What defines this decades music? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums


View Full Version : What defines this decades music?

Mr Peabody
12-27-2005, 09:30 AM
This may not be the best place to post this thought since I get the impression that many of you are as discouraged with commercial radio as I am.

But here it is going to be 2006 and to me it seems like a very uneventful decade for music so far. Many stations say they play the music of the 70,'s, 80's or 90's and most decades you can sort of peg as a certain type of music making a splash, like the 90's had Grunge, the 80's had "Big Hair Metal" and "New Wave" yet it seems Y2K is undefined in my mind and I really can't think of anything that stands out mucically in this decade. Is it like that for you or did I miss the big event?

I added to my collection over the last 6 years, most of it was Prog, that was my big discovery, that Prog still exists. I also added some Jazz, Classical and older titles filling in gaps. I also added some great stuff like Nightwish. A few other harder bands like Disturbed, Stone Sour and Godsmack. Almost all of the stuff I added to my collection has been music I've discovered through other avenues than commercial radio.

Maybe the Y2K decade will be known as the decade of American Idols and fabricated Pop artists who would be nothing more than a hot body without electronic alterations. Or, could it be the decade of Country Music? Excuse me, New Country. The Country Music that is as far from Country as most anything else on commercial radio.

Enough ranting, please help me focus here.

12-27-2005, 10:00 AM
Maybe the Y2K decade will be known as the decade of American Idols and fabricated Pop artists who would be nothing more than a hot body without electronic alterations.

That's where my mind was going when I read the thread title. So far, I see the 2000's as the decade of fluff. The biggest acts all seem to be fabricated MTV fodder. American/Canadian Idol is HUGE but outside of Kelly Clarkson, no-one seems to be getting the fortune and fame that, you would think, being an American Idol would lead to. With all due respect to Kelly's vocal abilities, even her success comes from some serious image consulting and PR magic. I don't see/hear a lot of real talent in popular new music. I find that very sad.

On the other side of the coin. These last few years have been some of the best musical years for me personally. With the help of the internet (and all of you) I have discovered some incredible music that I would have never discovered if I had to rely on commercial media. My musical tastes have evolved more in the last four years than they had in the previous twenty. It's been an awesome ride of discovery that I hope never ends. Ultimately, for me, the 2000s is my decade of reawakening.

12-27-2005, 10:19 AM
What defines this decades music?

There's nothing new under the sun. Even the prefab American Idol jive is just a rehash of the whole Monkees, pre-fab-band idea combined with the whole "everyone is a star" pop-culture world of today. It's not that there's NO good new music out there as there's new things of merit every year in every genre and style, it's that there is nothing that has broken on the world as "the next big thing" for many years now. Your kids listen to the same music you do/did. Something we reviled as kids was even the thought of listening to our parent's generation's music.

The iPod and the entire mp3 revolution.
THIS is what defines the decade so far for me, not WHAT I listen to, but HOW I listen to it. I was reticent to it for a long time and am REALLY glad I finally gave in to it. I spoke with several peers over the hoilidays about it who are still fighting it, but they WILL come around eventually. I would have never thought that Jethro Tull could ever segue with hardcore surf instrumentals, but you know, it works better than anyone could have ever imagined. I am rediscovering an immense ammount of music that I already own. The whole shuffle thing has changed the way I listen to music. When disbelievers say: "Why don't you just listen to the radio?" they don't realize how inept their comparison is.

12-27-2005, 10:36 AM
To me the only 'scene' to have come out of the past 6 years is the whole garage rock/indie-emo thing. Lackluster music and performances, but people are eating it up. Not only that, but it seems like everyone 12-18 dresses like a garage rocker now too. Ripped jeans, some sort of low budget sweater or long sleeve shirt, and usually converse all stars. Plus they all seem to have that Beatles-esq mop top thing going on, but longer. Imagine the Rubber Soul album cover with 6 inches more hair. And if it's not that hairdo it's the "I just got out of bed and didn't have time to take a shower" lazy look. I can't complain, I did the grunge thing 10-15 years ago, but the whole garage rock "I like the Strokes and the White Stripes but if you ask me I'll say MC5 and the Velvet Underground are my favorite bands" look/attitude just seems so lackluster. Less is more sometimes, but not with this music and scene. It's like it can't figure out how to define itself so it just keeps chugging along. although (and I am rambling now), a phase not being able to define itself may be a good thing. I hate music getting thrown into some media-fabricated genre. Most of the 'grunge' bands sounded nothing like each other, but they all got lumped into the scene. The music became the style instead of just being the music, and that's when the scene desintegrated.

