Favourite Decade of Music

[murrich]

Which is your favourite?

[phil19]

prob 90's its when i was first getting into music

[IWasaCamera]

60s or 70s depending on the day I answer. Today, 70s.

[murrich]

60's and 70's are pretty close for me, but 60's wins out.

They have Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Leonard Cohen, The Beach Boys, The Velvet Underground, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, The Zombies, the list goes on.

[Metal Now]

80s all the way. Who doesn't love a-ha?

[denissuxx]

00's

[domotime2]

music has never been so bland and borring as it is in the 00s. perhaps the 80s.

ill go 90s/70s/60s/00s/80s

[lindZ629]

As a whole, probably the 70s, but some of my favorite bands have come from the 90s.

[fanberlinboy]

My favorite is the 00's because most of the stuff I listen to is current, but the most influential/important was easily the 50s and 60s.

[n1asfan]

I feel like every decade has it's "classics" but the 00's has the best music by a long shot.

[MickShamrock]

The majority of the music I enjoy is from the 00's.

[spunkmastaflex]

I really like newer music, so i picked 00's

[Jennifer3892]

I think each decade gave us some really amazing artists that shaped alot of the music today.I love them all but if I had to pick I would have to say 80's for personal reasons..but I am really liking the 00's right now!

[Yellowcard2006]

All of my favorite albums are from the '00's

[IWasaCamera]

Shocker.

[MyWorldEntire]

60s>70s>00s>90s>80s>50s

[MyWorldEntire]

Shocker.

Could be worse, at least the poll isn't asking: "Which decade had the best music?"

[IWasaCamera]

It'd likely result in the same outcome. People have tremendous difficulty separating their notions of quality and preference.

[MyWorldEntire]

Hence why I have the 2000's over the 80's and 90's haha.

[IWasaCamera]

Ha, no worries. I'm not too keen on the 80s either save for a handful of releases.

[jviraldo]

90's popular music was at least tolerable. Unlike most of the crap on the radio today.

[IWasaCamera]

Why are you judging the merits of a decade on the strength of pop music?

[michattack]

I feel like every decade has it's "classics" but the 00's has the best music by a long shot.

this.

[IWasaCamera]

Except it's entirely wrong.

[SanePsychotic]

I like the 90s, though second for me would probably be 50s jazz.

[briewer]

90's, because:

http://dkpresents.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/radiohead_ok_computer1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TAmJfI_wjJA/SIoucEmzLSI/AAAAAAAAAX4/uxg2JYXc-mA/s400/The%2520Soft%2520Bulletin.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QohZg_vj3f0/Sdq_ASYm_RI/AAAAAAAAAMc/8QyIIaANa9M/s400/cover.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_blslqz_M3wU/SFtKoqu6F5I/AAAAAAAAAXY/YwRIRHe2Hhg/s400/MyBloodyValentine-Loveless.jpg

/thread

[BulleTheory]

60's or 70's....you dont see epic bands like there were back then.

we have Fall Out Boy...what a shitty band to represent this generation

[IWasaCamera]

90's, because:

http://dkpresents.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/radiohead_ok_computer1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TAmJfI_wjJA/SIoucEmzLSI/AAAAAAAAAX4/uxg2JYXc-mA/s400/The%2520Soft%2520Bulletin.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QohZg_vj3f0/Sdq_ASYm_RI/AAAAAAAAAMc/8QyIIaANa9M/s400/cover.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_blslqz_M3wU/SFtKoqu6F5I/AAAAAAAAAXY/YwRIRHe2Hhg/s400/MyBloodyValentine-Loveless.jpg

/thread
Haha really?

[briewer]

Haha really?

Yes really. Are you trying to imply that any of these records are not absolute classics of their respective genres? Because if that is so, I return your insolence with an equally as sarcastic "Haha really?"

[IWasaCamera]

Yes really. Are you trying to imply that any of these records are not absolute classics of their respective genres? Because if that is so, I return your insolence with an equally as sarcastic "Haha really?"By posting "/thread", you're suggesting that 4 "absolute classics" constitutes sufficient reason for the 90s' superiority. A Love Supreme, Pet Sounds, Highway 61 Revisited, Abbey Road. There. Now I ask:
Are you trying to imply that any of these records are not absolute classics of their respective genres?

[secretsociety92]

80s>00s>70s>60s>50s

[a morning view]

music has never been so bland and borring as it is in the 00s.

Yeah, if you're listening to top 40 radio.

[briewer]

By posting "/thread", you're suggesting that 4 "absolute classics" constitutes sufficient reason for the 90s' superiority. A Love Supreme, Pet Sounds, Highway 61 Revisited, Abbey Road. There. Now I ask:

No, but I'd take my four over yours any day, or any four from any decade, hence the "/thread".

[IWasaCamera]

No, but I'd take my four over yours any day, or any four from any decade, hence the "/thread".
So by "/thread", you meant to say "these albums represent the reason for which I prefer the 90s". What an obnoxious way to go about it.

