Sorry but the whole 1990s Music makes me cringe

I've found only a very tiny handful of music to enjoy from the "Nuthin' Nineties". But yet it's not music that resonates or that means anything to me, in retrospect. The decade of The 'Zeroes is another matter entirely... virtually no music I can think of that I care about from 2000 - 2014. (Well, in 2013 I did discover an artist named Jenny-O, whom nobody else ever seems to have heard of... I bought her new album "Automechanic" but haven't yet played it in its entirety).

 

Now, those of you that find nothing of interest in the 90s, is it because you want music that sounds the same as what you already listen to?

I know a large majority of you are at the age where what appeals to you most is the familiar. You're not looking for new and different. Why do you think of the most prevalent modern music thread is the one looking for bands or singers emulating the past? And you wonder why we hear the tired argument against modern music around here that it isn't original or that it's been done before. Maybe if you stopped limiting your scope of modern music to clones of the past you wouldn't have that problem.

 

I loved the 90's, some great runs from FLA,Delerium,242,Puppy, BiGod20,A Split Second,TKK etc...

 

And this is kind of a sad testimony. When I think of how little music I'd heard at that age compared to today, I can't imagine my taste not evolving and finding a whole lot of things I like better than what I liked then, both new and old. Really, how much music did you know when you were 16?

 

You're half right. There's heavy nostalgia for "old sounding" or "retro" music, but another thing is - the people you're referring to always complain if it sounds like the old stuff. So, if it's "retro" it's a rehash. If it's new, it's too foreign sounding and not like the old stuff.

You can't win with these types.

 

Well, there is some truth to it, though. I'd put the ages more from 18 to 30 or so, though, with some variance. That's not to say that since I'm a bit past that now I don't ever listen to any different music, I do. But there's just a time in your life when you have the time and energy (among other things) to dedicate to things like music, and later on it's a bit different. To be honest, it's not realistic to expect an older guy to have the same depth of knowledge of certain types of music from the 90's and 00's that I do. The same way, if I haven't heard many bands in the past 5 or so years to knock off my all-timers, I'm not thinking it's that humanity had a meeting and decided to stop making good music, I'm pretty sure it's me. And that's cool.

So, I don't really blame anybody for not liking '90's music' (whatever is meant by that exactly), per se. I do think it's pretty funny, though, how sure some of them are that the great musicians' union was on strike that decade or something.

 

I wonder how big OP's music collection is and what type of music it consists of. I think there lies the answer. All music released between 1990 and 1999 worldwide sucked? C'mon, man!

 

1950s to mid 1970s is the way to go!

The 1970s is when music started to go downhill. Why? Because music was becoming more about looks than it was talent and hard work. The latter part of the 1970s was more about flashy clothes and concerts while the 60s and before was about raw talent.

Just look at Michael Jackson, arguably the biggest pop star of the 80s. Look at what he wore and did. On stage and in music videos, he was performing all those fancy dance moves and wearing all those fancy clothes. Invoking attention because of how he looked rather than raw talent.

 

I revisited a great album today from 1994..Live's "Throwing Copper" and man it still sounds good to me!

 

Could you possibly use a broader brush, please? This analysis is far too complex for me.

 

You just going to have to figure it out buddy

 

Don't have to. I could name hundreds of bands/artists from the 80s not fitting your stereotype, but I know there's no point.

 

You sound a little offended. Sorry if I hurt your feelings

 

Are you? But don't worry, I'm fine. I'm just tired of reading the same oversimplified arguments over and over again.

 

Glad to know that you're okay

 

I've heard very little '90s music. Most of the artists mentioned in this threaed are just names to me. Ditto noughties music. Tori Amos isn't bad. The Orb were okay.

 

But the biggest acts from the early 70s and 60s were so about image. You think the Doors' and Led Zeppelin's success wasn't about looks and image and concerts? What about Elvis? He wasn't about looks and image? Who are you kidding? All about raw talent indeed. If it was all about raw talent then it would have been other acts that were the biggest.

 

Nah. I can assure you that preferring music of an earlier is much less to do with nostalgia and much more to do with having a preference for great music.

As I stated earlier in the thread I am 38 years old, so '90s music is my era, and I ought to be waxing nostalgic about it's greatness. But overall it did nada for me - barren soul-less derivative garbage without a soul. A complete waste of time to listen to.

At the same time, the music of artists from the 50s, 60s, early 70s - before I was born - was blowing my mind every time I discovered them: Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Buddy Holly, early Genesis, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Miles, Bob Dylan, 'Krautrock', singer-songwriters, The Doors, Beach Boys, Byrds, Yes, Zappa...I can go on and on and on - are you guys seriously trying to assert (like many did back in the 90s!!) that your beloved favourites from the '90s that you are nostalgically hanging on to is in the same friggin' ballpark?
C'mon!!

Oh and quoting great Neil Young or some other older artist's album as a testament to the greatness of the nineties seems to reinforce my understanding that the vast majority of decent to great 90s music was not made by 90s artists!

 

Yes I know exactly what you're saying. Image has and will always be a thing. What I am trying to get at, is that around the mid to late 1970s it became MORE about image than raw talent. Artists from the 1960s and earlier were more about talent and hard work. Concerts and music videos weren't NEARLY as elaborate. Clothes weren't as flashy, there weren't millions of bright, colorful lights at concerts.

You cannot deny the massive amount of fads that came about because of 1980s pop artists. Things like big hair, dance moves, etc. MJ doing the moon walk. You name it

 

Wow.

I can certainly respect an argument that goes along the lines of "the best 60s music people aren't aware of: bands like Pretty Things, Velvet Underground, Love plus numerous garage bands never get their due" - because I love a lot of it myself, but to state that The Doors/Led Zeppelin/Elvis's success was largely down to image just makes me laugh, sorry.
I was'nt there, but listening to these artists singles/most well known tracks on my stereo in 2014 is always an invigorating experience, exciting, thrilling, etc. etc. I can only imagine how awesome it must have been to hear this as new music on the radio back in the day. That's why I think ultimately people bought this stuff in droves, not because of the cool hair of Zep/Doors or Elvis's make-up!

 

Remarkable, the less people know about the music of the 80's, 90's and the 00's, the funnier seems their remarks about those decades. You are aware you're only talking about mainstream music? Never heard of the important, more, underground music (e.g post-punk, shoegaze and most britpop and indie) of those decades? There was especially the creative talent and hard working to find!

 

I have been talking about pop music since I first posted. If I don't specify any underground genre, I am referring to what was popular, mainstream. It's kind of understood that when you're talking about music in general, you're talking about popular music, not underground.

 

What about The Smithereens or Tom Petty? Please tell me you have a soul....

 

Tom Petty is a 1970s artist...

 

Exactly. While I cannot speak for Led Zeppelin, because I am not a huge fan, the Doors and Elvis had real, undeniable talent. Singing and writing. While Elvis was a good-looking guy, and he did a few dance moves, you didn't see him in any stupid makeup anything like that