Golden Era of Music 94-03

[domotime2]

when it comes down to solid rock, modern 90s punk, pop rock, even stadium rock (dont forget 3rd wave ska and basic alternative). This time period will never be duplicated I believe.... ever since then it's been lame wad band, after duplicate lame wad band right after them....

to give my point some "teeth"...notice that a majority of the larger acts of that ERA, are continuing to tour and continuing to create music. This ranges anywhere from The Offspring, to Rage, to the Bouncing Souls, to AFI. Meanwhile, the mediocracy that has been the past 5 years has had recycled garbage non-stopped.... story of the year, audioslave, the color fred (haha jp), metro station.

these are the type of bands that will dissappear and no one will care. so sad, so sad.


there's no real point to this thread...just reminissing of the good times.

[Hamlet]

Also the age of boy bands.

[EchoPark]

It was a good time but not for any of the shit music you listed.

The best times was basically 1964 through to 1982.


quit livin' in the past mate. Move on. John Lennon is dead.

[born to expire]

myspace ruined music.

[decisionpending]

90-94 = Nirvana, just the first thought

[decisionpending]

After more thought, post '03 = Of Montreal

[decisionpending]

Were 95% media invention.



Average. Plenty good music was made post 2003 it's just been a lot weaker than the 1997-2003 period.

Appreciate your opinion. Growing up in this period, I just thought that I have somewhat grown out of the music I listened to then... but that may be because I listened to quite shit music in said period.

[ThisIsNotDan]

It was a good time but not for any of the shit music you listed.

The best times was basically 1964 through to 1982.

I thought you liked Rage Against the Machine?

[shit stroll]

nirvana is the most overrated band of all time.

[SLoT]

It was a good time but not for any of the shit music you listed.

The best times was basically 1964 through to 1982.
Agreed. There are obviously good bands after 82, but for the most part the best music was during those years. It may not be your favorite, but we're not talking about that.

[decisionpending]

nirvana is the most overrated band of all time.

Overrated still doesn't mean "shithouse". They may be rated higher than they deserve but they are still one of the better bands of the past 20 years.

[Until The Bombs]

quit livin' in the past mate. Move on. John Lennon is dead.

94-03 is also in the past. :shrug:

myspace ruined music.

It definitely has gotten a lot of terrible music more play than it deservices, but it's helped a lot of good bands as well.

Were 95% media invention.


Come on man, you're off your rocker. I understand not caring for them, but this...

nirvana is the most overrated band of all time.

Never heard that before.

[shit stroll]

Overrated still doesn't mean "shithouse". They may be rated higher than they deserve but they are still one of the better bands of the past 20 years.
they're are not "one of the better bands of the past 20 years"

i can name a shit load of bands to come out in the past 20 years that are superior to nirvana in every way possible.

[kwsqd]

they're are not "one of the better bands of the past 20 years"

i can name a shit load of bands to come out in the past 20 years that are superior to nirvana in every way possible.
okay, go:

[decisionpending]

they're are not "one of the better bands of the past 20 years"

i can name a shit load of bands to come out in the past 20 years that are superior to nirvana in every way possible.

Alright, I'll take the easy way out... one of my favourite bands of the last twenty years. But then again, we still don't have definite type of music that we are talking about. If it's just rock music, then yes (in my opinion). If it's punk rock, then obviously not. If it's rap-rock, again. I dunno, I am just stating opinion as to why this was not a golden age, or, at the very least, why these are just arbitrary dates which require some form of explanation.

