“Warm Take”: The Pixies Ushered In the Grunge Genre, Not Nirvana or Pearl Jam

[bleedsorange01]

As a product of the 80s and 90s (went to hight school in the mid-90s), I’ve been enjoying listening to the 90s “classics” and reminiscing over the grunge sound. The days of ripped jeans, flannels, etc.

Although I’m a bigger fan of 60s and 70s rock, I’d argue the 90s and the grunge genre was the last period of distinctive sound in popular music. After you reach the 2000s and especially the early 2010s, popular music is a blur and is less sophisticated and interesting than ever. But I digress….

As I was listening to my 90s playlists and soaking up that raw grunge sound, I came upon an album and song that I realized were misplaced, and it almost blew my mind. The Pixies album Surfer Rosa, and specifically their song “Where is My Mind?” sound like a great representation of mid-90s rock — they would seamlessly fit into a playlist of music from, say, 1992 - 1995.

But I forgot that The Pixies released that song / album in March of 1988 (which really means it was written and recorded in 1987, at least) — a full three years before Nirvana’s “Nevermind” and Pearl Jam’s “Ten”. As I looked back, I also remembered that Kurt Cobain was heavily influenced by Surfer Rosa and “Where is My Mind?” and modeled “Nevermind” off The Pixies’s sound.

Given the significance and suddenness of the pivot in sound from popular music from the 80s to 90s with the “overnight” emergence of grunge, and knowing that “Where is My Mind?” is an early 1988 track — completely foreign to the sound of the time — and yet is indistinguishable from mainstream music that was released five+ years later, I have to tip my hat to The Pixies for paving the way for the last distinctive sound in popular music. Great song and album. Tagging @scartiger as well.

(@Chris Ard — for some reason, I am no linger able to link videos, imbed GIFs, etc. in my posts. Didn’t change my settings. Anyone else having that issue?)

 

[DBQStarhawk]

Nm

 

[Moral]

I love The Pixies but I would not consider them grunge. Melvins started in 1983 and were from the Seattle area so I think they would probably have the claim on ushering in grunge, especially with their Nirvana connections.

The 2000s had some awesome indie, indie sleaze, and emo. The Strokes, MGMT, Killers, My Chemical Romance, Metric, White Stripes, LCD Soundsystem, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Against Me, Rise Against, etc etc.

 

[JMNSH0]

My perception at the time (HS class of 1996) was that the Pixies were college rock with punk elements and were held in high regard by Cobain (who I remember him mentioning them in interviews in RS mag) and probably others. I also remember Cobain talking explicitly about the influence of Sonic Youth on their music. Neil young was also frequently cited by Cobain and Pearl Jam and other grunge acts as well, Black Sabbath too (Soundgarden, I'm looking at you). Those are the big four that I can think of off the top of my head. This is based as much as I can on my primary experience rather than the subsequent layers of analysis and lore that have accumulated over the past 35 years. As mentioned, The Melvins are sort of in a class of their own and they are undeniably important to the whole suite of bands from out there.

 

[OrlandNole]

The Pixies are the most influential rock band of the 80s/90s. Their impact goes far beyond grunge. Name a rock band from the 90s or 00s and they'll identify the Pixies as a source of inspiration.

 

[bleedsorange01]

I love The Pixies but I would not consider them grunge. Melvins started in 1983 and were from the Seattle area so I think they would probably have the claim on ushering in grunge, especially with their Nirvana connections.

The 2000s had some awesome indie, indie sleaze, and emo. The Strokes, MGMT, Killers, My Chemical Romance, Metric, White Stripes, LCD Soundsystem, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Against Me, Rise Against, etc etc.

My perception at the time (HS class of 1996) was that the Pixies were college rock with punk elements and were held in high regard by Cobain (who I remember him mentioning them in interviews in RS mag) and probably others. I also remember Cobain talking explicitly about the influence of Sonic Youth on their music. Neil young was also frequently cited by Cobain and Pearl Jam and other grunge acts as well, Black Sabbath too (Soundgarden, I'm looking at you). Those are the big four that I can think of off the top of my head. This is based as much as I can on my primary experience rather than the subsequent layers of analysis and lore that have accumulated over the past 35 years. As mentioned, The Melvins are sort of in a class of their own and they are undeniably important to the whole suite of bands from out there.

