Some female singers-songwriters from the 90's ended up having a bitter-sweet recall for their work then, i.e. they achieved their biggest success and that was all there was. Meredith Brooks was one such case despite the fact she had more to offer than many assumed at the time. Then again, her example causes us to ask ourselves an important question – how come some musicians manage to get a career out of their hits, whereas some ended up with them as the biggest hurdle? No one can answer that completely, the record labels attempt to do so, yet they merely destroyed many players this way. To return to Brooks – she was a peculiar example thanks to her achieving her success so late and the ageism in the music industry remains present. Then again, she also sounded way too similar to many.

Way too many female singer-songwriters of the 90's were grouped together despite each of them having their own peculiarities that did not really overlap. I mean, what does, for instance, Shawn Colvin had in common with most of her peers? Don't consider this to be a provocation, I'm merely pointing out that many women musicians were banded together for no apparent reason. To return to Shawn Colvin – she reminds me of the 90's version of Juice Newton. I don't think that suggests much commonality with, say, Lisa Loeb, though the media put them together in a neat box without actually hearing what they had to say about that. I agree, one didn't notice this problem at the time, the issue became more apparent much later on.

A lot of female singer-songwriters of the 90's achieved their biggest triumphs in the period and that eventually became that. Paula Cole, for instance, had a successful period during the 90's that petered out after that time. True, she wasn't the only one of her peers with this fate – check the introductory statement to this post –, yet the reasons why differ from one to another. Paula Cole – this is my personal view – intended to have a different career than the one she actually got. I mean, her records do not lack in prowess, they're fine, they struggle to find an identity for her. While she did locate the latter recently, I keep asking myself – would she have been more accepted, had she had that during the 90's?

Many female singer-songwriters of the 90's made an impact that could have consequently derailed them. For instance, Lisa Loeb was one of those whose surprising success could've destroyed her, yet she did manage to make an intriguing career that – to be honest – could've been more adventurous. Still, she didn't let herself be defined by that, though I must admit she did challenge herself more often after the 90's. Then again, would the era even let her that? Firecracker, to give you an example, might be the best case for her 90's after her triumphs – sure, the disc is way too polished for her genre, but she keeps some of her idiosyncrasies present. Should she have been braver then? She could, though would the scene have cherished that?

Which one of the 90's female singer-songwriters continues to exemplify the period? I'm unsure about the answer here, yet I would dare to suggest Sheryl Crow. She's basically one of the epitomes of the scene I discuss, though the question might be what that was. No, she wasn't a popstar in the vein of Madonna, but she also couldn't be understood as an alternative rock player. She was – my view – being an overlap between these two crowds, because her tunes were hits, yet few felt bad for liking them. True, this is an example of tautology from my side, though the 90's still had this rockism crap prevalent in the critical thinking at the time. One could claim Sheryl Crow could be seen as one of those who challenged that notion.

Both Natalie Merchant and Melissa Etheridge were successful, but they didn't really fit the image of the 90's. The same can be said for Indigo Girls. True, they did follow the folk leanings, which were cherished at the time, yet they didn't surface them, they actually went really deep in the idiom, so one can be surprised to hear they sold a lot. Yes, these were the 90's, where many niches ended up becoming mainstream, but the duo does seem like an outlier in comparison to the prevailing mood of the 90's, which favoured the eclecticism up to a certain point Indigo Girls stepped over. While they haven't gone all Scott Walker on their listeners, they also didn't give us just the lighter versions of their idols for a quick buck.

Melissa Etheridge means something. She represents a set of musicians that achieved a lot in one period, though the later histories of the latter ignore her. Natalie Merchant, for instance, is similar, i.e. she got her biggest successes like Mrs. Etheridge during the 90's, but was she really in tune with the times? Actually, I would say her and Mrs. Etheridge were closer to the zeitgeist than grunge – the latter became easily modified in post-grunge for a reason –, since they were both heavily eclectic in their influences with their opuses following that. While we can agree both of them made some great albums, we also have to admit many took the wrong lessons from them. I mean, the tune on the link could be seen as a template for the soundtrack cuts of your usual prime time dramas.

Rick Parashar was a lot of things to many musicians as we can glean from our illustrious discussions on the players he worked with, but I would suggest he molded the 90's. To be honest, him being connected with the period and those that took the wrong lessons from them should've meant he probably worked with a lot of musicians in the vein of Melissa Etheridge, whose biggest career break occurred in the period Parashar made his name. Sadly, he didn't work with any of them that much, he only helmed Melissa Etheridge's Lucky, which is not a bad album – some parts there are quite good –, yet you keep thinking how him producing her work in the 90's would've sounded like. Then again, were Mrs. Etheridge and her peers really close to the alternative rock of the time.

