What are your top 5 favorite bands that are still around right now? This does not include bands that disappear for 5 years and then come back with a sub-par album and tour. The band still has to be going strong.
*EDIT* The criteria may seem a bit confusing, so let me make it simpler. Pick your favorite bands that are touring regularly (has at least one tour in a 2-3 year time period) and has not had a gap of inactivity (meaning has not toured or made an album) of 3 years.
1. MMJ (Assuming a lot of you will say the same)
2. Explosions in the Sky
3. Wilco
4. Dr. Dog
5. John Butler Trio
Honorable mentions: Menomena, M. Ward, Jack White, Grizzly Bear and Bright Eyes
John Butler Trio - Ocean (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VAkOhXIsI0#)
That is one of the best instrumentals I have ever heard. Check it out!
I remember when I first saw that on TV. It was so awesome. JB is an incredible guitarist.
We need some timeline parametres on this one. However, off the top of my head:
The Brian Jonestown Massacre
The Pixies
Television (even without Richard Lloyd)
Wilco
Neil Young and Crazy Horse
MMJ
Wilco
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
The Allman Brothers Band
The Mother Hips (they don't rock as hard as they used to and their live repertoire has shrunk due to new band members, but they are still very very good)
a couple years ago, the Black Crowes would've definitely been on my list, but they are on hiatus.
by these criteria, The Stones, The Who and the Allman Brothers don't qualify, right?
Rush and U2 don't make the cut for me because I didn't like their last albums/tours.
Other bands I like are probably too new to qualify, but like Jaimoe said, we need some time parameters. How long do they have to have been around? Since the 90s or earlier? Does MMJ even make the cut?
I can't think of more than three right now. The sun is definitely rapidly setting on what I consider the Golden Age of Rock. Soon there won't be any bands that are as good as the Old Masters of the 60s and 70s. It'll just be what you can watch on DVD or listen to recorded, nothing to go see live that is awesome. But I'm weird in that I just don't like most of the bands talked about in the "Other Bands" section. I'm sounding more and more like a grumpy old man. I can't help it if I love classic rock. I compare all new bands to the classics. Most fall far short, IMO.
EDIT: ok, with the new criteria, the Allman Brothers Band goes on my list
Just off the top of my head...
1- Pearl Jam
2- My Morning Jacket
3- Clutch
4- Wilco
5- Neil Young & Crazy Horse
Ok, I love rating games, so I'll play. But like Shug, I am a little queasy about the criteria, so I'll explain my choices. And I guess this is favorite, as opposed to 'best', though I suspect whatever one thinks are the best would also likely be their favorites.
**In no particular order (except that the top 3 are tied for 1st):
Radiohead
My Morning Jacket
Wilco
Jack White
TV on the Radio
**Also considered (and just missing spots 4&5)
Belle and Sebastian
Spoon
Jay-Z
Kanye West
The Flaming Lips (only not in because I haven't been thrilled with the recent direction)
Gillian Welch
The Roots
Phoenix
**Not considered ONLY because of limited output/track record:
Bon Iver
Fleet Foxes
Destroyer
Deerhunter
Grizzly Bear
Frank Ocean
The Weeknd
Dirty Projectors
Phosphorescent
The National
M83
Menomena
**Excluded ONLY because of questionable form/existence (any firm incarnation would have been top 5):
Damon Albarn (Blur/Gorillaz/GSTQ/solo)
**Classic, but not currently relevant for me (would be high/included in 'all-time' list):
Eric Clapton
Bob Dylan
The Rolling Stones
Neil Young
The Gourds - ten albums in and still going strong!
Wilco
The Black Keys
Bonnie 'Prince' Billy
Midlake
Totally forgot about Radiohead. Add Tool to the list too.
Edit your lists after looking at the OP again, I clarified the criteria. Thanks!
Red Fang
Mastodon
MMJ
Jeff The Brotherhood
TV on the Radio
Quote from: buaawwww on Nov 12, 2012, 05:22 PM
Just off the top of my head...
1- Pearl Jam
2- My Morning Jacket
3- Clutch
4- Wilco
5- Neil Young & Crazy Horse
This wins. I may move pearl jam, but overall, pretty accurate :)
MMJ
Drive-by Truckers
Jason Isbell
Ryan Adams
Deer Tick (McCauley Projects)
Rush (they still put on about a 3 hour show folks)
Wilco
Built to Spill
Neil Young
Sonic Youth
Quote from: Shug on Nov 12, 2012, 04:02 PM
I can't think of more than three right now. The sun is definitely rapidly setting on what I consider the Golden Age of Rock. Soon there won't be any bands that are as good as the Old Masters of the 60s and 70s. It'll just be what you can watch on DVD or listen to recorded, nothing to go see live that is awesome. But I'm weird in that I just don't like most of the bands talked about in the "Other Bands" section. I'm sounding more and more like a grumpy old man. I can't help it if I love classic rock. I compare all new bands to the classics. Most fall far short, IMO.
That's why they are the classicsO0There are a ton of new bands that are revisiting the past but there just doesnt seem to be a market for it anymore.
Some if these bands have been mentioned in the Other Music thread but if you haven't checked them out yet, I'd recommend Howlin' Rain and Comets on Fire, The Sheepdogs' Learn and Burn, Wolf People's Steeple, Honey Island Swamp Band, Black Joe Lewis and the Honeybears for some get down soul, either of the Rival Sons' first two albums, etc. Maybe we should start a thread for new bands doing classic sounding stuff.:))
Quote from: Ruckus on Nov 13, 2012, 01:52 PM
Quote from: Shug on Nov 12, 2012, 04:02 PM
I can't think of more than three right now. The sun is definitely rapidly setting on what I consider the Golden Age of Rock. Soon there won't be any bands that are as good as the Old Masters of the 60s and 70s. It'll just be what you can watch on DVD or listen to recorded, nothing to go see live that is awesome. But I'm weird in that I just don't like most of the bands talked about in the "Other Bands" section. I'm sounding more and more like a grumpy old man. I can't help it if I love classic rock. I compare all new bands to the classics. Most fall far short, IMO.
