"My Chemical Romance is this generation's Nirvana"

Another question is what does "this generation's Nirvana" mean?

I have no idea what this means either! Does she mean they're a band that are changing the greater musical landscape or does she simply mean that they're important to angsty kids? Or both? I don't geddit.

i suppose the more subjective answer is that many music hacks still see pop and rock music as essentially 'youth' forms, not without reason, really, and that youth phenomena are important, a sign of the times. probably this is because more music obsessives are teenagers than 35-year-olds.

One thing about Nirvana I suppose is that yer old buggers were into them way before yer 16-year olds knew who they were. Is this her point? I don't know!

Also, at the time Tad were the media tip for the big act to come out of Sub Pop.

I don't really recall this, but I wasn't really paying that much attention. Was this on the evidence of God's Balls vs. Bleach? 'Behemoth' was good, but not that good, IIRC. Anyhow Mudhoney would've been the obvious choice to me, but it's nice thinking about a planet where Tad released Nevermind. If only Dave Geffen had listened to that demo of 'Smells Like Beef Dripping'...

If u/grl'z "it's yoof, you oldies don't understand" blather is true w/r/2 MCR's audience, then I don't see the comparison, & I bet she's just tossing it out b/c she knows it'll annoy some Cobain=godhead type ppl.

(blethering about the innate musical & rocking superiority of Mudhoney to any of this shit ruthlessly excised)

I saw them on the same tour, and yeah, that was what the crowd were like. Later on, it was more of your grebo-lite Neds types. But certainly not kids.

Yay! Oh wait...

MCR might not fare as well in the retrospective critical opinion, but does that matter to their core fanbase? I mean, look at the NME readers in the UK -- they think that there's some canon with Arctic Monkeys and this Pete Doherty stuff near the top! That sounds like kids thinking they're living in some crucial moment to me.

Pash, OTM It wasn't until the deification of Cobains death in the late 90's that the angsty kid's became their core audience.

these seem to be the four things that made nirvana the nirvana of their generation: loved by the kids, loved by the non-kids, enjoyed by the critics, suicide.

x-post the children of rich white people?

I accept My Chemical Romance. I think they are totally relevant for 2006, but certainly won't be remembered that way in, say, 2010. They write OK rock songs that are pretty fun now, but won't be much more than nostalgia in the longrun. MCR is this generation's Bush.

(xpost x 3)

Or maybe not.

ok grandad.

xpost

the children of white people?

My whole investigation was largely based on working with a 19-year-old metalhead whose description of the rock world was largely foreign to me, even when he talked about "indie" and pop-rock kids; he knew a lot about music, but the set of things that mattered to him and the lineages he saw in them were completely non-canonical. Unfortunately after a few months of listening the main thing I would up listening to a lot was Nightmare of You, who just sound like Morrissey.

In the UK, MCR have thus far had four Top 40 singles, none of which has climbed higher than #19, and one Top 40 album which spent one week at #34. So in British terms, "we" need to grapple with them about as much as we need to grapple with Dave Matthews or Phish or Hamilton, Joe Frank and Reynolds.

too funny...

Soundgarden, Primus, Alice in Chains -- these are 90s rock acts that "everyone" listened to, but none of them hold much critical sway anymore. Even assuming that MCR wind up in that category, don't critics benefit from knowing what Soundgarden, Primus, and Alice in Chains were about?

Further complication: part of why bands like that don't "hold critical sway" is that we ignore the people for whom they were formative -- people, so far as I can tell, in nu-metal acts. Same probably goes for the Get Up Kids.

????
Nickelback (sadly) sound more like Nirvana than Poison or Ratt!

Yes, if only to avoid having to "grapple" with them. We were too busy here drooling over transient novelty American acts like Jeff Buckley, Wu-Tang Clan, Will Oldham, DJ Shadow, etc.

Yeah, you find out that Godsmack isn't as original as you thought.

I would agree that if you have pretensions toward "big picture" criticism, then you should at least be familiar with someone like MCR. But that doesn't mean you have to buy into Ultragrrrl's premise that you have to believe they are central to music.

which I suppose they historically haven't.

?!?

Chris OTM.

Without Nirvana, there'd be no MCR. Without MCR there'll be no...?

And isn't Pfork the "young critical establishment"? They seem to care about MCR in roughly the same measure that they care about CCR.

"plenty of stuff by people whose fans are *younger*"

and

"half as fun or catchy as Poison or Ratt"

Also, somebody should force Ultragrrrl to read this:

Rolling Teenpop 2006 Thread

North America has scores of Mallcore/emo bands that are covered by
Alternative Press
http://www.altpress.com/

In the UK they aren't many of these type of bands, e.g the awful "Funeral for a Friend" have had a slice of commercial success.

Maybe becuse Teenpop ROCKS more than Teenrock does? (Just a thought.)