Rick Parashar remodelled himself during the noughts as a link to the grunge for the musicians that wished to emulate the genre without really getting the brand comprehended. Check Juke Karter, since they are generically noughts rock, though they are from Australia, which should've given them some edge. However, they even diluted that by sounding like their influences without completely understanding what makes them work. I agree, I may be tough on them, because there are some moments, where you can hear the best possible version of the collective, yet that gets lost in the overproduced shine that might have given them a chance to appear in the end credits of a romantic comedy from the time, starring a couple of persons that wished to spend their lucky breaks on easy money.

Rick Parashar's production career reminds me about the connections between the genres of post-grunge and grunge, though he didn't tackle all the derived styles. For instance, I'm surprised he didn't produce many nu metal musicians, his production style and his connection with Pearl Jam would have served them well. Then again, some great material would also be nice like in the case of Stereomud. Trust me, I am aware this sounds harsh, though listen to the group, which does sound a bit too generic for the period, the latter really had way too many generic rockers. To be honest, both nu metal and post-grunge suffered from this, i.e. many groups sounded so similar to one another. Why didn't any of these at least tried to break the mold?

Rick Parashar serves as one of the major links between the styles of post-grunge and grunge, he was their bridge. Thus, I'm unsurprised he worked with some bands that followed the footsteps of another. For instance, he helmed Default's debut, which sounds like Nickelback and there's a reason for that – they were at a certain point their semi-proteges, since Chad Kroeger – either Parashar asked him or he went there himself – spent some time in the studio with them. Of course, they sound generically noughts with their rock being close to the watered down post-grunge, which does sound weird. I mean, that genre was already a light version of grunge, so this is, what, a xerox of a xerox? Mind you, I don't have many issues with the style, I just believe the brand offered more adventures.

Rick Parashar seemed to cheer for alternative rock, but he did move outside this genre too. I mean, he helmed Have A Nice Day by Bon Jovi. Then again, the latter might not be anyone's favourite record by them. The disc does have some nice moments that surprise us, though we must state this – the band was at that point an institution and these rarely try to go outside their comfort zone, so them looking in that direction should be applauded. However, they don't stick the landing, but I have a theory – some huge musicians become heavily analytical about their success after a while, which can influence all their decision, including their risks. You see, these appear to be more calculated with them than free, which is why they sound weird. Yes, they try, yet they try too hard.

Nickelback deserve their own chapter in the book on Rick Parashar's career. I mean, he did collaborate with them more times, including the occasion of their tune for soundtrack of the Scorpion King, which might be the most EXTREME example of the early noughts rock. Actually, think of that – how much of the latter could be seen as something Parashar achieved? True, he didn't helm many records in that vein, yet those he did sold a lot, which meant – he either had a taste for zeitgeist or he brought something special out of the musicians that he produced. For instance, the production he did with Nickelback differs from his job on Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains, since he somehow made their edges smoother on the Canadian group.

Rick Parashar basically made grunge a successful genre. Moreover, he also helmed Nickelback's breakthrough, which – hear me out – does make sense. Many post-grunge bands reaped the rewards of their predecessors without paying their debt to them, but Nickelback are smarter than that – trust me, they are. The fact they asked Rick Parashar does confirm my view that they are the Eagles to Pearl Jam's Creedence, if you catch my drift. They did water down the original soundscapes, correct, yet they added some of their own peculiarities – Stereogum does describe them better than I could – that went unnoticed. While they did some things right, I get why they are hated, i.e. they rarely surprised us since then, they settled into their groove way too much.

Ten by Pearl Jam have a person in the credit we have met before – Rick Parashar. He could be seen as one of the sonic architects of the modern alternative rock thanks to him helming the debut by one of the grunge masters, which is why I'm surprised he didn't work more with Pearl Jam's peers. Sure, he did collaborate with Alice In Chains, yet he only helmed an EP by them. Then again, the latter did establish the group and the genre's versatility. Sap might be a proof that the idiom can be more than what the image provided, because the group makes some surprising choices they sadly didn't develop much later on. To be honest, they're not the only ones in their brand with these problems, way too many succumbed to the formulas instead of being willing to stretch them.

The records that transcend their periods tend to make their musicians famous, but they also give them a roadmap towards a certain type of a self-destruction thanks to these LPs' immense successes. Well, Pearl Jam did define their era with Ten, but they still exist well, so we cannot claim this rule applies to all. Then again, Pearl Jam were always an outlier in their scene, since they were closer to classic rock than most of their peers. You are correct, the latter did listen to the genre, yet they rarely used the idiom in the same vein as Pearl Jam. Thus, they did achieve sounding like the group of their time, while they also gazed outside that. I mean, the only thing that might date Ten is the production, though that just might be me.