle influence. At the same time, however, they did borrow a lot from metal. This is why Alice in Chains is often confused with the grunge movement (as exemplified by Nirvana, Soundgarden, and probably also Pearl Jam). Alice in Chains was also very dark (what do you expect from rainy Seattle?) and they also came from Seattle. Alice in Chains is not as much punk-based as, say, Nirvana, even though they do have some punk roots (see some of their early demos).

Also, I've heard another characterization of the distinction: metal encourages channeling your rage outward, and this is healthy, whereas grunge is all about channeling rage inward, which is unhealthy. This was probably true at the time, but Alice in Chains is almost precisely on the border between the two. I think that recent history has claimed AiC for metal, however, because the metal artists cite them as an influence today where they don't cite Nirvana, and they borrow more from the AiC style.

So there was a lot of intermixing of punk and metal in the Seattle music scene of the late 80's and early 90's, which led in large part to the creation of grunge. Hence the confusion. But to add to this confusion, now today MTV and the "rock" radio stations have decided that all the distinctions are unimportant, and they no longer speak of metal or grunge but of "rock" music, and therefore Nickelback and their ilk (most certainly grunge bands) get played on the same air time as Disturbed, Metallica, and Static-X.

I think you need to look at the bands on the whole, on balance, and when you toss them into the graduated cylinder to find their specific gravity you find that Alice in Chains is metal and Nirvana is grunge. I suppose, if you wanted, you could enlarge the sphere of metal to include grunge, but I think if you did that then it would also swallow up a large amount of punk music, and that would offend the musical sensibilities of both punks and metalheads.