Great call by both of you mentioning The Melvins — agree they are more of a “ground zero” for grunge than The Pixies.

I can’t remember if there is a coined term for it, but I recall The Pixies first using the method of having a subdued verse and then blasting out the chorus, and vice versa, which was a technique Cobain pulled straight from them.

To your point about college rock / punk, Weezer has elements of The Pixies as well, especially in Weezer’s debut album.

Certainly can’t forget Soundgarden, as you mentioned. Also a big fan of STP.

 

[noleclone2]

I am not sure I would say it as Pixies ushered it in but went first in influencing and having a sound and angst and yes pop of grunge that Nirvana and Pearl Jam the blew it all up with in 91. Pearl Jam via Mother Love Bone and Nirvana and Soundgarden still also deserve credit for being on that first elevator.

In terms of sounding way ahead of where the sound would be Soundgarden’s work in 87-88 and Nirvana 88 (Bleach was recorded in 88) are amazing to listen to knowing what the rest of music was in 87-88. That grunge sound of 91-92 was there already.

As I get older, I love finding work ahead of its time, some of it not commercially successful. Pink sound before punk. Prog rock sound before prog rock etc.

 

[noleclone2]

The Pixies are the most influential rock band of the 80s/90s. Their impact goes far beyond grunge. Name a rock band from the 90s or 00s and they'll identify the Pixies as a source of inspiration.

Great point. There is only one band I think of that was as influential as them AND influenced and are liked by the Pixies: Cheap Trick

Cheap Trick’s work 1977-1981 was loved by almost all of them, especially their first four albums. It’s insane when you do some digging how much the grunge bands and the power pop bands that blossomed in mid and late 90s were influenced by Cheap Trick. A ton of them made sure to play with them too.

 

[CountingSheep]

Great call by both of you mentioning The Melvins — agree they are more of a “ground zero” for grunge than The Pixies.

I can’t remember if there is a coined term for it, but I recall The Pixies first using the method of having a subdued verse and then blasting out the chorus, and vice versa, which was a technique Cobain pulled straight from them.

To your point about college rock / punk, Weezer has elements of The Pixies as well, especially in Weezer’s debut album.

Certainly can’t forget Soundgarden, as you mentioned. Also a big fan of STP.

"Loud quiet loud"

 

[bleedsorange01]

"Loud quiet loud"

Ha! Easy enough.

 

[Torbee]

OP: You spelled Hüsker Dü wrong.

 

[Tom Paris]

I am not sure I would say it as Pixies ushered it in but went first in influencing and having a sound and angst and yes pop of grunge that Nirvana and Pearl Jam the blew it all up with in 91. Pearl Jam via Mother Love Bone and Nirvana and Soundgarden still also deserve credit for being on that first elevator.

In terms of sounding way ahead of where the sound would be Soundgarden’s work in 87-88 and Nirvana 88 (Bleach was recorded in 88) are amazing to listen to knowing what the rest of music was in 87-88. That grunge sound of 91-92 was there already.

As I get older, I love finding work ahead of its time, some of it not commercially successful. Pink sound before punk. Prog rock sound before prog rock etc.

A singer who I think falls in the “ahead of his time” is Nick Drake. His music started popping up in films and commercials 25 years after his death.

 

[Meatball Sandwich]

Mudhoney started grunge imo

 

[Jonathan Assbutt Jr.]

Hugely influential on Cobain. Borrowed a lot of song construction ideas from them.

Depends how loosely you use the word "grunge" -- if it's just rock featuring heavily distorted guitar, I suppose.

Or you could just call them alt rock, another amorphous label.

But at any rate, really great band outside of the mainstream that influenced some of the 90s best rock.

 

[bleedsorange01]

OP: You spelled Hüsker Dü wrong.

Well done, and I sure did.

 

[Jonathan Assbutt Jr.]