[thespearkid]

okay, go:
Haha, I was actually tempted to try but then realized it'd be silly to try and give a non-rhetorical answer for a rhetorical question.

quit livin' in the past mate. Move on. John Lennon is dead.
If not for John Lennon (and the other Beatles (and Bob Dylan)), half the bands you love probably wouldn't exist.

when it comes down to solid rock, modern 90s punk, pop rock, even stadium rock (dont forget 3rd wave ska and basic alternative). This time period will never be duplicated I believe.... ever since then it's been lame wad band, after duplicate lame wad band right after them....

to give my point some "teeth"...notice that a majority of the larger acts of that ERA, are continuing to tour and continuing to create music. This ranges anywhere from The Offspring, to Rage, to the Bouncing Souls, to AFI. Meanwhile, the mediocracy that has been the past 5 years has had recycled garbage non-stopped.... story of the year, audioslave, the color fred (haha jp), metro station.

these are the type of bands that will dissappear and no one will care. so sad, so sad.


there's no real point to this thread...just reminissing of the good times.
There's still really good music being made. There are just a lot of shitty bands as well and since we're living in the present, we see them both as opposed to when you look back at the sixties and seventies, you only see the good ones. It's all about perspective.

[decisionpending]

Nirvana followed in the footsteps of The Monkeys, The Sex Pistols and paved the way for Blink 182 and Fall Out Boy.

...and who's forgetting about any of those bands anytime soon? Not the best argument, I know, but still an argument to be made.

[Until The Bombs]

Nirvana followed in the footsteps of The Monkeys, The Sex Pistols and paved the way for Blink 182 and Fall Out Boy.

I'm assuming you mean image over musical quality? I disagree whole heartedly. If that was the point, The Sex Pistols and Blink 182 don't really fit in well. Both of those bands were more about emotion than musical quality anyway.

[micahistheballs]

I am referring to the record labels creating a movement through marketing rather than a genuine social movement.
So coming from the 90's thread, you really don't think Nirvana inspired a social or cultural revolution of sorts?

[decisionpending]

So, and I know I am gonna get shit for this, just because a record label "creates" a band, or a movement, doesn't make them/it any less relevant? Or any less memorable? Or, for lack of a better word, any lees 'golden'?

[Until The Bombs]

I am referring to the record labels creating a movement through marketing rather than a genuine social movement.

So that fact that Smells Like Teen Spirit became an overnight sensation, through radio/tv (because of heavy listener demand), launching sales of Nevermind, they are 95% media invention? If that's true, than it's also true for virtually every other band that has ever had any success.

[Machu505]

Maybe modern music.

[Until The Bombs]

No. They are the band the media ascribed to the forefront of an existing movement but that they themselves were neither the creators of nor the dominant player in. Yes Nirvana were a popular band, and they even had some good songs but they did not start any kind of musical and social revolution, they just continued what Sonic Youth, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr were doing in New York and Boston and did it in Seattle.

You're right they weren't the creators, anyone who credits them as such is an idiot, but they were the dominant player. They received critical and commerical success and Cobain came to be the front man for the entire genre because fans were so drawn to him.

[thespearkid]

You're right they weren't the creators, anyone who credits them as such is an idiot, but they were the dominant player. They received critical and commerical success and Cobain came to be the front man for the entire genre because fans were so drawn to him.
Dominant as in the best in the genre at the time? Or dominant as in receiving the most airplay?

[Until The Bombs]

Dominant as in the best in the genre at the time? Or dominant as in receiving the most airplay?

I won't say best of the genre because there's a fair amount I haven't listened to. But they were damn good. Most dominant as a result of their quality and popularity.

[domotime2]

nirvana was in the pre-golden age of music...haha irrelevant!!


But listen, to comment on the response regarding dominant music coming from the late 60s to early 80s... I feel like that era was only for the major acts of music. Their were very few in the middle bands of that era + one hit wonders.

Now no one can argue the large influences the 60s created for the future of music...but of course they'd be such an influence...it was the first time rock n roll was around.

70s = disco, Arena Rock, Rolling Stones, and the revolution of the punk rock scene.
Doesnt sound overall appealing to me...except the last point.


To chime in about nirvana though.....maybe it was from the media, record companies, tv/radio....but its ignorant to say that Nirvana wasnt probably one of the most important bands of all time.

[Jumpoff]

the 90's were the best period in rap music in my opinion.

Probably not the golden era of all music, though.

