Which five year period was the worst ever for music?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I don't think there was much going on from 1971-1975 was there? Unless you love glam. But perhaps 1983-1987 was even more of a snooze.

― Ned's sexier younger brother, Thursday, 27 January 2005 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)

There you are, you horrid little bastard. *prepares the whips and chains*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 January 2005 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i veto 71-75, for glam and prog and soul/funk

― peter smith (plsmith), Thursday, 27 January 2005 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)

this question is rockist

― peter smith (plsmith), Thursday, 27 January 2005 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think there was much going on from 1971-1975 was there? Krautrock?

― thank god i ain't too cool for the safe belt (smile), Thursday, 27 January 2005 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)

83-87 doesn't seem like a snooze, he said without looking at anything that came out in those years, but thinking of SST, etc.

95-2000 seems like it would have been boring, using same research technique.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)

1885-1890

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Top 40 was quite horrific '73-76, especially.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

You're insane. 1887 ROCKED!
1240, on the other hand...

― Huk-L, Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Hold it, I wasn't thinking this thing through. Tago Mago, Syd Barret's second solo, Hunky Dory, Autobahn... what was I thinking, 1971-1975 was good. But I stand by 1983-1987. It was the fag-end of new wave and acid house hadn't happened and not a lot was going on.

― Ned's sexier younger brother, Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

probably 1985 to 1990 or 1995 to 2000

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

the early 70s were insanely great, musically. So many genres were in full bloom:

- krautrock
- glam
- funk at its peak (James Brown, P-Funk)
- country (Waylon, Willie, Parsons)
- heavy metal (Zep, Sabbath)
- dub/reggae
- afrofunk/pop (Fela)
- Miles' electric period (just had to throw this in there)

even with all that I feel like I'm still forgetting something... a much bleaker period would be post-Elvis/Chuck Berry/Buddy Holly and pre-Beatles, ie '58(?)-'63.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:16 (twenty-one years ago)

200 BC - 196 BC (You all realize that except for peter and dave you're listing 6 year spans, yes?)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:18 (twenty-one years ago)

1986 SEEMED like five years.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

much bleaker period would be post-Elvis/Chuck Berry/Buddy Holly and pre-Beatles, ie '58(?)-'63.

except that of course everything good the beatles ever did was BASED on what happened between about 58 and 63: arthur alexander, phil spector, the everly brothers, the miracles, the shirelles, etc. that was an absolute golden age.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

But perhaps 1983-1987 was even more of a snooze.

oh dear lord.

i would say the early '50s, but that doesn't account for rhythm 'n' blues, country/western, and early electronic music.

― amanda lear (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:27 (twenty-one years ago)

saying something's based on what came before doesn't seem to be an exceptional claim to me (ALL music does that). Most of what you listed bores me to tears, Spector excepted.

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:28 (twenty-one years ago)

i wasn't suggesting there was anything exceptional about the beatles basing their music on what came before. i was just pointing out that i thought what came immediately before, in that particular case, WAS exceptional (and happened to be extremely influential on the beatles, who your post used as a marker for the next great period). you disagree. c'est la vie. there was also the drifters, george jones, ray charles, the impressions, lesley gore, skeeter davis, connie francis, charlie rich, blah blah blah. kinda great if you ask me. but whatever.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

1992-1997

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

1BC - 4AD

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:04 (twenty-one years ago)

can't be done, music has always ruled

― Snappy (sexyDancer), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:10 (twenty-one years ago)

fcc OTM, the "music sucked between Elvis joining the army and the Beatles appearing on Ed Sullivan" myth needs to be retired.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

59-63 was stax/volt, early motown, surf music (teenage bands taking the industry out of the pickwick singer/songwriter machines and into the garage... and also the ventures), buddy holly, richy valens, big bopper, jerry lee lewis, herb alpert, henry mancini, jack nitzsche, burt bacharach... an insane era for american music... maybe one of the best.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:18 (twenty-one years ago)

>1992-1997 <

OTM. Though 1991-1996 probably runs a pretty close second.

― chuck, Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:28 (twenty-one years ago)

1971-1975 and 1983-1987 both great by the way (and i guess we can quibble about whether they are only four years or whether the two in my previous post are actually six, but we won't. Or at least I won't.)