The 2000s had some awesome indie, indie sleaze, and emo. The Strokes, MGMT, Killers, My Chemical Romance, Metric, White Stripes, LCD Soundsystem, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Against Me, Rise Against, etc etc.

And then rock just died.

 

[Moral]

Mudhoney started grunge imo

Or just the Sub Pop label in general. Tad and Green River are underappreciated.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Ill see your Pixies and raise you a Neil Young

 

[AlexanderUrinis]

Melvins, Green River and Screaming Trees.

Get outta here with the Pixies. Please and thanks!

 

[Jonathan Assbutt Jr.]

And then rock just died.

And yes, I'm against "it's still there but you have to look" people. Yeah, sure, but the quality is nowhere near what it was, the high end isn't there. They settle for less. Things can decline over time.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

And yes, I'm against "it's still there but you have to look" people. Yeah, sure, but the quality is nowhere near what it was, the high end isn't there. They settle for less. Things can decline over time.

I think has a lot more to do with the death of monoculture and radio falling out of relevance rather a decline in quality. Throw in a healthy dose of the older generations combining quality with timelessness and the market shrinks to what it is today.

Frank Zappa's perspective on this subject is relevant. Humans do not remember the plenty of average to sub par music that is/has been constantly put out, only the high points.

 

[Moral]

And yes, I'm against "it's still there but you have to look" people. Yeah, sure, but the quality is nowhere near what it was, the high end isn't there. They settle for less. Things can decline over time.

Pure Noise has some very solid acts on it.

Artists - Pure Noise Records

www.purenoise.net

 

[bleedsorange01]

Ill see your Pixies and raise you a Neil Young

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

I'm gonna throw Bob Mould and Hüsker Dü into the mix. They didn't necessarily usher in grunge but they had a big influence on the grunge bands that emerged. A member of Nirvana... I don't remember which... said about their sound that what they were doing had been done by Hüsker Dü before them. Great band and hugely influential.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

OP: You spelled Hüsker Dü wrong.

Sorry... missed this.

 

[Jonathan Assbutt Jr.]

I think has a lot more to do with the death of monoculture and radio falling out of relevance rather a decline in quality. Throw in a healthy dose of the older generations combining quality with timelessness and the market shrinks to what it is today.

Frank Zappa's perspective on this subject is relevant. Humans do not remember the derth of average to sub par music that is/has been constantly put out, only the high points.

Nope. I'm familiar with those arguments. My response? Then show me the music.

The really good rock over the past 10-15 years that is "good enough" to make "my list" and set along side the stuff we've been talking about in this thread.

At some point is has to bubble up and get noticed.

Here's the thing...

I listen to... anything. I'm not a rock guy that needs to listen to rock, or any specific genre. I also don't need to listen to new music. I really enjoy finding new music that's good, however.

It just has to be good enough to tickle my fancy, to get me high, to evoke some sort of emotional response. I'm not a lyrics guy, a story guy either -- I don't bother to learn either usually.

As far as I can tell... It's almost all chord progression, melody and mood/atmosphere. And it's just there or it isn't. Instruments can vary.

Almost all of my modern music findings are in the category of pop/dance/edm/hip-hop. Rock wise it's been mostly metal, doom type stuff. (although not all necessarily produced within the last 10 years)

I cherry pick. Some artists can generally annoy the piss out of me, but they'll produce 2 or 3 songs that really hit. So the songs go on the list.

Rock for whatever reason just doesn't seem to produce much of anything that ever makes my list. Hence my complaints.

My list... 1000s of songs on a lossless streaming service. Basically... good enough to want to come back to purposefully.

 

[pjhawk]

OP: You spelled Hüsker Dü wrong.

Replacements need to be thrown in here as well. College rock gods and none of them came close to actually attending college themselves. I think Mould was the only one of the core 3 in Husker Du that attended college.

 

[bleedsorange01]

I think has a lot more to do with the death of monoculture and radio falling out of relevance rather a decline in quality. Throw in a healthy dose of the older generations combining quality with timelessness and the market shrinks to what it is today.

Frank Zappa's perspective on this subject is relevant. Humans do not remember the derth of average to sub par music that is/has been constantly put out, only the high points.