[fadedmemories]

00's

[briewer]

So by "/thread", you meant to say "these albums represent the reason for which I prefer the 90s". What an obnoxious way to go about it.

I'm pretty sure that, considering the fact that the title of the thread is "Which is your favourite decade of music?", this is the only way I could go about it. And since these four albums were released in the 90's, that pretty much ends the whole discussion for me ("/thread", if you will), Dummy.

[IWasaCamera]

I'm pretty sure that, considering the fact that the title of the thread is "Which is your favourite decade of music?", this is the only way I could go about it.
Right. Merely stating which decade you selected in a succinct manner is not a viable option.
And since these four albums were released in the 90's, that pretty much ends the whole discussion for me ("/thread", if you will), Dummy.
I do hope you realize "/thread" is employed to suggest a degree of finality; in other words, a briefer version of "no posts are necessary after mine". If your intention was just to state personal finality predicated entirely on preference as it seems you were when referring to the thread's title, that's downright ridiculous. "After my initial post, no additional ones on my part are required to express my position on this matter". No shit.

[briewer]

Right. Merely stating which decade you selected in a succinct manner is not a viable option.

Not for me it isn't, and especially when I think that the reason most of the votes are split between the 90's and 00's is because people can't decide which half of Blink 182's career they like better. You've got to find a way to separate yourself from the lowest common denominator dumbass who comes on this site and does that Lady Justice balance thing with their hands with Enema of the State in one and Take Off Your Pants And Jacket in the other. You do it by posting excessively and making your entire profile a vessel for a fairly obscure artist that most people on this site won't know in hopes that it will give you a certain aura of "knowledge" and "respect". I do it by beating people over the heads with things and being completely over the top. My post was saying,"HEY DUMMIES, BLINK SUCKS, THE 00'S SUCK, VOTE FOR THE 90'S BECAUSE OF THIS:"

I do hope you realize "/thread" is employed to suggest a degree of finality; in other words, a briefer version of "no posts are necessary after mine". If your intention was just to state personal finality predicated entirely on preference as it seems you were when referring to the thread's title, that's downright ridiculous. "After my initial post, no additional ones on my part are required to express my position on this matter". No shit.

When I said "that pretty much ends the whole discussion for me", I meant, "In my eyes, there is nothing left to be said on this topic." These four albums are from the 90's, ergo everyone should vote for the 90's. Discussion closed, everyone should go home now. At any rate, I think you're looking into the meaning of "/thread" a little too much.

[IanIsSuperRad]

I'm going to say from 1985-1995.

[DGlazier]

I feel like every decade has it's "classics" but the 00's has the best music by a long shot.

You are certainly missing out if think the 00's have had better music than the 60's and 70's.

[sundance66]

80s all the way. Who doesn't love a-ha?


yes.

[11:11]

we have Fall Out Boy...what a shitty band to represent this generation
One- Fall Out Boy isn't bad. Two- they don't "represent this generation" at all.

[IWasaCamera]

Not for me it isn't, and especially when I think that the reason most of the votes are split between the 90's and 00's is because people can't decide which half of Blink 182's career they like better. You've got to find a way to separate yourself from the lowest common denominator dumbass who comes on this site and does that Lady Justice balance thing with their hands with Enema of the State in one and Take Off Your Pants And Jacket in the other.
Why is there a need for this separation when the 90s are in fact your favorite decade? Asserting the rationale behind your choice in no way alters the end result.
You do it by posting excessively and making your entire profile a vessel for a fairly obscure artist that most people on this site won't know in hopes that it will give you a certain aura of "knowledge" and "respect".
How does listing my favorite artist constitute striving for an aura of knowledge and respect? Besides, Nick Drake is anything but obscure as a beloved artist in the music forum while Pink Moon was voted 3rd greatest folk album of all time in general. Won't even get into how renowned he is outside the narrow confines of this site.
I do it by beating people over the heads with things and being completely over the top. My post was saying,"HEY DUMMIES, BLINK SUCKS, THE 00'S SUCK, VOTE FOR THE 90'S BECAUSE OF THIS:"
Your intentions were not reflected in my interpretation whatsoever. I suspect others were just as oblivious to the purported subtext of your post as well. What I gathered was (I'll follow suit in all caps because it's fun) "HEY DUMMIES, EVERY DECADE IS INFERIOR TO THE 90S BECAUSE OF THIS". I honestly can't see how any other vantage point is presented by your initial post, particularly the one you've just posited.
When I said "that pretty much ends the whole discussion for me", I meant, "In my eyes, there is nothing left to be said on this topic." These four albums are from the 90's, ergo everyone should vote for the 90's. Discussion closed, everyone should go home now.
Why would you wish to curtail discussion simply because you enjoy the aforementioned records more than work from other decades? Those who deem the 60s and 70s superior should not allowed to voice their views because of simple preference on your part?
At any rate, I think you're looking into the meaning of "/thread" a little too much.
Not really, it's the entire focus of my gripes with your post.