12-27-2005, 11:11 AM
I'd have to say that this decade will be remembered as the decade of remakes. The art of taking someone else's music and changing it just enough to call it new, is getting better and better. Well, maybe better is not the right word. How about popular? It's getting more and more popular to turn a classic into a pile of .... oops, starting to rant ain't I? Sorry about that. But it's happening all over the place. Not just music either. How many movie remakes can be made? How many times can the same song be redone?

That's what this decade will be remembered for. How to remake something so that more money can be milked out of it.

American Idle? Kelly? More pop fluff. Pass.

12-27-2005, 11:20 AM
I also see this as the "DIY" decade, tho this is less true of music specifically.

We live in a "do it yerself" time as a byproduct of the digital revolution. Now people can create amazingly lifelike music in home studios built right into their computers. Countless bands are releasing/distributing their own CDs. Ditto movies and film editing. And digital photography. The "print on demand" self publishing industry is exploding. And podcasts/internet radio are EVERYWHERE. The web is overflowing with home made everything. It's still very much an underground thing, but it is starting to really bubble to the surface now.

Is any of it good? Yeah, most of it is schlock, but the fact remains that a LOT of people are taking control of media themselves and creating their own vision of what entertainment media really means.

12-27-2005, 12:19 PM
What defines this decades music?

Your kids listen to the same music you do/did.

The iPod and the entire mp3 revolution.
I would have never thought that Jethro Tull could ever segue with hardcore surf instrumentals, but you know, it works better than anyone could have ever imagined.

Excellent observations on both points. I actually burn cd comps for my teenage boys. I couldn't imagine my mom or dad making me a mix tape when I was a teen. When we listen to my sons' choice of radio stations in the car I hear Alice in Chains, old Pearl Jam, AC/DC, etc. They can't believe I saw some of those bands live 10-15 years ago.

And who would of thunk that Glen Campbell and Bright Eyes, or Neutral Milk Hotel and Johnny Cash, or Waylon Jennings and Led Zeppelin, or Buck Owens and Modest Mouse would work on the same play list, but they do.

12-27-2005, 03:09 PM
Grunge seemed more grown up to me than most of the mainstream Emo does. Probably because most of the grungers had a healthy respect for the big 70's rockers like Led Zep and Sabbath. I do like quite a few of the Emo bands, but it's getting way Jr. High nowadays. Sounds like they all listened to Green Day and All, bands that tried to sound juvenile. I don't see Emo as a defining genre of music, but one of the branches that came to the mainstream in the 00's so far. The whole neo-Post punk thing is getting played out to me, I'm glad those bands like Gang of Four etc are getting some recognition and all that, but it doesn't mean I want to hear that style beat to death.

Bands are still putting things together in new and interesting ways. Deconstruction and Construction. That will probably be one of the main things of the 00's. Though I have to admit, the Decemberists are certainly giving everyone a run for the money as far as originality goes, though there is Neutral Milk Hotel and Belle & Sebastian before them.

I'm rambling.

Mr Peabody
12-27-2005, 09:35 PM
It looks like we are all pretty much on the same page.

I still keep my computer and stereo separated. I would consider an Ipod if I could just hook it up to my preamp and record from CD but then I guess it wouldn't hold as much music because of not being MP3. I got excited when I saw they have a walkman style satelite radio but then I learned it has to be close to a window or outside to work properly. I'm not sure why when most cellphones seem to work inside. But I did digress.

I guess the decade could also be known for the comeback of many old bands, ie Queen, Cream, Loggins & Messina.

12-28-2005, 12:25 AM
So far, its the decade of the indie artists, rock, country, rap, you name it. Of course, you can't call 'em 'indie' once they become part of the mainstream conscience, but the way most all indie bands broke through was on the internet, peddled there by indie labels on shoe-string budgets, and garnering a lot of attention, despite a lack of airplay on even so-called underground radio stations. Some enterprising older artists like David Bowie embraced the internet and has had success selling music that would have surely been shunned by a major label or mainstream radio. And would there be such a thing as alternative country without the internet?

Whether the distribution of indie-rock/rap/alt-country music was legal (thru indie label websites) or illegally (thru file sharing networks), it was to the major lables' chagrin; and while major labels cried fowl and sued various file sharing schemes, citing loss of revenue, it was their loss of control on how music reached the masses that scared them the most; the very idea that the listening public would seek our own bliss and not wait for the major lables to tell us where, what and when as far as music trends go caused rec execs to panic. None of this is possible without the proliferation and expansion of the internet; the absence of which terms like download, rip, MP3, and maybe even 'indie' would be superfilous.