Defining Band/Sound of "Generation Y."

[kearn1tm]

I was listening to an NPR discussion about "the sound of a generation" in relation to the Generation Xers (teens in the early-to-mid '90s). The panel (predictably) chose the Grunge domination of pop radio that was led by Nirvana as their musical zeitgeist and then became asking amongst themselves what, if any, was the defining band and sound/genre of "Generation Y" or those who were born in the mid-to-late '80s and the first few years of the '90s.

If you were to try and find a sound/band that is clearly indicative of the spirit of the last eight years or so in music, who/what would you choose?

[x togepi x]

thursday

[mht]

not thursday that's for fucking sure

[kearn1tm]

thursday

That's far too marginalized a choice, in my opinion.

[x togepi x]

not thursday that's for fucking sure

who then? since i can name plenty of bands that went platinum that took their sound/aesthetic.

edit: wait what the fuck am i doing on this site when i could be getting drunk

[TakeLotsWithAlcohol]

I was actually going to say Thursday. :shrug:

[thespearkid]

Our music is way to diverse. It's almost impossible to find one band that the majority of fans in the scene enjoy.

[kearn1tm]

Our music is way to diverse. It's almost impossible to find one band that the majority of fans in the scene enjoy.

We're not talking about "the scene" and we're also not any more or less diverse than past decades.

[x togepi x]

and that's why this question is idiotic then. even people who say nirvana was the sound of gen x are wrong. you're talking about the lowest common denominator, so that's why i pick thursday since hawthorne heights, "emo", etc. You can't tell me that people wont' be talking about "emo" like they talk about hair metal, and thursday seems to be the one band in that trend that started shit.

[hockeyguitar99]

thursday

annnnnnnnnnnnnnd

FAIL

[x togepi x]

I just like how everyone's like FAIL yet nobody has come up with a better suggestion.

[Fin.]

Does Nsync count? :-p

[shit stroll]

annnnnnnnnnnnnnd

FAIL
you're 14 and you listen to cute is what we aim for. your opinion means jack shit.

[hockeyguitar99]

you're 14 and you listen to cute is what we aim for. your opinion means jack shit.

alright, thats the second time you said that in two qoutes, and I'm not defining them as the sound of our generation.

Thursday doesn't sound very much like the popular shit right now, which is why I said they failed.

[Yes. And?]

What is the popular shit right now?

[shit stroll]

cute is what we aim for

[Yes. And?]

Also, lol @ you taking off your age. Why?

[Yes. And?]

cute is what we aim for
Looks like we've found the sound of Generation Y I thought it'd be Metro Station!
Looks like it's an /thread, folks.

[kearn1tm]

and that's why this question is idiotic then. even people who say nirvana was the sound of gen x are wrong. you're talking about the lowest common denominator, so that's why i pick thursday since hawthorne heights, "emo", etc. You can't tell me that people wont' be talking about "emo" like they talk about hair metal, and thursday seems to be the one band in that trend that started shit.

There's nothing "idiotic" about the question. It invokes valid discussion. Nirvana wasn't a "lowest common denominator." They were a streamlined pop version of '80s indie and grunge, as I'm sure you're quite well aware of. It was a breath of fresh air from a decade who's pop music landscape was dominated by superficiality.

The reason I disagree with you is that, firstly, Thursday isn't nearly as well known or influential as Nirvana was, nor have they been responsible for a musical "pop culture revolution" for lack of a better term. Post-Hardcore/Pop Punk and that scene sound isn't nearly as influential or popular as Grunge in the contemporary pop music lexicon. None of us will talk of Thursday like gen x'ers still speak about Nirvana and the "emo" music that apparently, by this logic, Thursday started (which, they didn't, but influenced it, surely) isn't this dominant sound in pop music; it's just as prominent, if slightly less so, in mainstream music as hip hop/rap, pop and other genres.

They also don't have the "musical innovation" argument to fall back on. One of the panelists brought up Radiohead in relation to the gen x defining bands/sounds, claiming OK Computer was the culmination of innovation and musical progression. I suppose a band like Battles or The Mars Volta could fit in that claim, but they don't possess nearly the mainstream influence or recognition that could truly become a "generation defining sound."

It's a loaded question, and most likely one that is best explored once you can place the period on context of what's come after, but it's still enjoyable to read guesses and have them questioned.

[kearn1tm]

I just like how everyone's like FAIL yet nobody has come up with a better suggestion.