[chronomic]

No. They are the band the media ascribed to the forefront of an existing movement but that they themselves were neither the creators of nor the dominant player in. Yes Nirvana were a popular band, and they even had some good songs but they did not start any kind of musical and social revolution, they just continued what Sonic Youth, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr were doing in New York and Boston and did it in Seattle. The mainstream media were late to the party and made up this ridiculous idea that this had sprung up in Seattle overnight when millions of kids has been into this kind of alt rock for many years before.

i thought i remembered you writing some sort of review for nevermind and praising the hell out of it.

ooh it was the individual threads for the music forums top 100 albums or something.

[thespearkid]

I won't say best of the genre because there's a fair amount I haven't listened to. But they were damn good. Most dominant as a result of their quality and popularity.
Maybe I just haven't listened to them enough but I've never really heard anything from them that made me think, "Wow, there goes one of the greatest and most influential bands of the 90's". Are there any specific tracks you think would change my mind?

[Until The Bombs]

Maybe I just haven't listened to them enough but I've never really heard anything from them that made me think, "Wow, there goes one of the greatest and most influential bands of the 90's". Are there any specific tracks you think would change my mind?

If you haven't "got it" yet, you likely won't.

[Until The Bombs]

i thought i remembered you writing some sort of review for nevermind and praising the hell out of it.

ooh it was the individual threads for the music forums top 100 albums or something.

You are right, but technically he hasn't actually spoken ill of the musical quality of the band in this thread..

[Chris Fallon]

Wrong.

If you think that nine year span was the best time for music, you need to expand your horizons a bit.

[born to expire]

It definitely has gotten a lot of terrible music more play than it deservices, but it's helped a lot of good bands as well.





I meant that it has destroyed underground music.

[born to expire]

the 90's were the best period in rap music in my opinion.



agreed.

[born to expire]

70s = disco, Arena Rock, Rolling Stones, and the revolution of the punk rock scene.
Doesnt sound overall appealing to me...except the last point.



uhhh...

70s brought Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Motorhead, and plenty of other great bands. What are you talking about?

[Until The Bombs]

I meant that it has destroyed underground music.

If anything it has given more power to underground artists, thus strengthening underground music.

[chronomic]

You are right, but technically he hasn't actually spoken ill of the musical quality of the band in this thread..

haha oohh.

not that i really care, just curious.

[born to expire]

If anything it has given more power to underground artists, thus strengthening underground music.

It got rid of the excitement of being an underground artist or being into underground music. Look how many myspace superstar bands there are now. It's a joke. It's a double-edged sword though.

[Until The Bombs]

It got rid of the excitement of being an underground artist or being into underground music. Look how many myspace superstar bands there are now. It's a joke. It's a double-edged sword though.

Well then those superstar bands aren't underground artists now are they? There are still plenty of underground unsigned acts or acts on small labels that use myspace and other similar sites to reach more people than they ever could before. If anything, people are able to discover more underground acts than they could have in the past, which makes being into underground acts even more enjoyable.

[chipdip18]

Well then those superstar bands aren't underground artists now are they? There are still plenty of underground unsigned acts or acts on small labels that use myspace and other similar sites to reach more people than they ever could before. If anything, people are able to discover more underground acts than they could have in the past, which makes being into underground acts even more enjoyable.


Myspace and other sites are closing the gap between the underground and mainstream.

[Until The Bombs]

Myspace and other sites are closing the gap between the underground and mainstream.

They are closing the gap in the sense that it at least seems easier to go from an underground artist to a mainstream success (which who cares, because why would you wish anything but success for bands that you like), but not in the sense that the lines are beginning to blur.

[chipdip18]

They are closing the gap in the sense that it at least seems easier to go from an underground artist to a mainstream success (which who cares, because why would you wish anything but success for bands that you like), but not in the sense that the lines are beginning to blur.


Yes that is what i mean. What i'm afraid of is all these bands trying to get promotion strictly through the internet and sites instead of shows. I think we may have a generation of terrible live preformances. I mean over the years i think it has been digressing(correct word usage right?) already. Promotion through shows is where its at.

[Jumpoff]

Yes that is what i mean. What i'm afraid of is all these bands trying to get promotion strictly through the internet and sites instead of shows. I think we may have a generation of terrible live preformances. I mean over the years i think it has been digressing(correct word usage right?) already. Promotion through shows is where its at.

