Were the 90's a high water mark in music history

musicismylife78

a time of intense creative passions, art was at a peak, music was intelligent and meaningful.

the 90's music scene basically was the soundtrack to many of our childhoods.

will it go down in history as a highwater mark, or merely a footnote in history?

read an article recently about grunge, and how this author, some writer for rollingstone was talking about how in the 90's people were trying to find out what the bands were rebelling against. The author concluded, by the relatively small sales for the Pumpkins new record and recent fan bashings of live shows, and whatnot that the bands werent revolutionary or rebellious at all,

but merely the same old same old.\

thoughts?

pjoasisrule

It absolutely was the best period for music besides the 60's. The odd thing about the 90's was that the best bands were all pretty popular but the lesser known bands were still great as well. Rap music also hit its peak in the mid 90's.

SVRDhand13

pjoasisrule wrote:

It absolutely was the best period for music besides the 60's. The odd thing about the 90's was that the best bands were all pretty popular but the lesser known bands were still great as well. Rap music also hit its peak in the mid 90's.

I disagree and go with the 70s for second place. But the 60s are so far ahead of the 70s and 90s combined anyway.

RolanBolan

I think that this subject is so relative. Of course any given generation will tell you that certain other generations were more important than others.

I personally think that the 90's was an extremely creative period of time. There were amazing bands that came out of just about every genre during that time period. There are always bands that "rebel" against whatever system is in place. It just depends on what you feel is worthy of rebellion. To say that any generation of music is completely meaningless would be unfair.

I love the 60s, 70s, and 90s equally. So many great bands.

South of Seattle

I think some bands were rebellious. I think the author using SP is a bad example. I never identified them with anything rebellious. Their new album tanked because it wasn't very good and people have become tired of Billy.

reeferchief

South of Seattle wrote:

I think some bands were rebellious. I think the author using SP is a bad example. I never identified them with anything rebellious. Their new album tanked because it wasn't very good and people have become tired of Billy.

Personally I thought the new album was good, it just doesn't stand up well against the rest of the awesome Pumpkins back catalogue, Siamese Dream, Adore and Mellon Collie are all classic albums and Gish and Machina are pretty good too.

Joe2TheRevenge

Nobody was rebeling, all the bands were merely INFORMING

and they are still doing it

Record sales change because musical tastes shift, not because people are no longer interested in the message.

musicismylife78

in essense, I am reneging on my original post, but I think today's popular music scene, or the dominant popular scene, indie rock, which i am enthralled with is completely the opposite of grunge and the 90's.

You have bands like modest mouse, or the shins, death cab, bon iver, bright eyes, iron and wine, brilliant bands creating some of the best and most important music of all time, and most if not all liscence their music to commercial interests.

Bands of the 90's wouldnt have been caught dead doing that. imagine kurt liscening Teen Spirit to a car commercial, or PJ selling the rights to Alive back in 1991 to a bank commercial. bands just didnt do that.

now bands including PJ liscence songs to everything. And its not necessarily a greed thing. its adapting to the music world and our society. music sales arent a viable way to way to make a living. its through touring and merch and liscening that the dough is made.

So I sort of think the author was right. Would Kurt want his songs used in a video game? And on an episode of Lost? Maybe he would of loved it all, but somehow, his stated beliefs 1991-1994 make it clear he would be disgusted

musicismylife78

did fans tire of the message of grunge and 90's music or did they tire of the style or did something else happen?

Kurt's suicide changed it all. Whether people on this board want to man up and admit it or not, he was and always will be the poster boy and icon of grunge, not eddie, not scott weiland, not layne, not billy and not cornell. it was kurt, and his suicide changed EVERYTHING.

Grunge ended because kurt killed himself. period, end of story

South of Seattle

radiohead33 wrote:

did fans tire of the message of grunge and 90's music or did they tire of the style or did something else happen?

Kurt's suicide changed it all. Whether people on this board want to man up and admit it or not, he was and always will be the poster boy and icon of grunge, not eddie, not scott weiland, not layne, not billy and not cornell. it was kurt, and his suicide changed EVERYTHING.

Grunge ended because kurt killed himself. period, end of story

Depends on how you defined Grunge. When I think of grunge I personally think of Mudhoney.

Definitely not Stone Temple Pilots or Smashing Pumpkins. I know no one wants to admit it, but Stone Temple Pilots were the Creed of that era.

I don't think fans got tired of Grunge, I think Grunge got tired of itself. A great example is Chris Cornell, as each album he was involved with got more mainstream oriented as it went along until Soundgarden imploded.

Also you could look at Pablo Honey by Radiohead, it sounds very early 90's ish, but nothing like current Radiohead.

You're correct about music today. You need to license it, otherwise it is very difficult to be successful.

searchlightsoul

Why the fuck did he use the SP? By all accounts they always had an avergae live show and in any case the big grunge bands were never known for their predictabilty. BUT when they were on and having fun they were unmatchable live.
For me bands like SP define the commercialisation of grunge-the begining of the end. Now I know a lot of people would disagree with that but thats how I see it. Following SP you see a whole bunch of other, second wave bands, which exploit the sound and helped sow the seeds for grunge's end. In itself grunge would have ended eventually but these second wave bands confused the message and accelerated its end.

As far as Kurt goes, I think his death simply provides a convenient point to mark as the 'end'. At the end of the day the alternative messages grunge promoted was always in conflict with the mainstream it was eventually marketed too.

Evacuation Rules

South of Seattle wrote:

Stone Temple Pilots were the Creed of that era.