I'd say Hip Hop/Rap, which transitioned from an underground sound to a culturally relevant and mainstream staple gerne in the late '80s and rose to mainstream dominance in the mid '90s has essentially become the dominant mainstream genre in terms of popularity and influence. The question is finding a hip hop/rap act that's both boundary pushing and well known and influential. Maybe Mos Def? Quite possibly.

He's inspired a new generation of Emcees, has a subversive, defiant brand of hip hop (alt hip hop that contrasts from the hedonism, gangsta rap and pop hip hop of the radio), meaningful lyrics about the real issues, struggles and plight of the African American community, well constructed production, almost universal praise and strong album sales and exposure in the mainstream media.

[x togepi x]

There's nothing "idiotic" about the question. It invokes valid discussion. Nirvana wasn't a "lowest common denominator." They were a streamlined pop version of '80s indie and grunge, as I'm sure you're quite well aware of. It was a breath of fresh air from a decade who's pop music landscape was dominated by superficiality.

I'm saying "grunge" is the lowest common denominator trend. It speaks mainly to people into mainstream music. I like Nirvana for what they were. To compartmentalize music into generations (a term i have a problem with since it assumes a fairly homogeneous set of characteristics for people growing up in a specific time period, which i feel doesn't exist), is idiotic, not your posting the qustion.

The reason I disagree with you is that, firstly, Thursday isn't nearly as well known or influential as Nirvana was, nor have they been responsible for a musical "pop culture revolution" for lack of a better term . Post-Hardcore/Pop Punk and that scene sound isn't nearly as influential or popular as Grunge in the contemporary pop music lexicon

I never claimed we would talk about them like this, nor did I claim Thursday was as well known or influential as Nirvana. I merely claimed that if there's a "sound of our generation", which I don't think there really is for various factors, then it has to be Thursday. The lack of better choices out of the last few years proves my point.

None of us will talk of Thursday like gen x'ers still speak about Nirvana and the "emo" music that apparently, by this logic, Thursday started (which, they didn't, but influenced it, surely) isn't this dominant sound in pop music; it's just as prominent, if slightly less so, in mainstream music as hip hop/rap, pop and other genres.

which is why i think this sound of a generation business is idiotic in the current music business. Mainstream music is no based on the Rule of 7s model (the one that assumes there's a musical revolution every 7 or so years) that the 90s and before were.

Though, i would say that if we're going to talk about a trend that existed in this period that didn't exist before, then it would HAVE to be emo. Hip/hop rap comes from the 80s. Pop comes from every other time. Emo is specific to this time period just like hair metal was to the 80s. In contrast, would you tell someone "well hair metal isn't the sound of the 80s because Micheal Jackson was selling tons of albums?" I doubt it.


It's a loaded question, and most likely one that is best explored once you can place the period on context of what's come after, but it's still enjoyable to read guesses and have them questioned.

Placing the time in context is why i point to "emo" which is why I say Thursday since there isn't any other real genre/trend that's come out of this time period. The only other close genre would be "real rock"/nu-grunge shit like Nickelback (which isn't really of its own time period since it's just a poppier version of grunge).

Thursday doesn't sound very much like the popular shit right now, which is why I said they failed.

If you listen to full collapse you can hear basically every trend in "alternative" music besides pop punk. Metalcore? Check, FC has break downs. Singing/screaming? Check. The scene aesthetic? Check. "Emotional" Lyrics? Check.

If it's such an "fail" you'd be able to list another band, but you haven't.

[x togepi x]

I'd say Hip Hop/Rap, which transitioned from an underground sound to a culturally relevant and mainstream staple gerne in the late '80s and rose to mainstream dominance in the mid '90s has essentially become the dominant mainstream genre in terms of popularity and influence. The question is finding a hip hop/rap act that's both boundary pushing and well known and influential. Maybe Mos Def? Quite possibly.

and i would say that if you look at music in context like you said before, you'd see this was just carrying over from shit that was being done in the mainstream in the 90s. People will talk about "emo" being the '00s. Yes rap still exists. Yes it's still really popular, but this is just like hair metal vs. Micheal Jackson. Jackson being one who carried the torch from the famous male singers of the 70s, yet his prominence doesn't cause people to say hair metal was the music of the 80s

[kearn1tm]

I'm saying "grunge" is the lowest common denominator trend. It speaks mainly to people into mainstream music. I like Nirvana for what they were. To compartmentalize music into generations (a term i have a problem with since it assumes a fairly homogeneous set of characteristics for people growing up in a specific time period, which i feel doesn't exist), is idiotic, not your posting the qustion.