[Nick Le]

All my favorites are from the 00's

[Nick Le]

90's popular music was at least tolerable. Unlike most of the crap on the radio today.

This is true.

[fueledbyvictory]

00's is my favorite, but i enjoy all of them.

[briewer]

Why is there a need for this separation when the 90s are in fact your favorite decade? Asserting the rationale behind your choice in no way alters the end result.
Because context always matters. I'm sure most of the reasons people gave for voting for the 90's are not the same as mine, and establishing that you can't scoff at my reasoning as easily as you did theirs is important (because, I'm assuming from the general feel I have of this site, most people's opinions on here are scoff-worthy). I've been on this site long enough to know that my views on music are largely at odds with the vast majority of people, so worrying about winning and losing polls is really irrelevant to what I'm saying most times in the boards.

How does listing my favorite artist constitute striving for an aura of knowledge and respect? Besides, Nick Drake is anything but obscure as a beloved artist in the music forum while Pink Moon was voted 3rd greatest folk album of all time in general. Won't even get into how renowned he is outside the narrow confines of this site.
I know how good and how well liked Drake is, and it is a shame that kids these days would rather worship faux-hawked, pierced, and tattooed up imbeciles than an actual artist such as himself. But the narrow confines of this site is the only context that matters in the point I am trying to make. People respect your opinion because you appear to worship someone that they don't know, and it gives the impression that you possess knowledge that is beyond them (which, chances are, you probably do). If you listed the Beatles and Bob Dylan also, as you did in your examples of classics, you would lose that advantage of knowing something they don't because everyone knows those two. They could just say, "The Beatles???? BOOORRiING. I'm still obviously the smartest person ever. When does the Real World start up again (I obviously have no clue what people what on tv)? Hey mom, did you wash my Hollister/Boys Like Girls/Ed Hardy (I'm covering all of my douchebag bases) shirt yet?"

Your intentions were not reflected in my interpretation whatsoever. I suspect others were just as oblivious to the purported subtext of your post as well. What I gathered was (I'll follow suit in all caps because it's fun) "HEY DUMMIES, EVERY DECADE IS INFERIOR TO THE 90S BECAUSE OF THIS". I honestly can't see how any other vantage point is presented by your initial post, particularly the one you've just posited.
"VOTE FOR THE 90'S BECAUSE OF THIS" (I wasn't about to stop the all-caps trend), implies "IT'S THE BEST DECADE, OTHERWISE I WOULDN'T ASK FOR YOU TO VOTE FOR IT, BECAUSE OF THIS" which in turn implies "EVERY DECADE IS INFERIOR TO THE 90'S BECAUSE OF THIS." I listed albums that were not released by Blink 182, so maybe it's a weak inference to "BLINK SUCKS" but it does suggest "BLINK, YOU HAD NO INFLUENCE ON THIS DECISION I JUST MADE. ALSO, THE JURY'S OUT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUCK, BUT YOUR PROSPECTS DON'T LOOK THAT GREAT."

Why would you wish to curtail discussion simply because you enjoy the aforementioned records more than work from other decades? Those who deem the 60s and 70s superior should not allowed to voice their views because of simple preference on your part?
I don't wish to curtail discussion, and the qualifying word "should" bails me out of that accusation. "Should" is a strong suggestion, and so I "strongly suggest" people to curtail their own discussion, because my evidence "strongly suggests" you're wasting your time by doing so, and it's "strongly suggested" you vote for the 90's based upon it. Ignoring my suggestions is a very viable option that won't cause me to cry or anything (no promises, though).

Not really, it's the entire focus of my gripes with your post.
Fair enough, how about we ignore the "/thread" and replace it with a "/this discussion"?

[IWasaCamera]

Because context always matters. I'm sure most of the reasons people gave for voting for the 90's are not the same as mine, and establishing that you can't scoff at my reasoning as easily as you did theirs is important (because, I'm assuming from the general feel I have of this site, most people's opinions on here are scoff-worthy). I've been on this site long enough to know that my views on music are largely at odds with the vast majority of people, so worrying about winning and losing polls is really irrelevant to what I'm saying most times in the boards.
The reasoning behind the choices is of little consequence within the premise of this thread. Oh you chose the decade on the strength of Loveless, In The Aeroplane Over The Sea, OK Computer, and The Soft Bulletin? I'd have gone with I See A Darkness, Music Has The Right To Children, Viva Last Blues, and American Water. Well...that's nice. Bottom line: we hypothetically tallied an additional two votes for the 90s.
I know how good and how well liked Drake is, and it is a shame that kids these days would rather worship faux-hawked, pierced, and tattooed up imbeciles than an actual artist such as himself. But the narrow confines of this site is the only context that matters in the point I am trying to make. People respect your opinion because you appear to worship someone that they don't know, and it gives the impression that you possess knowledge that is beyond them (which, chances are, you probably do). If you listed the Beatles and Bob Dylan also, as you did in your examples of classics, you would lose that advantage of knowing something they don't because everyone knows those two. They could just say, "The Beatles???? BOOORRiING. I'm still obviously the smartest person ever. When does the Real World start up again (I obviously have no clue what people what on tv)? Hey mom, did you wash my Hollister/Boys Like Girls/Ed Hardy (I'm covering all of my douchebag bases) shirt yet?" The logic behind this point is shoddy on two levels. The first being this site's users already enjoy Nick Drake, as I alluded to in my previous comment. The second being those you're accusing of coating their internet personas in a veneer of ostensible knowledge are usually the ones plastering The Beatles, Dylan, and countless other safe artists in their profiles.