― chuck, Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Honestly, and I know this isn't going to be a popular answer, and it's not that I don't like anything produced during this time period, but it would probably be 2000-2004 for me.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm going with '85-'90, even though there is certainly lots of stuff from that time that I love (so don't start with "b-b-b-but Sonic Youth... and Public Enemy..."), but I'd say there's less overall.

― Mike O. (Mike Ouderkirk), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)

1988-1993

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)

1992-1996...
unless you liked improv/noise, house/techno, electronica or the Royal Trux

― Snappy (sexyDancer), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I like how this is basically all just breaking down to personal preferences. (Stax/volt = awesome. the rest of that shit = eh. Or blech in Bacharach and Alpert's cases)

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Any period can seem dull/golden depending on what you concentrate on.
But I think 95-2000 is probably the weakest era. Or maybe 96-2001. That's not to say there wasn't great music being made (Beck, Tricky, DJ Shadow, Missy, Cornershop, Royal Trux, Lambchop, Flaming Lips, Palace/BPB etc etc), it's just that nothing particularly revolutionary emerged. The late 90s was more about consolidation of earlier devolopments. Some of the great bands who'd emerged in the early 90s began to lose their way and mainstream music was dreary. Arse end of Britpop, nu-metal, Alanis, hard house, big beat, chill out, New Acoustic Movement...
Pop picked up post 2001 by assimilating Timbaland, dancehall etc; the indie undeground benefitted from the internet and renewed interest in live music; White Stripes were a breath of fresh air after Travis and Coldplay and reaffirmed many people's belief in rock 'n roll; Missy, Outkast, Def Jux brought fresh ideas to hip-hop etc. I'm more excited by new music than I've ever been. (I'm 24, so go figure).

― stew, Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

How does:

..counter the argument against the early seventies?
OK, some glamrock was fun, some dub wasn't bad. But that's it.

(And then following it up with that '58-'63 nonsense. Spector alone owns all of the above).

'88-'93??
The best period for music since 1979!

It's clearly either 1971-1975 or 1996-2000.

― Koens (Koens), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

"counter the argument against the early seventies?
OK, some glamrock was fun, some dub wasn't bad. But that's it."

Dismissing entire genres, that's very enlightened of you.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

if I had to pick, I would ONLY listen to music made in early 70s

― Snappy (sexyDancer), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

if I had to pick, I would ONLY listen to music made in early 70s

Yeah, pretty much true for me too.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:47 (twenty-one years ago)

other great shit from the early 70s:
- Stones at their peak
- the dawn of synthesizers
- English folk scene (Pentangle, Nick Drake, et al)
- the FUCKING STOOGES

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

After seeing the results of the ILM 90s poll, I gotta say that for me, the worst period was sometime in that decade.

― peepee (peepee), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I would add that Miles Davis wasn't the only person making excellent jazz from 70 to 75.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, I wasn't sure what other jazz stuff to throw in there, and the 70s were really the last time jazz had anything new or interesting to say - there's plenty of great stuff (AEC, Archie Shepp, Alice Coltrane, Headhunters, Blackbyrds, Mahavishnu Orchestra...)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Dismissing entire genres, that's very enlightened of you.

Yes, well, sorry. Don't like metal, funk or country.
Nor 'the Stones at their peak' (which I would say was '66-'70).

And everyone is dismissing whole genres when they talk about a half decade. Dom (88-93) dismissed Acid House, The Golden Age of Hiphop, Baggy, Technique, the Pixies...

― Koens (Koens), Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't dismiss any genres on this thread, only particular artists. And if you "don't like" any metal, funk, or country well... I dunno what to say except I feel sorry for you.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

"Seek and Ye Shall Find" looking for the worst.

― Snappy (sexyDancer), Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't feel sorry for me, I am perfectly happy in my pop/dance/indie dark ages.

― Koens (Koens), Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)

"counter the argument against the early seventies?
OK, some glamrock was fun, some dub wasn't bad. But that's it."

Moron.

― henrod eldrix, Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

more great shit from the early 70s:
- Neil Young, Joni Mitchell (Laurel Canyon scene)
- the Faces/Rod Stewart
- the Groundhogs!

... I could do this all day...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahaha like everyone didn't know this thread would end in tears!

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:20 (twenty-one years ago)

don't cry Dan.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

These are all horrible.

(I mean Neil Young, wtf?)

― Koens (Koens), Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:25 (twenty-one years ago)

But let's put the 71-75 debate to rest for a mo'.

My second choice was '96-2000. Who's going to defend that?