Damn, we're breaking quotes up into smaller ones, making it hard to comment. Grrr. I'll get over it.

Yes, marginalizing music into "generations" does a disservice to the entire vast musical spectrum that precedes and proceeds the loosely and relatively defined "generations." However, for sake of multiple things, such as nostalgia and establishing context of musical periods in relation to contemporary times, it can be a very valid conversational piece, and breaking music into generations serves as a strong way to establish musical zeitgeists (I use that word far too often) of the particular age groups and can also double as a starting point for people who were not of that generation.

"Lowest common denominator trend" is a label that can be applied to nearly any mainstream music fad. That doesn't necessarily negate impact, influence and even quality. Nirvana, nor popularized Grunge, wasn't subversive or innovation or cavalier, and yes, it became a very trendy genre that reached out to everyone, including the mainstream exclusive listeners, but that just solidifies how truly defining of a time they were; virtually everyone enjoyed them, from the hardened indie fans who just wanted to see a social change and were treated to elements of their underground sound being introduced to the masses, to the masses themselves, finding something they'd never heard of otherwise, melded with pop sensibilities they were comfortable in.



I never claimed we would talk about them like this, nor did I claim Thursday was as well known or influential as Nirvana. I merely claimed that if there's a "sound of our generation", which I don't think there really is for various factors, then it has to be Thursday. The lack of better choices out of the last few years proves my point.

I'd say, you're right to a degree: a unified "sound" with the social impact of Nirvana or the innovation coupled with mainstream acceptance of Radiohead has yet to occur this gen. We haven't had that one or two defining bands/musicians start something to such a degree. However, if we were to do our best to try and find an equivalent, I wouldn't imagine it would be Thursday. That's merely my opinion though, and I'm not trying to chastise you for yours, I merely disagree. I'd say Rap/Hip Hop's a much more dominant sound and artists like The Roots or Mos Def could constitute as the mainstream acceptance and subversiveness that's almost required to be a sound of a generation.

[/quote]Though, i would say that if we're going to talk about a trend that existed in this period that didn't exist before, then it would HAVE to be emo. Hip/hop rap comes from the 80s. Pop comes from every other time. Emo is specific to this time period just like hair metal was to the 80s. In contrast, would you tell someone "well hair metal isn't the sound of the 80s because Micheal Jackson was selling tons of albums?" I doubt it.[/quote]

Emo's roots are in the late '80s and became an indie staple in the '90s though. I assume you're insinuating that "Emo" didn't become a mainstream accepted sound until this gen, right? Regardless, I still don't see it as a defining generational sound. It hasn't carved out an identity from much of the various other radio Alt Rock and Pop artists that they closely resemble.

Hip Hop/Rap actually traces its direct roots to the '70s and rose to mainstream prominence in the late '80s. Despite not being indigenous to our generation, it's a very dominant genre, one that could easily be considered the defining sound of whatever the hell is this gen, at least, I'd imagine so. I assume

Placing the time in context is why i point to "emo" which is why I say Thursday since there isn't any other real genre/trend that's come out of this time period. The only other close genre would be "real rock"/nu-grunge shit like Nickelback (which isn't really of its own time period since it's just a poppier version of grunge).

And "Emo" isn't really any more poppier than The Get Up Kids and that "indie emo" sound of the mid '90s.



If you listen to full collapse you can hear basically every trend in "alternative" music besides pop punk. Metalcore? Check, FC has break downs. Singing/screaming? Check. The scene aesthetic? Check. "Emotional" Lyrics? Check.

Nu-Metal had breakdowns. Nu-Metal had singing-screaming. Nu-Metal ballads had those "emotional" lyrics, especially about being "fucked up" and "angsty." I don't think most of the Alt Rock on the radio is too influenced by Thursday. They're not extremely obscure at all, but they never became mainstream staples either.

If anything, wouldn't Fall Out Boy be the better choice as far as this unified "Emo" scene pseudo-genre goes? They're direct descendants of the indie emo of the '90s and some of that Chicago Post-Hardcore stuff, they were essentially the band (along with Yellowcard, New Found Glory and a few others) to break open the floodgates for the contemporary Pop Punk sound to hit the mainstream (see Cartel, Panic, Red Jumpsuit, Metro Station, Boys Like Girls, Paramore and all the others to acheive platinum sales and mainstream success in the wake of FUCT) and create that unified scene sound.