Besides, assuming the shoes of these "faux-hawked imbeciles", I would not care less about some AP user with an avatar I don't recognize or a favorite artist I'm not familiar with. Passing judgment on one's musical "knowledge" based on ignorance (in this case, not knowing who Nick Drake is) is absurd. Do I respect some 16-year-old metalcore fan more because he can list a bevy of shitty bands I don't know? Not in the least.
"VOTE FOR THE 90'S BECAUSE OF THIS" (I wasn't about to stop the all-caps trend), implies "IT'S THE BEST DECADE, OTHERWISE I WOULDN'T ASK FOR YOU TO VOTE FOR IT, BECAUSE OF THIS" which in turn implies "EVERY DECADE IS INFERIOR TO THE 90'S BECAUSE OF THIS." I listed albums that were not released by Blink 182, so maybe it's a weak inference to "BLINK SUCKS" but it does suggest "BLINK, YOU HAD NO INFLUENCE ON THIS DECISION I JUST MADE. ALSO, THE JURY'S OUT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUCK, BUT YOUR PROSPECTS DON'T LOOK THAT GREAT." My point exactly. The slight toward Blink is tenuous at best while it effectively belittles "absolute classics" from every other decade. If you claim downplaying Blink's importance/influence was the impetus behind your post, it certainly does not manifest itself on any greater degree than that of denigrating any other act from any other period.
I don't wish to curtail discussion, and the qualifying word "should" bails me out of that accusation. "Should" is a strong suggestion, and so I "strongly suggest" people to curtail their own discussion, because my evidence "strongly suggests" you're wasting your time by doing so, and it's "strongly suggested" you vote for the 90's based upon it. Ignoring my suggestions is a very viable option that won't cause me to cry or anything (no promises, though). As I mentioned on the last page I believe, "/thread" indicates finality and given the fact that your use of that device is anchored in no more than subjective standards, I fail to see why you would "strongly suggest" others to cease discussion when they might very well intend on positing a similar opinion to yours regarding a different musical era.
Fair enough, how about we ignore the "/thread" and replace it with a "/this discussion"? Let's discuss Veckatimest. I was underwhelmed.

[tonighttonight0]

'60s. You can beat bands like Cream, the Beatles, the Who, the Beach Boys, etc.

[briewer]

Let's discuss Veckatimest. I was underwhelmed.
Yes, it was very underwhelming, but that seems to be a trend for music this year. Beyond Bromst and Wavvves, everything I've heard from this year has kind of sucked. Merriweather Post Pavilion was so disappointing (beyond "My Girls", "Guys Eyes" and "Brothersport" everything fell flat. What happened to the unpredictable, carefree/less band that released "Chores", "Winter's Love", and "The Purple Bottle"? But that's another discussion for another time), The Crying Light left me wanting way more than offered, Yesterday and Today is a hollowed-out shell of From Here We Go Sublime, Crack the Skye is Mastadon Lite, and The Pains of Being Pure At Heart is incredibly overrated. So even though I had high expectations for this, I'm not that surprised.

There are five tracks that can be salvaged from this mess: "Two Weeks" (which is superb), "Ready, Able", "About Face", "While You Wait For The Others" (which is pretty iffy itself), and "Foreground". The rest are mediocre at best, and in the case of "Dory", "Hold Still", and "I Live With You" are downright despicable. The tacked on line "oh such a riot" in "Dory" is so putrid it makes me want to barf (leave shit like that to Coldplay and U2, you guys are better than that), that piercing guitar riff on "Hold Still" is nauseating and makes the 2:23 track sound like it goes on for years, and "I Live With You" just doesn't make any sense, the parts and progression are just kind of there with no meaning or purpose. The other four tracks are very forgettable and possess filmsy structuring. "Southern Point" isn't bad, it just isn't cut out to be a leadoff track and doesn't sound like a Grizzly Bear song. More like a song by Spoon that Grizzly Bear tried to cover and did an okay job at. "Cheerleader" has the same feeling that "Southern Point" does, that it was stolen from Spoon's playbook when they weren't looking. The other two, "All We Ask" and "Fine For Now" are so forgettable that they could have been left off and no one would have noticed.