I believe there is an overall decline in quality from a mainstream standpoint. I think that’s a result of what the mainstream values / appreciates.

There tends to be less interest in listening to music for the sake of appreciating good song writing / orchestration and more interest in hearing simple sounds. In today’s digital / AI age, attention spans are exceedingly short and the barrier to entry for “musicians” is lower than ever.

You don’t have to put effort into making, recording, and releasing a song, and you are “punished” for it by your audience. You certainly could invest time, brainpower, and skill, but you aren’t necessarily rewarded for it. Society will quickly move on to the next thing and will lose interest as fast as they gained it.

If the broader society slowed down and listened to music and appreciated it for its sophistication, cleverness, investment, etc. we would see more attention to detail and breakthroughs in popular music.

Truth in advertising, I do play guitar, and I recall having sessions with folks just listening to music and jamming for hours at a time. My dad spoke of similar experiences in the 60s and 70s when folks would sit around and listen to albums from beginning to end. They appreciated good music — and I believe that’s why mainstream music generally had more quality then than it does today.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Nope. I'm familiar with those arguments. My response? Then show me the music.

The really good rock over the past 10-15 years that is "good enough" to make "my list" and set along side the stuff we've been talking about in this thread.

At some point is has to bubble up and get noticed.

Here's the thing...

I listen to... anything. I'm not a rock guy that needs to listen to rock, or any specific genre. I also don't need to listen to new music. I really enjoy finding new music that's good, however.

It just has to be good enough to tickle my fancy, to get me high, to evoke some sort of emotional response. I'm not a lyrics guy, a story guy either -- I don't bother to learn either usually.

As far as I can tell... It's almost all chord progression, melody and mood/atmosphere. And it's just there or it isn't. Instruments can vary.

Almost all of my modern music findings are in the category of pop/dance/edm/hip-hop. Rock wise it's been mostly metal, doom type stuff. (although not all necessarily produced within the last 10 years)

I cherry pick. Some artists can generally annoy the piss out of me, but they'll produce 2 or 3 songs that really hit. So the songs go on the list.

Rock for whatever reason just doesn't seem to produce much of anything that ever makes my list. Hence my complaints.

My list... 1000s of songs on a lossless streaming service. Basically... good enough to want to come back to purposefully.

No offense, but I'm pretty sick of the "come to me" shtick that seems to be infecting every facet of our society and culture.

If you want to ride into oldmandom on the same horse as those that came before you, you have my blessing.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I believe there is an overall decline in quality from a mainstream standpoint. I think that’s a result of what the mainstream values / appreciates.

There tends to be less interest in listening to music for the sake of appreciating good song writing / orchestration and more interest in hearing simple sounds. In today’s digital / AI age, attention spans are exceedingly short and the barrier to entry for “musicians” is lower than ever.

You don’t have to put effort into making, recording, and releasing a song, and you are “punished” for it by your audience. You certainly could invest time, brainpower, and skill, but you aren’t necessarily rewarded for it. Society will quickly move on to the next thing and will lose interest as fast as they gained it.

If the broader society slowed down and listened to music and appreciated it for its sophistication, cleverness, investment, etc. we would see more attention to detail and breakthroughs in popular music.

Truth in advertising, I do play guitar, and I recall having sessions with folks just listening to music and jamming for hours at a time. My dad spoke of similar experiences in the 60s and 70s when folks would sit around and listen to albums from beginning to end. They appreciated good music — and I believe that’s why mainstream music generally had more quality then than it does today.

Musicians still exist, listen to music and make quality music. It's just not being filtered through A&R men deciding what's hot at the same rate.

 

[Jonathan Assbutt Jr.]

No offense, but I'm pretty sick of the "come to me" shtick that seems to be infecting every facet of our society and culture.

Oh come on. My point is that with time good music tends to bubble up and become known. Could it be that I have to look harder? Yes and no. I'm not tapped in enough that short term I'll be discovering everything good that's out there. I'll readily admit that.

But for rock music... over 10 to 15 years you expect the really good memorable stuff to have reached the surface.

It doesn't seem to be surfacing. That's my problem.

If you want to ride into oldmandom on the same horse as those that came before you, you have my blessing.