[kearn1tm]

and i would say that if you look at music in context like you said before, you'd see this was just carrying over from shit that was being done in the mainstream in the 90s. People will talk about "emo" being the '00s. Yes rap still exists.

The reason I hesitate to call "emo" the defining sound is that, it isn't nearly as big, universally loved or has the potential to be as long lasting as Grunge. It didn't come at a time where a Pop burnout was occurring. It didn't become a dominant sound ala' Grunge, whereas Hip Hop/Rap has not only stayed incredibly prominent, but has never been more dominant than now. Sure, it isn't exclusive, nor did it rise to prominence in this or the last decade, but it sure as hell established its strangehold over sales and trends this generation more than any other.

Yes it's still really popular, but this is just like hair metal vs. Micheal Jackson. Jackson being one who carried the torch from the famous male singers of the 70s, yet his prominence doesn't cause people to say hair metal was the music of the 80s

Michael Jackson will always be synonymous with the '80s, just as much so as Hair Metal, despite hearkening back to the R&B/Soul male artists of the '70s. Despite not being "'80s unique," he's forever ingrained in the '80s aesthetic, sound and pop culture canon.

[thespearkid]

We're not talking about "the scene" and we're also not any more or less diverse than past decades.
Of course music is more diverse now than in past decades. New genres are coined/poplarized every decade or so. The 70's had punk, the 80's had hair metal, the 90's had grunge and rap, and the 00's have whatever-genre-you-like-to-call-it.

[kearn1tm]

Of course music is more diverse now than in past decades. New genres are coined/poplarized every decade or so. The 70's had punk, the 80's had hair metal, the 90's had grunge and rap, and the 00's have whatever-genre-you-like-to-call-it.

Everything has direct ties to what's gone in the past. I can't really imagine this generation being any more diverse than the music of the '90s or '80s.

[Angylion Gefell]

Stop thinking and arguing so damned hard. Generation Y has shitty tastes. /story.

[kearn1tm]

Stop thinking and arguing so damned hard. Generation Y has shitty tastes. /story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_board

[thespearkid]

Stop thinking and arguing so damned hard. Generation Y has shitty tastes. /story.
I don't think so. Honestly, in about twenty to thirty years time when history has had a chance to forget about all the shitty filler bands, we'll look back and be able to notice some of the great music coming out. I'm sure during the sixties, there were bands like Nickelback running around but a few terrible bands isn't enough to damn an entire generation of music.

[x togepi x]

"Lowest common denominator trend" is a label that can be applied to nearly any mainstream music fad. That doesn't necessarily negate impact, influence and even quality. Nirvana, nor popularized Grunge, wasn't subversive or innovation or cavalier, and yes, it became a very trendy genre that reached out to everyone, including the mainstream exclusive listeners, but that just solidifies how truly defining of a time they were; virtually everyone enjoyed them, from the hardened indie fans who just wanted to see a social change and were treated to elements of their underground sound being introduced to the masses, to the masses themselves, finding something they'd never heard of otherwise, melded with pop sensibilities they were comfortable in.

and this is why part of what i said was that there is no "sound of our generation" because there aren't any bands that are speaking to all anymore. "emo" was the closest new genre (which i'll cover later).


I'd say, you're right to a degree: a unified "sound" with the social impact of Nirvana or the innovation coupled with mainstream acceptance of Radiohead has yet to occur this gen. We haven't had that one or two defining bands/musicians start something to such a degree. However, if we were to do our best to try and find an equivalent, I wouldn't imagine it would be Thursday. That's merely my opinion though, and I'm not trying to chastise you for yours, I merely disagree. I'd say Rap/Hip Hop's a much more dominant sound and artists like The Roots or Mos Def could constitute as the mainstream acceptance and subversiveness that's almost required to be a sound of a generation.

I don't think this style of rap really counts, as its more timeless than a sound of a generation would be. I think that its merely carrying the genre into a new era, where I would say sound of a generation should be some sort of phenomena that is inexplicably tied to a certain time, which this music isn't.

Emo's roots are in the late '80s and became an indie staple in the '90s though. I assume you're insinuating that "Emo" didn't become a mainstream accepted sound until this gen, right?

No. Real emo's roots are in the late 80s/90s. Fake emo's roots are in late 90s Jersey hardcore scene, which has Thursday or Glassjaw being the first band that breaks into the mainstream. That's why I'm saying it's more connected to this time period because the style matured.

