Did you check out the "Temple Of The Dogs" album that recently got the anniversary treatment? With Pearl Jam's "Ten" and Nirvana's "Nevermind" among the classic releases of the Grunge scene.

I'll give it a listen.
One thing I noticed this week-end is all the bands on tour playing tribute to Chris. A lot of bands playing a song of his during their shows. The big time bands like Aerosmith, U2, played tribute, but with their own songs, while the lesser known bands like Mule, Umphree's , and a bunch of others, took the time and learned and played some of his own music. Just an observation.

check out Mudhoney, another great band from the primal stages of the Seattle / Sub Pop Records scene.

their 1st two albums are great. SuperFuzzBigMuff!!

[Edited on 5/22/2017 by downsouth]

I always thought the Grunge title was such a misnomer as none of those bands actually sounded alike. Just take what would be the big 4...

Soundgarden and Alice In Chains were basically metal bands.

Nirvana was a punk band.

Pearl Jam was a hard rock band.

None of those four bands sound anything like the other, but someone had to label the movement so they got grunge.

I agree that the Temple of the Dog album is essential listening for Cornell... Plus check out Mike McCready's solo on Reach Down.

Agreed, WarEagleRK.

I think the attitude / lyrics / appearance was more the "movement" than any shared musical sound. That was what differed from the guitar rock that came before it.

I do think early Nirvana and early Soundgarden (AND Mudhoney) did go for a raw, nasty sound, with some harsh vocals and buzzy guitar that were very different from the more polished and even virtuosic guitar rock of the late 80s. Those have kind of a shared spirit. The albums "Bleach" and "Ultramega OK" are caustic. It ain't no Dickey Betts!

Pearl Jam, STP, and Alice in Chains always sounded very polished to me.

Although I appreciate grunge, I was never a big fan when it came out and feel the same way to this day.

Curious if musicians are receptive to the term "grunge". Is it like "southern rock", where clearly some bands embrace the categorization more than others?

I moved to Seattle in January 1990. I was so busy with my career that I never gave the genre a fair shot. Now that I have some of the individual artists within the bands are ultra-talented but I never found many of the songs melodic enough to capture me. I actually really like 6 or 7 Hole songs from Cobain's wife's band.

Mike McCready from Pearl Jam is an awesome guitar player. Cornell an unreal singer. Several very good songwriters that are still at it. Mark Lanegan from the Screaming Trees is a prolific songwriter and puts a lot of albums out. Very much Roots music now.

Sorry but when I think of grunge, I think of :

I always thought the Grunge title was such a misnomer as none of those bands actually sounded alike.

Early on I think "grunge" meant the kind of thing the Melvins and the very early Seattle bands were playing, and later on it got applied to most of the major alternative acts even though they evolved into bands with big differences. But there were major points in common. A lot of the key musicians were Gen Xers from from the Pacific Northwest, and they were inspired by late '70s hard rock (Zeppelin, Sabbath) and punk (Stooges, MC5) - with Beatles influences that emerged later - and the music was dominated by feelings of alienation from the Morning in America society of the period and was deliberately aggressive and unpolished in contrast to the slicker pop and New Jack Swing and relatively radio-safe rock and hair metal of the day. And JimSheridan is right that a lot of the earlier stuff, like Bleach and Soundgarden's first few albums, sound more similar than their later stuff.

Curious if musicians are receptive to the term "grunge". Is it like "southern rock", where clearly some bands embrace the categorization more than others?

The use of grunge seemed to fade away after Kurt Cobain died and those bands got lumped into the much larger idea of alternative. I think every group of bands that get lumped together end up thinking the idea of their genre is bullshit because they weren't trying to do the same thing. They shared influences and a lot of them played together and toured together but from their point of view I think it all sort of just happened and then the rest of it is a marketing angle.

Never really latched on to it. I liked some songs here and there but never was a really a big fan of one of those bands. Maybe Soundgarden I would turn an ear to , but that was about it. Never understood Pearl Jam and still don't. I cant see the appeal, but that's probably a "me " thing.

I always wanted to hear Chris do something more in the realm of a traditional rock band. SG and AS were a little out of those areas.

I thought Audioslave was a very good band and had some strong material.