Yeah, that supports my contention that some people are happy to settle for less because... new.

I'm not that way. I have standards and will just explore other stuff. (there's always some "new to me" work to be discovered from yesteryear)

I think the late great Norm MacDonald made a great observation relevant to our discussion:



I'm saying we're not minting as many would be classics, especially where rock is concerned. Time isn't evidencing them.

 

[bleedsorange01]

Musicians still exist, listen to music and make quality music. It's just not being filtered through A&R men deciding what's hot at the same rate.

Absolutely. I’m commenting more on the difference between the overall decline in quality of mainstream music across the generations…. And those A&R men are going to promote what folks want to hear….

 

[Jonathan Assbutt Jr.]

Absolutely. I’m commenting more on the difference between the overall decline in quality of mainstream music across the generations….

One elucidating question about a given song that's popular mainstream wise is whether or not it will be remembered and loved in 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 etc years.

No doubt there were plenty of mainstream top 10, top 100 songs from yesteryear that aren't remembered today... but there were plenty that have stood the test of time.

How many songs like that do we have in the last 10 years?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Oh come on. My point is that with time good music tends to bubble up and become known. Could it be that I have to look harder? Yes and no. I'm not tapped in enough that short term I'll be discovering everything good that's out there. I'll readily admit that.

But for rock music... over 10 to 15 years you expect the really good memorable stuff to have reached the surface.

It doesn't seem to be surfacing. That's my problem.



Yeah, that supports my contention that some people are happy to settle for less because... new.

I'm not that way. I have standards and will just explore other stuff. (there's always some "new to me" work to be discovered from yesteryear)

I think the late great Norm MacDonald made a great observation relevant to our discussion:



I'm saying we're not minting as many would be classics, especially where rock is concerned. Time isn't evidencing them.

If you can see the future, why don't you help a guy out?

I'm getting sick of working and would be happy to sift through the stuff you and norm don't want to so you dont have to be encumbered by are that is less than the absolute pinnacle of achievement according to everyone.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Absolutely. I’m commenting more on the difference between the overall decline in quality of mainstream music across the generations…. And those A&R men are going to promote what folks want to hear….

There were an army of big band listeners saying the same thing when rock and roll pushed them aside.

Ob-la-di, ob-la-da...and aging people lament the loss of the past and insist nothing can ever top it. Meanwhile the solid gold oldies beloved by many a dead folk for decades have been pushed aside for Pearl Jam and the rest of the 80s and 90s on nostalgia radio.

As Sonny and Cher once said, and the beat goes on.

 

[Jonathan Assbutt Jr.]

If you can see the future, why don't you help a guy out?

I'm getting sick of working and would be happy to sift through the stuff you and norm don't want to so you dont have to be encumbered by are that is less than the absolute pinnacle of achievement according to everyone.

I'm saying we've had time, a decade plus for rock, such that the good stuff should've bubbled up.

What Zappa was saying, and what you seem to be saying is that people forget all the bad stuff and remember all the good stuff. It filters over time.

I'm saying the time has occurred. At some point you have to be able to point to something.

I don't think we're minting as many rock classics. (granted, some genres are doing better than rock)

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I'm saying we've had time, a decade plus for rock, such that the good stuff should've bubbled up.

What Zappa was saying, and what you seem to be saying is that people forget all the bad stuff and remember all the good stuff. It filters over time.

I'm saying the time has occurred. At some point you have to be able to point to something.

I don't think we're minting as many rock classics. (granted, some genres are doing better than rock)

I hear you, what im saying is your opinion is the same opinion as was expressed in My Generation and unless you recapture some of the adventurous spirit of your youth, you won't be able to dig what new musicians s-s-s-say.

Nothing stays at the top forever, that doesn't mean Angine de Poitrine or Kurt Vile aren't doing some very cool stuff.

 

[Torbee]

And then rock just died.

Check out Wet Leg - preferably YouTube their live set at Coachella. Shreds.

 

[Torbee]

Sorry... missed this.

I appreciated the pylon.

 

[TrooneyLoons]

The best non-Pixies Black Francis song.