But the main problem that underlies all of these songs, and that was the strong point for Yellow House, was the lack of warm, lush, dense structuring that Grizzly Bear fans have come to expect from their work. Just listen to "Lullabye" or "Plans"; while the instrumentation is crowded and heavy, it doesn't splay out in a hundred different directions but rather complements the base structure of the song and builds up the direction they are going. Not only does it make Yellow House sound more orchestral than guitar-based, but it also gives the songs a feeling of natural progress, i.e., that the song heads in the one direction that it should go, and that imagining one part of the song differently requires you to disassemble the entire thing and rebuild it from the ground up. Not so with Veckatimest. Not one song has the thick substrata of every one off of Yellow House giving credence to the progression of the song, and subsequently every song sounds like it moves along very awkwardly, like they thought "we're 2 minutes in, it's as good a time as any to have the chorus." To be honest, I'm not sure what comes first, the natural feel of the track or the extra instrumentation that credits (or creates) the seeming naturalness of the song, but in either case, Yellow House has both while Veckatimest has neither, and if the problems can be traced to anything I think it lies here. Instead of the epicness of the former, we end up with aimlessness of the latter. It's not so much that they got rid of the dense backing orchestrals, though; it's that they got rid of it and kept the same formula for the rest of the song, leaving nothing to fill the void. It's just a poor album all around.

Sorry about the length, but I don't think its many problems could have been dealt with in any other way.

[briewer]

The reasoning behind the choices is of little consequence within the premise of this thread. Oh you chose the decade on the strength of Loveless, In The Aeroplane Over The Sea, OK Computer, and The Soft Bulletin? I'd have gone with I See A Darkness, Music Has The Right To Children, Viva Last Blues, and American Water. Well...that's nice. Bottom line: we hypothetically tallied an additional two votes for the 90s.
Yes, but as I said, I'm not entirely worried about the final tally in the poll. It's more about how the court of public opinion views my case. I'm saying, "okay, you might have been able to brush off or ignore the reasons behind other people's choosing of the 90's, but here is a legitimate argument that you must address if you're going to be honest with yourself and everyone else with your choice." I'm establishing a case for voting for the 90's and hopefully changing people's opinions with it. Essentially, I'm campaigning for the 90's. So yes, maybe I do care about the final tally of the poll, but it's not my single contribution that drives me to do this, it is other people's.

[MyNameIsRoss]

Kind of difficult. The 60s and 70s had some great rock n' roll. But the 80s had first wave hardcore, and 90s had the glory days of hip hop. and obviously there is a lot of great current music. So I guess I couldn't really choose.

[TangledUp]

60's, easily. You had Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix.. can't get much better than that.

[IWasaCamera]

Yes, but as I said, I'm not entirely worried about the final tally in the poll. It's more about how the court of public opinion views my case. I'm saying, "okay, you might have been able to brush off or ignore the reasons behind other people's choosing of the 90's, but here is a legitimate argument that you must address if you're going to be honest with yourself and everyone else with your choice." I'm establishing a case for voting for the 90's and hopefully changing people's opinions with it. Essentially, I'm campaigning for the 90's. So yes, maybe I do care about the final tally of the poll, but it's not my single contribution that drives me to do this, it is other people's.
Didn't strike me so much as an endorsement as it was an imposition of finality. Regardless, I've grown tired of this and would rather talk about Grizzly Bear.
Yes, it was very underwhelming, but that seems to be a trend for music this year. Beyond Bromst and Wavvves, everything I've heard from this year has kind of sucked. Merriweather Post Pavilion was so disappointing (beyond "My Girls", "Guys Eyes" and "Brothersport" everything fell flat. What happened to the unpredictable, carefree/less band that released "Chores", "Winter's Love", and "The Purple Bottle"? But that's another discussion for another time), The Crying Light left me wanting way more than offered, Yesterday and Today is a hollowed-out shell of From Here We Go Sublime, Crack the Skye is Mastadon Lite, and The Pains of Being Pure At Heart is incredibly overrated. So even though I had high expectations for this, I'm not that surprised.
Ever since 2007 came to a close, I've been thoroughly disappointed with new music. Sure, people suggest I look beyond my regular sources but when I ask for recommendations, they're all generally mediocre. Yesterday And Today is decent I suppose and completely agree with your position on The Pains Of Being Pure At Heart. What a bore. I've always disliked Animal Collective so it's hard to put forth an unbiased view of their latest other than to say I don't care for it ha.

