Sorry but the whole 1990s Music makes me cringe

personally, I don't care for much past 1980, so I get it. gotta be careful what you criticize on here though, they'll attack you

 

How the heck did you come up with 1982?

 

That's silly, people criticize music all the time here without getting attacked. Admittedly, I think it's kind of dumb to say a whole decade of music makes you cringe, but there's not much attacking here, is there?.

 

guess it depends on who sees it

 

What does that mean? Do you have examples? I'm sure it happens, but doesn't seem to be as prevalent as you make it sound.

 

It's all in the way you go about criticizing something. Many people do not have very good communication skills, and think it's fine to just blurt out whatever is on their mind without giving any thought to how what they say is percieved by others. Maybe that's how their parents were. Maybe they have a personality disorder. Maybe they think it's unmanly to be diplomatic. Only they can answer that.

 

I kind of used to hate the 90s but I now realize the late 90s were incredible time for pop/rock.

 

Tori Amos, NIN, Nirvana and Radiohead got me through high school. Even if I can't objectively state that it's amazing music, it's amazing to me.

 

Have you considered looking for music outside the mainstream?

 

I certainly wouldn't attack anyone for stating their preferences, but I still do think it's funny, categorically dismissing entire decades.

That might work. Or not, depending on what kind of music he's into and would be looking for. Of course, we could look at his posts or something and find out a bit. But why? If he ever decides he's so inclined he can do his own research easily enough.

 

Or they do it because it is the internet, and they don't have to actually look at others in the face.

 

The Black Crowes and Oasis are two of our all time favorite bands.

By the way we probed your head two weeks ago and found nothing wrong.

 

That requires too much effort and would give him nothing to bitch about.

 

I think there has been evolution in rock music since the end of the 1990's. I think that the indie rock of the present is characterized by a gradual shift away from the heavy, distorted-guitar rock music typical of grunge and its aftermath, toward a lighter, livelier, more dynamic sound. I also think there's been some interesting rock music in the past few years that's been influenced by contemporary pop, some of which has led to out-and-out hits (Fun's "We Are Young", Foster the People's "Pumped Up Kicks"). There has also been a lot of rock music in the new century that I think has been very much experimental, such as Sigur Ros, TV on the Radio, and These New Puritans (and I'd love to add Tune-Yards and Julia Holter, but that might be stretching the definition of rock).

What there hasn't been is are big, fast, disruptive changes in rock music that produces change of wide scope throughout the genre. That might be because rock music itself has become more fragmented--it's hard to create sweeping change in a genre when it seems like everyone in its audience is listening to something different. I also don't think there's been a sense that the changes in rock music over the past fifteen years have represented progress (which the term "evolution" might suggest). Not that they've represented a step backward, either. It's more that change has led to novel, original, and good contributions to a catalog of rock music that already has a lot of good music in it from the past decades. I actually think that's a better way to think of art, and rock music in particular.

 

I'll agree to the experimental comment -- I spent a good decade or so not listening to 'the happening stuff' around the turn of the century before getting back into the rock thing. Although both Sigur Ros and TV On the Radio are bands that I couldn't connect to (on more of an emotional level than a sonic one), I support your basic pretext -- the changes are smaller in scope due to the fragmentation that defines (or lack of) the market. I'd use the term 'post-rock' right now, except post-rock is also a micro genre in itself.

As for your thoughts on evolution, I guess this is what we have to accept now. There might be musicians that move the ball forward somewhat, and that movement is very subjective. It's almost like everything gets forced into a more (classic) underground mode, where word of mouth (like in those xeroxed 'zine days of yore) is the only way to find out what may've happened already. At least we have ways of hearing some kind of file sample nowadays to see if anyone's subjective reality is a good match for yours....

 

My Bloody Valentine's stature has grown, too (and if there's any band that deserves to be described as a wall of guitar and drums...great phrase, by the way). I agree that the heavy-guitar '90s alternative sound hasn't aged very well, but I also think that especially good examples of that sound--such as MBV, or Nirvana--hold up as strongly as they were received in their time.

 

It's not funny. It's sad.

And in that case, what I said still applies.

 

I just listened to Nirvana's In Utero today. The best part...the drums.

 

If you can't find something you like in any decade, you're lazy and not looking hard enough.

 

I've been on a Nevermind kick lately, and I've obsessively played tracks like Drain You and On A Plain over the last few weeks. That Dave Grohl fella has a future behind those skins, eh?

 

The Las
Supergrass
Belle and Sebastian
Teenage Fanclub
Matthew Sweet
Jason Falkner
Eric Matthews
The Stairs
Cotton Mather
Michael Head and the Strands
etc

I think it was the GREATEST decade for music, just very little good chartwise

 

If you dislike any particular decade of music you just aren't listening to the right stuff.

 

Talking about musical quality in terms of decades and years is almost always lazy hackery and a bizarre form of temporal tribalism — and the absolute worse is when this dopey thinking is used to go negative. It seems to be getting worse on the forum, this fetishizing of 12-month and 10-year chunks of time, and the declaration of cut-off points and pinpointing when it all was great and when it all went south. Preferences are great, but the associated put-downs suck.

Obviously it's fascinating to explore how trends and styles and movements in a given period rise and crest and fade, and then get revived and mashed-up later on. But invidious nostalgia — time-period loyalty that's compelled to condemn supposedly inferior time periods — just bugs the bejesus out of me!

This x 1000

 

Let's not forget the 90s were the decade that brought us the Loudness War. Shoddy across the board mastering makes it a little more complicated than just "finding the good music that's out there".

 

I'm two years older than you and I disagree. It was a great decade for me, with a lot of my favorite bands, albums and concerts. There are very few bands I discovered then that I don't still enjoy now. I definitely look back on the 90's with more fond nostalgia than I do either of the last two decades, although there have been plenty of great albums released between now and then.

For me, the 90's represented the last age of innocence, to a degree, in that the Internet was relatively still a new thing for the latter half of the decade, and file sharing sites didn't exist (yet). If you wanted to hear an album, you had to wait for it to be released, and buy it. People still bought music by the boatload, too, and artists could still sell millions of records, and have multiple hits from from them. Record labels cared about developing their artists, and gave the the opportunity to. My perspective is that the shift in the quality of music started with the advent of the P2P sites, MP3 players, and IPods. It then became more about the "hit" song or disposable band then, and less about "albums" or lasting careers.