I think the internet isn't going to cause bad live performances at all. Most of the bands that I like that seem to be mainly getting fans through internet circles are better performers, actually...

[Until The Bombs]

Yes that is what i mean. What i'm afraid of is all these bands trying to get promotion strictly through the internet and sites instead of shows. I think we may have a generation of terrible live preformances. I mean over the years i think it has been digressing(correct word usage right?) already. Promotion through shows is where its at.

Poor live performances has nothing to do with myspace. Those bands would have been poor live with or without myspace.

I'll also add that I've seen quite a few bands put together national and in some cases, international tours that would have never been able to do so before myspace/similar sites.

[ThemChains]

The 90's is all about Nas.

[Jumpoff]

The 90's is all about Nas.

I don't 100% agree... he was two for four in the 90s. I mean, he had his two best in the 90s, and his two worst. So, take that as you will haha.

90s were the Wu-Tang years.


Wu Tang - Forever
Wu Tang - 36 Chambers
Raekwon - OB4CL
Ghostface - Ironman
Method Man - Tical
Gza - Liquid Swords

That's a pretty hard roster to beat..

[ThemChains]

I don't 100% agree... he was two for four in the 90s. I mena, he had his two best in the 90s, and his two worst. So, take that as you will haha.

90s were the Wu-Tang years.

Yea, I will agree with that completely.


But come on...Illmatic?

[Jumpoff]

Yea, I will agree with that completely.


But come on...Illmatic?

I love Illmatic and IWW. But, I haven't liked the last three Nas albums, and Nastradamus and I Am were big 90's let downs haha.

But, overall, 90s were so amazing rap wise... every artist and group was on the top of their game.

[ThemChains]

I love Illmatic and IWW. But, I haven't liked the last three Nas albums, and Nastradamus and I Am were big 90's let downs haha.

But, overall, 90s were so amazing rap wise... every artist and group was on the top of their game.

Word. I have been on a rap kick lately. It's been good.

[Jumpoff]

Word. I have been on a rap kick lately. It's been good.

Haven't been on a rap kick in a bit. Last time I was, it was all about Outkast and Redman

[ThemChains]

Haven't been on a rap kick in a bit. Last time I was, it was all about Outkast and Redman

Outkast's first 3 are so good. And Stankonia is good for parties.

[Jumpoff]

Outkast's first 3 are so good. And Stankonia is good for parties.

Outkast's first three are amazing. Same as Goodie Mob's first two... Dungeon Fam were prob one of the best collectives in rap music ever. Not a stankonia fan or anything that came after stankonia though.

[IWasaCamera]

Reminisce about the 60's and 70's instead. Infinitely better decades.

[chipdip18]

I think the internet isn't going to cause bad live performances at all. Most of the bands that I like that seem to be mainly getting fans through internet circles are better performers, actually...

Poor live performances has nothing to do with myspace. Those bands would have been poor live with or without myspace.

I'll also add that I've seen quite a few bands put together national and in some cases, international tours that would have never been able to do so before myspace/similar sites.


I agree that the internet can't directly cause poor performances. I guess i was overexaggerating my worry for less shows for promotion and artists relying more on the internet for exposure. Undoubtedly the internet has helped artists gain reputation and have the ablitity to do lengthier tours.

[x togepi x]

i don't think many bands are solely relying on myspace for exposure, and if they are, then they probably should fail, so it's not a big deal. this "myspace" is going to make music suck or kill the underground or whatever is classic textbook backlash against a new form of media.

[Troggy]

i don't think many bands are solely relying on myspace for exposure, and if they are, then they probably should fail, so it's not a big deal. this "myspace" is going to make music suck or kill the underground or whatever is classic textbook backlash against a new form of media.

myspace music has gotten me to ignore everything on it so you are probably right.

[chipdip18]

i don't think many bands are solely relying on myspace for exposure, and if they are, then they probably should fail, so it's not a big deal. this "myspace" is going to make music suck or kill the underground or whatever is classic textbook backlash against a new form of media.


Good call.