Here's a few smaller releases you might enjoy:

Odawas - The Blue Depths
Nomo - Invisible Cities
Bill Callahan - Sometimes I Wish We Were An Eagle
Jon Hopkins - Insides
Southest Engine - From The Forest To The Sea
Tim Hecker - An Imaginary Country
Nels Cline - Coward
There are five tracks that can be salvaged from this mess: "Two Weeks" (which is superb), "Ready, Able", "About Face", "While You Wait For The Others" (which is pretty iffy itself), and "Foreground". The rest are mediocre at best, and in the case of "Dory", "Hold Still", and "I Live With You" are downright despicable. The tacked on line "oh such a riot" in "Dory" is so putrid it makes me want to barf (leave shit like that to Coldplay and U2, you guys are better than that), that piercing guitar riff on "Hold Still" is nauseating and makes the 2:23 track sound like it goes on for years, and "I Live With You" just doesn't make any sense, the parts and progression are just kind of there with no meaning or purpose. The other four tracks are very forgettable and possess filmsy structuring. "Southern Point" isn't bad, it just isn't cut out to be a leadoff track and doesn't sound like a Grizzly Bear song. More like a song by Spoon that Grizzly Bear tried to cover and did an okay job at. "Cheerleader" has the same feeling that "Southern Point" does, that it was stolen from Spoon's playbook when they weren't looking. The other two, "All We Ask" and "Fine For Now" are so forgettable that they could have been left off and no one would have noticed. I find Cheerleader far and away the worst track on there. Aimless without possessing the delicate beauty to compensate for the meandering, it goes absolutely nowhere, says absolutely nothing, and is absolutely forgettable. Southern Point is a pleasant ditty, although as you said, does not register as a Grizzly Bear track; which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm surprised you enjoy Ready, Able and About Face honestly. I can't stand how halfhearted both sound. They could hit so much harder yet hold back for no apparent reason, it's phenomenally frustrating as a fan of the band's previous work. While You Wait For The Others is certainly among the cream of this crop. Rossen is leagues more compelling than Droste, whose lazy croon almost manages to tarnish Two Weeks. As for All We Ask, I quite like that ditty, probably because it sounds as though Droste is handing Rossen the baton.
But the main problem that underlies all of these songs, and that was the strong point for Yellow House, was the lack of warm, lush, dense structuring that Grizzly Bear fans have come to expect from their work. Just listen to "Lullabye" or "Plans"; while the instrumentation is crowded and heavy, it doesn't splay out in a hundred different directions but rather complements the base structure of the song and builds up the direction they are going. Not only does it make Yellow House sound more orchestral than guitar-based, but it also gives the songs a feeling of natural progress, i.e., that the song heads in the one direction that it should go, and that imagining one part of the song differently requires you to disassemble the entire thing and rebuild it from the ground up. Not so with Veckatimest. Not one song has the thick substrata of every one off of Yellow House giving credence to the progression of the song, and subsequently every song sounds like it moves along very awkwardly, like they thought "we're 2 minutes in, it's as good a time as any to have the chorus." To be honest, I'm not sure what comes first, the natural feel of the track or the extra instrumentation that credits (or creates) the seeming naturalness of the song, but in either case, Yellow House has both while Veckatimest has neither, and if the problems can be traced to anything I think it lies here. Instead of the epicness of the former, we end up with aimlessness of the latter. It's not so much that they got rid of the dense backing orchestrals, though; it's that they got rid of it and kept the same formula for the rest of the song, leaving nothing to fill the void. It's just a poor album all around. Yellow House harbors this incredible insular quality. So while it does indulge in grandiose junctures at times, those layers you alluded to that are bedded atop each other do indeed complement the prevailing direction without ever transgressing the established confines. From song to song and occasionally even only within one track, it seems like Grizzly Bear throws caution and its compass to the wind on its latest effort, which makes for a puzzling journey. Poor may be a tad much though, I'd say simply a significant letdown. Rossen is still delighftul in nearly everything he does, and he is often the saving grace of many tunes here. In Ear Park achieves what Veckatimest seems to aiming for. Snappy, more immediate songs that retain a stellar sense of harmony.
Sorry about the length, but I don't think its many problems could have been dealt with in any other way. No worries, it was a fun read.

[kdefrisc]

oooh this is hard love the 70s

[crln]

90's, easy one.

[Alex DiVincenzo]

The 70s spawned two of my favorite bands, Misfits and Sabbath, plus it was the heyday of for rock with classics such as Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc. Although I love a lot of music from this decade and the last, it wouldn't exist without what preceded it in the 70s.

[mutualaddiction]

The classics are the classics for a reason, there will probably never be a musical movement as powerful and vibrant as that of the 60s and 70s, but don't live in the past. IMO people who only listen to the "classics" or "oldies" are seriously missing out on some amazing current music, that can be just as powerful.

Music is always evolving and you can generally trace today's best music back to a handful of bands from the "classic" era of Rock and Roll, while most classic rock bands can probably be traced back to Jazz and blues from the 50's and so on and so on.

[WhoSaidThat?]

I tied it at 90's-00's. I know the 00's aren't the best, but they have the majority of my favorite releases.