We can compare this to grunge. In the 80s, we had grunge bands, sure, but the genre as a whole didn't really mature until right before Nirvana hit it big. It's pretty much the same thing, only the "emo" trend never got as big, probably because the musical climate has changed in a way that will probably make it so we'll never see giant musical revolutions anymore.

Regardless, I still don't see it as a defining generational sound. It hasn't carved out an identity from much of the various other radio Alt Rock and Pop artists that they closely resemble.

If carving out a unique identity is what makes a style the music of a generation, then Nirvana doesn't really do much that bands like the Pixies or the Sex Pistols weren't doing before. Regardless, I think you're still wrong here because "emo": trend in music, clothes, aesthetic, and "scene" (in the same) all have their mainstream roots in Thursday.

Hip Hop/Rap actually traces its direct roots to the '70s and rose to mainstream prominence in the late '80s. Despite not being indigenous to our generation, it's a very dominant genre, one that could easily be considered the defining sound of whatever the hell is this gen, at least, I'd imagine so. I assume

If your argument is that Thursday's influence can't count because it doesn't follow the Nirvana mold, then Rap can't because it doesn't follow the mold either. It didn't explode onto the charts like grunge did. It just became more and more popular. I would contend that it created another form of mainstream music (which calls into question the very idea of claiming there's a sound of a generation, which I would say there's not because mainstream music is becoming so compartmentalized: we have "rock", "rap", "emo/ the scene", and pop music, all of which are mainstream, whereas in the 90s before, we see less splits in mainstream: merely the difference between rock and pop).

And "Emo" isn't really any more poppier than The Get Up Kids and that "indie emo" sound of the mid '90s.

It's more popular. I'm not sure how you can claim it isn't the trend of the '00s in rock/alternative. There was a period of time where essentially everything was called emo: "pop punk" like fall out boy, metalcore bands like underoath, acoustic acts like dashboard, etc.


Nu-Metal had breakdowns. Nu-Metal had singing-screaming. Nu-Metal ballads had those "emotional" lyrics, especially about being "fucked up" and "angsty." I don't think most of the Alt Rock on the radio is too influenced by Thursday. They're not extremely obscure at all, but they never became mainstream staples either.

The context of Nu-Metal's breakdowns, sing-screams, and "emotional" lyrics in Thursday/emo are completely different than in Nu-Metal. For example, nu-metal bands while "emotional" don't use a lot of the same cliches that scene/"emo" bands do. Even so, i never claimed that Thursday invented this, they merely packaged these conventions in a way that created a new aesthetic that people bought.

Likewise, Nirvana didn't invent the quiet/soft dynamics, or their guitar sound or any thing else that grunge is credited for, so it really doesn't matter if you can say Thursday carried on certain conventions from other music.

If anything, wouldn't Fall Out Boy be the better choice as far as this unified "Emo" scene pseudo-genre goes? They're direct descendants of the indie emo of the '90s and some of that Chicago Post-Hardcore stuff, they were essentially the band (along with Yellowcard, New Found Glory and a few others) to break open the floodgates for the contemporary Pop Punk sound to hit the mainstream (see Cartel, Panic, Red Jumpsuit, Metro Station, Boys Like Girls, Paramore and all the others to acheive platinum sales and mainstream success in the wake of FUCT) and create that unified scene sound.

Fall Out Boy doesn't scream enough, nor do they really break away from the Pop-punk stylings of Blink 182/greenday enough to be considered on their own. I mean, their entire aesthetic was already being considered mainstream before they broke. Likewise, the fact that Thursday, with their "emo" stylings" opened the door for "emo" bands to get signed to major labels made it so Fall Out Boy could get signed to Island (Thursday's own label) which would make them beneficaries of Thursday more than the voice of the generation itself.

While I think Fall Out Boy could be a decent choice, it ignores a lot of the heavier aspects of the trend that Thursday gets. Nor do I think pop punk is really a voice of the generation because it doesn't fit the specific context since fall out boy isn't really doing anything that blink 182 wasn't doing years ago anyway.

[TheBaroness]

It should have been Thursday circa War All the Time, but Island fucked all that up (so did MTV for banning the WATT vid)

[fran.182]

coldplay

[chipdip18]

It's quite difficult to suggest only one band could define Generation Y. Although Thursday seems like a great choice, i think it lacks the mainstream appeal although it definitely influenced the mainstream appeal. What about Jimmy Eat World? I could see the problem that they don't really account for the harder genres of the generation, but they seem to account for many other things.