Which 90's bands had the best initial 3 year run?

[Shallowed]

I just realised that I know of a good amount of SM songs

All Star
Walking on the Sun
Can't Get Enough of You
I'm a Believer
Then the Morning Comes

two of them are covers but still, that's a reasonable pop presence.

[Mals Marola]

between them & sugar ray there's at least an album-worth of hot singles

[Mals Marola]

anyone who disagrees is an asshole & should cut their throat LOL

[Sonic Johnny]

Walkin on the sun has a bangin keyboard line

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

I just realised that I know of a good amount of SM songs

All Star
Walking on the Sun
Can't Get Enough of You
I'm a Believer
Then the Morning Comes

two of them are covers but still, that's a reasonable pop presence.

Same for me... No wait, I also heard their cover of Why Can't We Be Friends.

I can't think of any other "modernish" band who relied on so many covers as singles.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Disco King

Good thread, Fuzzyroes. My answer is going to have to be The Smashing Pumpkins.

I really think that the Pumpkins had the best run of the 90's. I mean Gish/SD/Pieces Iscariot/MCIS/TAFH/Adore- I can't really think of any other group who can rival that. Pavement had a great 90's run too. Most good acts of the 90's couldn't really seem to sustain a high level of quality.

[wounded]

I guess i'm confused by the use of "initial" out of those bands the only "initial" run listed is weezer.

Also i would argue not to look at necessarily 3 years. I would look at a band's first 3 records and what did they did. Of course you course some bands get better and some get worse

Weezer - Blue, Pinkerton.....Green. Eh

Nirvana - Bleach, Nevermind, In Utero.

Green Day - I honestly don't even know what their first album was, Kerplunk?, Dookie, Insomniac

Pumpkins - Gish, SD, MCIS

Pearl Jam- Ten, Vs. Vitalogy

Foo Fighters - Foo Fighters, Colour and the Shape, Nothing Left to Lose

Radiohead - Pablo Honey, Bends, OK Computer

out of those I think pumpkins and pearl jam were most impressive as far as the quality of the work being put out.

Foo Fighters actually had a solid first 3 album run, since then i can't really differentiate between any of their albums and best I can tell no one really cares and people eat it up. I guess wasting light got good reviews.

Pumpkins really did have a hell of a first 3-4 album run. which is probably why people are so disappointed with present pumpkins. Especially high quality of B-sides. I don't think any other 90's band had b-sides like that (PI and TAFH).

Pablo Honey is just okay. If you shifted it to - Bends, OK Computer, Kid A stretch it becomes a really impressive 3 album run and probably the best. Radiohead is also different in that some people probably consider them more of a 00's band than 90's. I don't know, I still think OK computer was their magnum opus.

Also I personally like pearl jam from Vs, Vitalogy, No Code. I think that is their best 3 album run, but I really like No Code. not sure why everyone was pissed off by it when it came out.

[coldestrose]

Originally Posted by wounded

Green Day - I honestly don't even know what their first album was, Kerplunk?, Dookie, Insomniac

Green Day's first album was 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours. It's a compliation of their 39/Smooth, Slappy and 1,000 hour EPs. All were released in the late 80s.

[D.]

Originally Posted by coldestrose

Green Day's first album was 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours. It's a compliation of their 39/Smooth, Slappy and 1,000 hour EPs. All were released in the late 80s.

Only 1,000 Hours EP was released in the late 80's and it was released in April 1989.

[D.]

1,000 Hours EP - 1989
Slappy EP - 1990
39/Smooth album - 1990
1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours compilation - 1991
Kerplunk - 1992

Green Day are definitely a 90's band, even though they formed in the 80's.

[coldestrose]

Originally Posted by D.

Only 1,000 Hours EP was released in the late 80's and it was released in April 1989.

My bad, this is true. I was thinking they started a little earlier. I'm surprised that even their Sweet Children EP was only released in 1990. I would have thought that would have also come out in the late 80s while they still played under that name.

[fuzzyroes]

But if you were going to go to a cassette store in 1994 you'd find the 1039/smoothed out slappy hours, Kerplunk, and Dookie cassettes. So most people consider those as the "albums"

I remember being like 9 years old and having no idea that Green Day had any other music released aside from the post Dookie stuff and finding Kerplunk and 1039 on cassette at "Big K Music" for 22 bucks a piece. I was ecstatic...

ahhh the days before the internet... when you had no idea about a bands past or present.

I remember getting my mom to call the music stores months ahead asking when a new Green Day album would be out and once we finally got word that there was one I'd count down the days till Insomniac was released in my journal.

It's sad that children don't have real artists to look up to anymore. I mean I remember seeing dead-eyed pictures of Green Day in the "BOP" and "Tiger Beat" Magazines that were otherwise filled with pictures of that kid from Home Improvement in my elementary school library and just looking up to those 3 goof-balls so much. Now all kids have is 1-direction and Taylor Swift

The times are achanging

[coldestrose]

Yeah, kids today really need to dig more to find good artists since TSwift and One Direction are all that are heavily pumped out to the masses.