[briewer]

Ever since 2007 came to a close, I've been thoroughly disappointed with new music. Sure, people suggest I look beyond my regular sources but when I ask for recommendations, they're all generally mediocre. Yesterday And Today is decent I suppose and completely agree with your position on The Pains Of Being Pure At Heart. What a bore. I've always disliked Animal Collective so it's hard to put forth an unbiased view of their latest other than to say I don't care for it ha.

Here's a few smaller releases you might enjoy:

Odawas - The Blue Depths
Nomo - Invisible Cities
Bill Callahan - Sometimes I Wish We Were An Eagle
Jon Hopkins - Insides
Southest Engine - From The Forest To The Sea
Tim Hecker - An Imaginary Country
Nels Cline - Coward
Yeah, the last two years have been kind of "meh" for music. I really like noise rock and last year was excellent for that, with Wavves, No Age, Women, Atlas Sound, Times New Viking, Fuck Buttons, Titus Andronicus, and Vivian Girls all releasing good albums. Dear Sciencewas good but wasn't quite as good as Return To Cookie Mountain, and I thought Microcastle was absolutely superb, but still, music is nowhere near as good as it's been in years past. I think it has something to do with the mainstream realizing it's cool to be hip. It puts more pressure on these bands that are used to only having a small segment of the population care about what they release and are used to having a more free range with their artistic ambitions. Of course I have no evidence for this, I'm just theorizing.

I find Cheerleader far and away the worst track on there. Aimless without possessing the delicate beauty to compensate for the meandering, it goes absolutely nowhere, says absolutely nothing, and is absolutely forgettable. Southern Point is a pleasant ditty, although as you said, does not register as a Grizzly Bear track; which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm surprised you enjoy Ready, Able and About Face honestly. I can't stand how halfhearted both sound. They could hit so much harder yet hold back for no apparent reason, it's phenomenally frustrating as a fan of the band's previous work. While You Wait For The Others is certainly among the cream of this crop. Rossen is leagues more compelling than Droste, whose lazy croon almost manages to tarnish Two Weeks. As for All We Ask, I quite like that ditty, probably because it sounds as though Droste is handing Rossen the baton.
I don't necessarily like "Ready, Able" and "About Face" considering what I know Grizzly Bear is capable of, I just think that, out of all the tracks on this album that go for a different sound, these are two of the few that actually do it well, where tracks like "Dory", "Hold Still", and "I Live With You" fail. And it's not really that I don't like "All We Ask", I just find it forgettable, which might just be a problem with me and not the song.

Yellow House harbors this incredible insular quality. So while it does indulge in grandiose junctures at times, those layers you alluded to that are bedded atop each other do indeed complement the prevailing direction without ever transgressing the established confines. From song to song and occasionally even only within one track, it seems like Grizzly Bear throws caution and its compass to the wind on its latest effort, which makes for a puzzling journey. Poor may be a tad much though, I'd say simply a significant letdown. Rossen is still delighftul in nearly everything he does, and he is often the saving grace of many tunes here. In Ear Park achieves what Veckatimest seems to aiming for. Snappy, more immediate songs that retain a stellar sense of harmony.
I listened to Yellow House for the first time in a while recently, and oh my god is that album good. Even on tracks like "Little Brother" where they just let the song go as it may, it all makes sense in as a cohesive whole. Maybe we were just expecting to much of these guys in the face of what they've done in the past. When I heard In Ear Park I was hoping that a combination of that record's peppiness and the expansiveness and density of Yellow House was what they would go for on Veckatimest, but if they were, they kind of failed on both accounts. At any rate, there are a few very good songs on Veckatimest, and coming from any other band I'd probably consider this a pretty impressive release, but still, we know what Grizzly Bear can do, and this certainly wasn't what we were expecting.

[IWasaCamera]

Yeah, the last two years have been kind of "meh" for music. I really like noise rock and last year was excellent for that, with Wavves, No Age, Women, Atlas Sound, Times New Viking, Fuck Buttons, Titus Andronicus, and Vivian Girls all releasing good albums. Dear Sciencewas good but wasn't quite as good as Return To Cookie Mountain, and I thought Microcastle was absolutely superb, but still, music is nowhere near as good as it's been in years past. I think it has something to do with the mainstream realizing it's cool to be hip. It puts more pressure on these bands that are used to only having a small segment of the population care about what they release and are used to having a more free range with their artistic ambitions. Of course I have no evidence for this, I'm just theorizing.
Speculation of the sort can be tricky. Perhaps the bands that have fallen short merely wished to aim for the bigtime regardless. 2007 was wonderful for me but other than that, recent years have seen a real paucity in rewarding releases.
I don't necessarily like "Ready, Able" and "About Face" considering what I know Grizzly Bear is capable of, I just think that, out of all the tracks on this album that go for a different sound, these are two of the few that actually do it well, where tracks like "Dory", "Hold Still", and "I Live With You" fail. And it's not really that I don't like "All We Ask", I just find it forgettable, which might just be a problem with me and not the song.
There's a glaring lack of direction on Veckatimest from Southern Point to All We Ask to Dory. Unlike previous efforts where songs convened around a prevailing setting, this seems to be a series of disparate sketches bound together by a track listing, almost as if to demonstrate misguided versatility in one fell swoop.
I listened to Yellow House for the first time in a while recently, and oh my god is that album good. Even on tracks like "Little Brother" where they just let the song go as it may, it all makes sense in as a cohesive whole. Maybe we were just expecting to much of these guys in the face of what they've done in the past. When I heard In Ear Park I was hoping that a combination of that record's peppiness and the expansiveness and density of Yellow House was what they would go for on Veckatimest, but if they were, they kind of failed on both accounts. At any rate, there are a few very good songs on Veckatimest, and coming from any other band I'd probably consider this a pretty impressive release, but still, we know what Grizzly Bear can do, and this certainly wasn't what we were expecting.
Veckatimest does sound to me like a band trying to reconcile In Ear Park and Yellow House. The issue lies in the fact that the Yellow House aesthetic is almost entirely omitted and so passages where atmosphere should keep things afloat sink into oblivion. The good songs are quite good though.