Not really. At first they were accused of that, but after the release of Purple, that idea went out the window. Creed never had a Purple or even a Tiny Music.

pirlo21

Don't know why people label Smashing Pumpkins as 'grunge'.
They were never 'grunge' and never claimed to be. Billy always grand ambitions and never hid the fact, which was very un-grunge!
They just happened to make (very good in my opinion) alternative rock around the time that grunge blew up.
I also think it's unfair to say they jumped on any bangdwagon. They've been around since '88, which is around the time Soundgarden came to the fore and way before there was Pearl Jam. And it's not like they modified their sound to fit into the genre.

Enough of that! The '90 will always be THE musical decade for me, it's the decade I grew up in.
I think it's the same for most people. The bands, the songs, the albums mean so much more somehow when they've been with you through think & thin.
I'm not saying it's the best decade or the most original or influential. I'm just saying it's the most important to me.

TinyFists

pirlo21 wrote:

Don't know why people label Smashing Pumpkins as 'grunge'.
They were never 'grunge' and never claimed to be. Billy always grand ambitions and never hid the fact, which was very un-grunge!
They just happened to make (very good in my opinion) alternative rock around the time that grunge blew up.
I also think it's unfair to say they jumped on any bangdwagon. They've been around since '88, which is around the time Soundgarden came to the fore and way before there was Pearl Jam. And it's not like they modified their sound to fit into the genre.

Enough of that! The '90 will always be THE musical decade for me, it's the decade I grew up in.
I think it's the same for most people. The bands, the songs, the albums mean so much more somehow when they've been with you through think & thin.
I'm not saying it's the best decade or the most original or influential. I'm just saying it's the most important to me.

I agree.

And I feel the same way.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

radiohead33 wrote:

a time of intense creative passions, art was at a peak, music was intelligent and meaningful.

I generally like your threads in here, BUT I definitely disagree with this POPULAR music had slightly more artistic integrity than it does now, but not music in general. People always have creative passions. Art is never at a peak...it never has been...it keeps rising and branching out. Artists in general are also more intelligent now than they ever have been. These things just don't always match up with what is popular. 60's music is only remembered because it was so popular. For some people that came from that era, they remember the music and associate it to artistic ideals and a symbol of those times. Other people just remember those same artists because that's what they heard on the radio and at parties all the time.

radiohead33 wrote:

the 90's music scene basically was the soundtrack to many of our childhoods.

It sure was for me, but I've also grown up...now I have a new soundtrack that's just as meaningful to me now as 90's music was to me back then.

radiohead33 wrote:

read an article recently about grunge, and how this author, some writer for rollingstone was talking about how in the 90's people were trying to find out what the bands were rebelling against. The author concluded, by the relatively small sales for the Pumpkins new record and recent fan bashings of live shows, and whatnot that the bands werent revolutionary or rebellious at all

I think the fan bashings of the live Pumpkins shows is only a sign that the majority of the population doesn't look to music to be rebellious or revolutionary. The bashings are mostly based on the fact that Corgan isn't playing all the familiar favorites...he's doing newer/experimental material...I've seen the show, and it's INCREDIBLE. imo, Corgan is at the height of his artistic abilities.

Good topic!

mickeyrat

pirlo21 wrote:

Don't know why people label Smashing Pumpkins as 'grunge'.

how about emo/prog/grunge?

alphawolf

i agree the 90's were a great era for music. rap (oops, sorry) hip-hop included.

Thecure

i think it all depends to you want to know if commercial music was good in the 90's or just music. i think what was commercial music in the 90's was crap exept for maybe a 3-4 year run.

DewieCox

reeferchief wrote:

Personally I thought the new album was good, it just doesn't stand up well against the rest of the awesome Pumpkins back catalogue, Siamese Dream, Adore and Mellon Collie are all classic albums and Gish and Machina are pretty good too.

I agree. I was never a huge SP fan, but I really dug Zeitgeist, so I listened to some of their older stuff. Zeitgeist is relatively good for this time, but not relatively to other SP albums. SD pisses all over it, but anybody that can't see that there are a few standout tracks is kidding their self.

I think the nod has to the late 60s early 70s time period, b/c all kinds of musical barriers were being tore down. The 90s is probably the best stand alone decade though.

JOEJOEJOE

I think the 80s were better then the 90s.

Besides Radiohead, no one really did anything too innovative in the 90s, nor did anyone make any big bold statements.

leftofthedia

I don't know about the best decade, but far better than this one we're currently in. As great as the 90's started, the way it ended still has an affect on why mainstream pop, rock, hip-hop sucks today. This seemed to have started in late 96' (Watch the film doc....'Before the Music Dies). I remember growing up with farmervision tv in the art capital of the world...northwest ohio...*sigh* and wishing I had Mtv so I could watch 120 minutes, and then we finally got it at the exact time Puff Daddy was getting big. What a tease right? and punishment.

Needless to say, downhill from there. Boy bands...aretha franklin rip-offs and rap-rock.

People today are really suckers for lyrics, any one minute instrumental to open a song or 3 minute solo in the middle of song leading to a climax of any sort seems to turn people off. Girlfriends at least. Oh well, i better learn to love the 3 minute or less pop songs.

Jeremy1012

No decade has ever been better or worse than any other.

There has been and always be quality music if you're prepared to look for it. People could say the 80s were shit because of synthpop but then I'd say "hardcore punk". People could say the 90s was the best and then I'd say "Creed, post-grunge etc".

Good and bad always.

FinsburyParkCarrots

There was a lot of good music released between 1987 and 1997. It all started with this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F6hGc7S8d88


It still gives me chills.

Jeremy1012

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

There was a lot of good music released between 1987 and 1997. It all started with this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F6hGc7S8d88


It still gives me chills.

*nods*

One of my favourite songs ever. I remember my uncle introduced me to it years ago and kept going on about how amazing they were when he saw them at the Barrowlands in Glasgow. In the video for the English version Bjork is the hottest nymph ever too

Her voice in the chorus is just... jesus.