("B-B-But Travis, Creed, Linkin Park!")

― Koens (Koens), Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

various swathes of the 90s seem like good potential candidates, but I can't help feeling that its just because there's never anything as unattractive as the immediate past - I don't think there are too many fully formed takes on the period just yet... (I certainly don't have one)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 29 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

amanda - I would too - at least for 1979 and 1980. '81 is pretty slim, methinks, and same goes for '82 and '83, although '83 is a slight improvement, and '84 is pretty awesome. Ghostbusters was on the charts! I never knew that.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh and in case it wasn't obvious to anyone, this is U.S. singles charts.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:13 (twenty-one years ago)

'96-'00 is postrock / Chicago stuff, right? Not my favorite genre, but it probably has a better reputation than E6.

― Derek Krissoff (Derek), Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:13 (twenty-one years ago)

What about the WWII recording ban? I think it was only a couple of years and when recording resumed, bop exploded. But you could make an argument that a five year period around those two years was the worst ever for recorded music since there would only have been 3 years worth of records made during the 5-year span. This argument at least works from a pseudo-objective point of view.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't choose an entire half-decade so I'm picking five separate years that were a little weak me thinks:

1959
1962
1974
1987
1998

― darin (darin), Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - I like walter's hyper-literal take.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I just figured nobody will agree on quality so why not focus on quantity?

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm with you.

― Snappy (sexyDancer), Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, I've got tons of music from all eras, but no war-era tunes. Not much from the 1900s either, mind.

― Snappy (sexyDancer), Thursday, 27 January 2005 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

1998-2002

What? You actually liked the Backstreet Boys? And Nickelback?

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Friday, 28 January 2005 00:47 (twenty-one years ago)

2000-present

― cdwill, Friday, 28 January 2005 00:57 (twenty-one years ago)

1962

i respectfully disagree:
1962: Century 21 Calling (a CDR 700 Go! by Elvis Telecom)

― amanda lear (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 28 January 2005 01:05 (twenty-one years ago)

OK - substitute 2004.

― darin (darin), Friday, 28 January 2005 01:11 (twenty-one years ago)

In the recorded era, it's got to be 1941-45. Much of the world at war, Europe in ruins, recording ban effected in America.

― briania (briania), Friday, 28 January 2005 03:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Late '80s were the worst for chart pop, which is why I picked it. The early '80s had new wave and Prince and Michael Jackson and I will take the early '90s over the late '80s for big crossover hits in hip-hop. What were "the kids" listening to then? Warrant? Paula Abdul? There's always going to be cool shit going on beyond the top 40, so this was the dealbreaker for me.

― Mike O. (Mike Ouderkirk), Friday, 28 January 2005 04:53 (twenty-one years ago)

This question is bad because music ever since the 50's music has never gone five years without being exciting, and also because you secretly knew half the people were just going to diss some 90's mid-period because that's what lame people love to do.

My second choice was '96-2000. Who's going to defend that?

("B-B-But Travis, Creed, Linkin Park!")

Honestly, what retard would use those three bands to define any period of music?

― billstevejim, Friday, 28 January 2005 05:00 (twenty-one years ago)

'72-'76

I clealy have nothing in common with anyone who includes a year from '88-'95 in their period.

― The Good Dr. Bill (The Good Dr. Bill), Friday, 28 January 2005 05:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, the mid 80s were craptastic!

― Bretty (Bretty), Friday, 28 January 2005 05:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think there was much going on from 1971-1975 was there? Unless you love glam. But perhaps 1983-1987 was even more of a snooze.

-- Ned's sexier younger brother (nedsbrothe...), January 27th, 2005.
the only 5 good years
the music's getting worse:
1991-1995
1996-2000

― psuedo boys club, Friday, 28 January 2005 05:54 (twenty-one years ago)

1983-1987

I stand by 1983-1987. It was the fag-end of new wave and acid house hadn't happened and not a lot was going on .

What about New Order, The Smiths, the Pet Shop Boys, the Jesus and Mary Chain?

― daavid (daavid), Friday, 28 January 2005 06:09 (twenty-one years ago)

No. No five-year period that involved the 1970s should be here. NEIN. Nominate the first half? That was a goldmine for rocksteady, reggae, ska, dub, funk, R&B, heavy metal, glam, power pop, Kraut and some of the better early fusion efforts (not to mention the aforementioned Electric Miles). The second half? Disco, punk, post-punk, the continued excellence of reggae, the genesis of techno (Moroder, Cerrone, Kraftwerk), the first strains of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and the birth of hip-hop.