[:-)]

wow, close one for 90s and 00s

I chose 90s.

[Poe-tryGirl]

I listen to modern music most of the time, but the 90's had some really solid music. I love it!

[jgord88]

One Nine Nine Four

[trindaddy]

Damn. I think the 00's is hands down one of the most terrible decades for music.

[doppelganger]

today, i would say 00's.
when im listening to certain music on other days, it will usually be 90s or 70s.

[Jake Denning]

80s

[SoCoSquid4]

2000. specifically, 2000-2003.

[Colin1755]

reel big fish, mighty mighty bosstones, foo fighters, chili peppers, u2, bruce springsteen, nirvana were all great 90s but i still think 2000 takes it by far because of developement of new styles
manchester orchestra, brand new, the early november, yellow card, all bands were wudnt have seen 10 to 15 years ago music as changed as well as its styles and thats why i think its beter than ever before

[Colin1755]

however, bands like breather carolina, brokencyde, forever sickest kids, panic at the disco make it one of the worst times too.

[VIVALAMATT]

2000's should not be winning this. They're probably ranked 3rd in my book. The 90's were faaaaaar better, just in overall music.

[unnameworthy]

A good deal of the music I listen to is very recent, but I think that the '70s had the best mainstream music.

[Broden Terry]

Voted for 00's but I grew up listening to a lot of 80's music so they were a close second.

[ghsNICK!]

It's pretty obvious 00's

[andrew_upto11]

2000s>60s>70s

[SeanEBoy2686]

the 60's and 70's are awesome... but I'm always a fan of new music, so I voted for 00s

[CarouselBoy]

wow briewer and iwasacamera sure have a lot of time on their hands. I've never understood why people go to such great lengths to defend themselves on the internet. Waste of time to me. Unless you're bored at work or something.

[Aether]

My favorite is the 00's because most of the stuff I listen to is current, but the most influential/important was easily the 50s and 60s.

how's that?

[fanberlinboy]

how's that?
The Beatles, Chuck Berry, etc. Without them, music today probably wouldn't be the same at all.

[briewer]

wow briewer and iwasacamera sure have a lot of time on their hands. I've never understood why people go to such great lengths to defend themselves on the internet. Waste of time to me. Unless you're bored at work or something.

You have nearly three times as many posts as me, dummy.

[Aether]

The Beatles, Chuck Berry, etc. Without them, music today probably wouldn't be the same at all.

ok anberlin.

[IWasaCamera]

wow briewer and iwasacamera sure have a lot of time on their hands. I've never understood why people go to such great lengths to defend themselves on the internet. Waste of time to me. Unless you're bored at work or something.
If I'm here before midnight, I'm at work.

[fanberlinboy]

ok anberlin.
Um, what? Seriously, just because I have them in my username doesn't mean I think they're more influential than The Beatles or pretty much any other band from the 50s or 60s.

[Aether]

Um, what? Seriously, just because I have them in my username doesn't mean I think they're more influential than The Beatles or pretty much any other band from the 50s or 60s.

That was my brother. I definitely agree with you.

[lindZ629]

wow briewer and iwasacamera sure have a lot of time on their hands. I've never understood why people go to such great lengths to defend themselves on the internet. Waste of time to me. Unless you're bored at work or something.
Why even bother posting in a thread that's sure to spur conversing opinions? That's more than half the fun, engaging in a sometimes intelligent debate based on your own convictions and preferences.

[fanberlinboy]

That was my brother. I definitely agree with you.
Oh haha. Gotcha. I was like "what the crap?" lol.

[CarouselBoy]

Why even bother posting in a thread that's sure to spur conversing opinions? That's more than half the fun, engaging in a sometimes intelligent debate based on your own convictions and preferences.

I just don't feel like spending that much time on the internet arguing over something is very constructive. That's all. But like I said, if you're at work or something with nothing better to do then sure I'd do it too.