[fuzzyroes]

I'm not saying that necessarily. But the fact that a bunch of down and out low-lifes from Oakland could break through on their major label debut to the point that they're crossing over on pop radio with their depressing songs is really a testament to the times. A bunch of stoner meth users pictured alongside Jonathan Taylor Thomas is pretty cool, and I can't fathom it happening again.

[slunken]

Originally Posted by D.

Green Day are definitely a 90's band, even though they formed in the 80's.

i totally hate when people argue this point. it usually completely misses the point.

[slunken]

but then bands like aerosmith and kiss and cheap trick get called 80s bands all the time lol

[slunken]

oh steven tyler?

yea from that 80s band with the lips

[Shallowed]

Steven Tyler was in The Flaming Lips?

[slunken]

no you idiot i'm talking about the rolling stones!

[Shallowed]

I always get those two bands confused

[Mals Marola]

Originally Posted by slunken

no you idiot i'm talking about the rolling stones!

i wanna be adoooored, haha!

[wounded]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

But if you were going to go to a cassette store in 1994 you'd find the 1039/smoothed out slappy hours, Kerplunk, and Dookie cassettes. So most people consider those as the "albums"

I remember being like 9 years old and having no idea that Green Day had any other music released aside from the post Dookie stuff and finding Kerplunk and 1039 on cassette at "Big K Music" for 22 bucks a piece. I was ecstatic...

ahhh the days before the internet... when you had no idea about a bands past or present.

I remember getting my mom to call the music stores months ahead asking when a new Green Day album would be out and once we finally got word that there was one I'd count down the days till Insomniac was released in my journal.

yeah i remember having to save up for an album. I remember getting into the pumpkins on MCIS and saving up and getting gish, SD, and pisces and just listening to the shit out of them.

On one had everything is available to instantly you for the price of less than a CD back then. That also means you can easily listen to something and discard it.

It's the festival generation.

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

A bunch of stoner meth users pictured alongside Jonathan Taylor Thomas is pretty cool, and I can't fathom it happening again.

There is something quietly hilarious about this.

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by coldestrose

Yeah, kids today really need to dig more to find good artists since TSwift and One Direction are all that are heavily pumped out to the masses.

I don't agree with this view at all. "glorify our 90ies, poor kids today only get shit!"

you could have said the exact same thing about the 90ies: "Britney and Backstreet Boys were all that got pumped to the masses." as plenty of people who were teens in the 70ies DID say about the 90ies: no more real artists!

do you see the pattern?

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

do you see the pattern?

This is too hard for fuzzy.

[fuzzyroes]

Back in the day you could go to Walmart and they'd have posters of Nirvana and Green Day in their generic poster section.

Nothing that real appeals on such a mainstream level anymore

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

I don't agree with this view at all. "glorify our 90ies, poor kids today only get shit!"

you could have said the exact same thing about the 90ies: "Britney and Backstreet Boys were all that got pumped to the masses." as plenty of people who were teens in the 70ies DID say about the 90ies: no more real artists!

do you see the pattern?

"yes, i see what you're saying and you do have a point, but i'm going to ignore that entirely and keep on repeating what i said before."

[coldestrose]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

I don't agree with this view at all. "glorify our 90ies, poor kids today only get shit!"

you could have said the exact same thing about the 90ies: "Britney and Backstreet Boys were all that got pumped to the masses." as plenty of people who were teens in the 70ies DID say about the 90ies: no more real artists!

do you see the pattern?

At least at that point alternative bands were still making mainstream media next to those who appealed to pre-teens. People at least knew who they were. Now, at least where I live, you have to find the right radio station or look for the right magazine or show venue to find anything other than Taylor Swift, One Direction, Ariana Grande or Cody Simpson or artists like that. At least back in the 90s and early 2000s bands like Green Day, Blink 182, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, etc. were all there right next to Britney or the Backstreet Boys. If it weren't for a little extra digging, I probably wouldn't even know of any of today's alternative artists.

[coldestrose]

And I never said "kids today only get shit". All I inferred was that artists that aren't shit aren't in the spotlight nearly as much as in the past. Granted I'm not browsing teen magazines at my age, but the death of channels like MTV and VH1 hasn't exactly helped anything.

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by coldestrose

At least at that point alternative bands were still making mainstream media next to those who appealed to pre-teens. People at least knew who they were. Now, at least where I live, you have to find the right radio station or look for the right magazine or show venue to find anything other than Taylor Swift, One Direction, Ariana Grande or Cody Simpson or artists like that. At least back in the 90s and early 2000s bands like Green Day, Blink 182, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, etc. were all there right next to Britney or the Backstreet Boys. If it weren't for a little extra digging, I probably wouldn't even know of any of today's alternative artists.

a little extra digging, really?

not the artists changed, the media access changed the entire business. today you don't depend on one music magazine, a radio station and MTV. yet you refer to exactly the same outlets as in the 90ies - and talk about Swift and One Direction. and you have to dig to find today's alternative artists - yet all you'd have to do is change the media you access, one decent music site online would do.

and Green Day on the cover of Rolling Stone back in whenever is hardly alternative - it IS mainstream.

but let's just disagree, I feel like discussing the expected change of pre and post internet with fuzzylina 2.