1991-1995: Wu-Tang. Enough said.
1996-2000: Timbaland. Ibid.

― What's this place, Biblevania? (natepatrin), Friday, 28 January 2005 06:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with 1983-87, or maybe 82-86, or 81-85 -- of course we're talking taste here, so don't get your panties in a bunch. I don't like New Order, The Smiths, Pet Shop Boys or Jesus and Mary Chain, btw.

There was some good rap in this era, but I think it got much better in the late 80s/early 90s. Otherwise, total dud era.

― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 28 January 2005 06:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd hesitantly vote '82-'86, or maybe '83-'87 -- if only because for every Prince/Bruce/Madonna/Run-DMC instant-classic world-changing paradigm there was some ugly, ugly, UGLY shit on the charts to damn near cancel it out.

― What's this place, Biblevania? (natepatrin), Friday, 28 January 2005 06:36 (twenty-one years ago)

And that's the thing, I could easily live without Springsteen, Madonna, and even Prince (though I'll keep Run-DMC). I guess Police and Talking Heads would be exceptions, but overall a horrid time for music.

― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 28 January 2005 06:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the only artists I actually hate are from the 80s. Anyone who picks anything from the 70s or 90s is just ill. I mean, hello, have you not heard of Ram Jam? Superchunk?

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Friday, 28 January 2005 07:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh wait, I hate the Junior Boys. At least they want to be from the 80s.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Friday, 28 January 2005 07:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, Low complicates that too.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Friday, 28 January 2005 07:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I was tempted to agree with Ott ('92 - '97) but WHAT ABOUT PAVEMENT!? I couldn't do it. And Wu-Tang, too. And Yo la Tengo. And Guided by Voices (sniffle)?

I'll go for '81 - '86. The only releases I'm really regretting the loss of are The Queen is Dead (I still get Strangeways, though) and Swordfishtrombones and Rain Dogs. But whatever. It'll all be worth it for 'Sister.'

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Friday, 28 January 2005 08:47 (twenty-one years ago)

WHAT THE FUCK WAS I THINKING:

-Every Fall record.
-Replacements, 'Let it Be'
-XTC, 'Skylarking' (They can keep English Settlement)

Nevermind. Music rocks. This is the worst question. Now I'm going to have nightmares. Damn you.

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Friday, 28 January 2005 08:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I meant "Ever Fall record that I love."

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Friday, 28 January 2005 08:50 (twenty-one years ago)

1914-18

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 28 January 2005 08:57 (twenty-one years ago)

How can 92-97 be the worst? I mean 1994 was probably the best year for music in the ever!

― dog latin (dog latin), Friday, 28 January 2005 11:06 (twenty-one years ago)

According to the 1000 UK Number Ones poll, then 1992-1996 - as NO SINGLES AT ALL from that period placed within the Top 100, unlike every other year from 1962-2004.

I still think this has something to do with the "10 years old = boring, 20 years old = cool" rule.

― mike t-diva (mike t-diva), Friday, 28 January 2005 11:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Number ones are weak though. Unrepresentative.

― dog latin (dog latin), Friday, 28 January 2005 11:22 (twenty-one years ago)

the hate for the mid-nineties is so obviously going to turn to love in five years that i see no point in continuing with it. we know it's going to happen. give in.

― Miles Finch, Friday, 28 January 2005 11:24 (twenty-one years ago)

1995 had pavement's wowee zowee, luna's penthouse, pj harvey's to bring you my love, suddenly tammy's we get there when we do... couple of good/great records came out, but it's still not a year i'd rhapsodize over.

― amanda lear (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 28 January 2005 12:55 (twenty-one years ago)

although if you like guided by voices and smashing pumpkins maybe it is

― amanda lear (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 28 January 2005 12:56 (twenty-one years ago)

outside of "alternative rock" there were things going on. 'maxinquaye' for one.

― Miles Finch, Friday, 28 January 2005 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

"Tilt" came out in 1995, so that saves that year.

Too difficult to do a five-year span. I think '85/'86 were pretty patchy years.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Friday, 28 January 2005 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I'd pick January 85 - July 86, followed by January 75 - July 86. 1998-99 were also a bit pants. There, at least that adds up to about five years.

― mike t-diva (mike t-diva), Friday, 28 January 2005 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

(I mean Jan 75 to July 76 of course)

― mike t-diva (mike t-diva), Friday, 28 January 2005 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

2005 to 2010. Trust me.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Friday, 28 January 2005 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

1997-2000 while not being quite the full half decade, certainly felt like it. depressing as hell to live through, especially for me who was convinced that this idea of certain eras having a tailing off in quality was bollox, and revisionist, and all that.

from (roughly) the appearance of terris on the cover of the NME to (roughly) the release of daft punk's DISCOVERY/the avalanches' SINCE I LEFT YOU was like waking up in "THREADS".

i get a chill just thiking about it.

― piscesboy, Friday, 28 January 2005 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

98-99 wasn't too great for new stuff. I arrived at Aberdeen uni expecting to meet all these cool people with interesting musical tastes, but it never really happened until later. I started reviewing CDs for the student paper and to think of some of the stuff that was popular then! I was digging on Hello Nasty, Mutations, Lauryn Hill and the Beta Band's 3EPs, and then towards the end of the term, Deserter's Songs. There were certainly a few outstanding artists at the time, but mainstream student indie was all about Gomez, Travis and suchlike.
Admittedly, there was plenty of underground stuff I had yet to discover, but I didn't really have a music geek buddy to point me in the right direction. The people who were supposedly cool music guys tended to be Stussy wearing surfers who'd bought decks on their student loan and kept spinning that godawful Unkle album while tugging on spliffs in as cool a manner as possible. Wankers.
I did listen to some new artists, but I spent a lot of time exploring old music, from old-school hip-hop to soul to Dylan and Neil Young. I was listening to some underground Rawkus hip-hop, but then I heard Outkast, which blew so much of it away. It wasn't until 3rd/4th year that I fell in with some punk rock dudes. This coincided with the Strokes, White Stripes etc. I was too busy to get a band together, but suddenly the fun of being a music fan came back for me. I was going to local gigs, parties with rock n roll on the stereo etc. And it's been fun ever since, as I've discovered all kinds of new and different things. I do a fanzine and I'm heading off to ATP in a few weeks with all my music buddies. Just need to get that psychedelic country rock 'n roll band together...

― stew, Friday, 28 January 2005 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

but everyone is still holding up one (maybe two) record as refutation.
even taking Nate's Wu and Timbo reprieves, they are still y'know, weeds in thick concrete of suckitude. or you know, try holding up two handfuls of rock compact discs from this time.
quantity is the argument, is it not? and in my experience, grabbing random records cut from '71 to '75 is like early cali gold rush. huge finds (or at least, returns) under almost every rock. or (insert genre).
which is to say, my musical maturity was worst ever: '92-'96.

― Beta (abeta), Friday, 28 January 2005 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Wu is hardly the only reason to live in the early 90s! I'm sorry to sound like a broken record here, but New York hip-hop was flying high (Nas, Biggie, Wu Tang, Black Moon, DITC, beatnuts, Premier, Pete Rock, Large Pro etc.) while Cali hip-hop was just beginning to blow up (Dre, obviously, and pretty much all west coast gangsta) and southern hip-hop was growing the grassroots (and, most notably, UGK and Outkast dropped albums). Wu Tang is just the tip of the iceberg there.

As for late 90s...Eminem, Cash Money, No Limit, Ludacris.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Friday, 28 January 2005 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

The people who are dissing the early-mid '90's were obviously not listening to house, techno, or IDM at the time.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 28 January 2005 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the positive thing about the late 90s was that genre snobbery finally broke down. This probably had a lot to do with the lack of identifiable "scenes". People didn't have grunge or Britpop to latch onto anymore so they explored different things. The internet undoubtedly helped in this.
Hip-hop finally became mainstream music in the UK, indie fans were turned on to dance music and hip-hop. Personally, I took huge inspiration from Beck, the Beasties, Beta Band and Cornershop mashing things up. They were my gateway into hip-hop, soul, reggae, punk etc.
Although 96-2001 may have been a fallow period, it helped sow the seeds for a much more vibrant underground where great bands are abundant, rather than the exception.

― stew, Friday, 28 January 2005 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)

IF YOU HATE THE NINTIES YOU HATE MUSIC

― billstevejim, Friday, 28 January 2005 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

billsteve otm!

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Friday, 28 January 2005 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.