That's why they are the classicsO0There are a ton of new bands that are revisiting the past but there just doesnt seem to be a market for it anymore.
Some if these bands have been mentioned in the Other Music thread but if you haven't checked them out yet, I'd recommend Howlin' Rain and Comets on Fire, The Sheepdogs' Learn and Burn, Wolf People's Steeple, Honey Island Swamp Band, Black Joe Lewis and the Honeybears for some get down soul, either of the Rival Sons' first two albums, etc. Maybe we should start a thread for new bands doing classic sounding stuff.:))
add Nick Waterhouse and JD McPherson to that list.
no specific order
I don't think I need to explain the first 3.
MMJ
Pearl Jam
Wilco
Lucero <-- personal 4th favorite band favorite
Radiohead <-- not a HUGE fan, but its hard to say that Thom isn't one of the most talented people in the music industry. btw, has anyone ever seen the giant debate they had going on the in Inforoo forum about MMJ vs. Radiohead. There was a surprising amount of MMJ love, i'm not sure who won the poll though.
Quote from: Ruckus on Nov 13, 2012, 01:52 PM
That's why they are the classicsO0There are a ton of new bands that are revisiting the past but there just doesnt seem to be a market for it anymore.
Some if these bands have been mentioned in the Other Music thread but if you haven't checked them out yet, I'd recommend Howlin' Rain and Comets on Fire, The Sheepdogs' Learn and Burn, Wolf People's Steeple, Honey Island Swamp Band, Black Joe Lewis and the Honeybears for some get down soul, either of the Rival Sons' first two albums, etc. Maybe we should start a thread for new bands doing classic sounding stuff.:))
Thanks for the suggestions, guys. Some of those I have checked out and have liked pretty well, like Rival Sons and Howlin' Rain. If I got to see them live, I'd have a better idea of how much they float my boat. I'll check out the others, because I do want to find new bands that I love, like Heartless Bastards, Tedeschi Trucks, JJ Grey and Mofro, Lucero (with their new soulful horn-driven sound, thanks for the reminder e-wind!) etc.
Hell, I felt the same way in the 90s when The Black Crowes came out. I didn't think there were that many good real rock 'n' roll bands anymore and then they came along and blew me away. Same thing with SRV in the 80s. I guess I'm just waiting for another band that good to come around. The more time passes, the more blown away I am that so many excellent rock bands were around all at the same time in just a few years back in the 70ss. I mean think about how fucking awesome almost every band was in 1969-1972. Zeppelin, Stones, Who, Sabbath, Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, Humble Pie, Faces, The Band, Dylan, all arguably peaking in the late 60s to early 70s. There must've been a cosmic harmonic convergence going on for there to be such a massive overload of creativity and brilliance in those years. Holy shit! Its unlikely to ever happen again, but perhaps time will prove me wrong. I hope so!
The Crowes went downhill pretty fast. I think real rock was around in the '90s in the form of grunge. Fucking rock was saved by grunge, and I'm not even a big fan of the genre.
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 14, 2012, 11:48 AM
The Crowes went downhill pretty fast. I think real rock was around in the '90s in the form of grunge. Fucking rock was saved by grunge, and I'm not even a big fan of the genre.
Bleh, I am going to have to disagree with this almost completely. Funny thing is, that was really my time period as well, the 90s were my twenties, which is usually when your musical tastes are formed and when you are most interested in music (although this is what separates 'real' music fans, from casual listeners, it never wanes for those who really love music), and I look back on the decade as pretty over-rated, derivative, and kinda hollow. I don't think much of the music holds up all that well.
Especially 'grunge', which I was a huge fan of at the time, now sounds dated and dare I say 'lame'. The over-emoting and pseudo sincerity eventually just got to be too much for me. It all sounded the same, a lot of angst about bullshit. At some point, and it was pretty early on, probably around the time of Cameron Crowe's Singles, in hindsight, the whole thing jumped the shark (and I love Cameron Crowe movies and enjoyed Singles at the time). Sure, there was good music, some of which holds up, but I never play that music now.
Now the 60s, 70s, and even 80s are completely different. I still go back to that music on a regular basis. Maybe there's a burnout (not 'burnout', but that too) factor, having lived through it at such a formidable time and been inundated with those bands, but I really don't think I ever need to hear Jeremy or Fell On Black Days or Sex Type Thing or Cumbersome again, ever. The put upon over-seriousness of the whole scene was tiring. On the other hand, the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd, that never gets old, because it's truly great music, truly innovative and original. Same for Rush, Talking Heads, The Smiths, The Police, and Joy Division in the 80s. That's the music I still listen to and will intersperse with what is currently relevant.
Not that nothing from the 90s has held up for me, The Pixies, Blur, Pavement, The Beastie Boys, Rage Against The Machine, and even Beck had their heyday in the 90s, but I think the grunge movement itself, rather than elevating the 90s, almost casts a pall over the decade. Rather than thinking back to the great bands (Nirvana, Pearly Jam, Soundgarden), the bands who got their start (Radiohead, Wilco, The Flaming Lips), I can't help but think of The Offspring, Live, Bush, or 'god' forbid Creed. Even the great bands, I rarely go back to, because the 'sound' is so identifiable and dated - at least to me.
As for today, I think there is incredible music being made, and the best part is exactly what makes the 90s sound so pale in comparison. Diversity. Even within the 'genre' of rock/alt/pop (excluding electronic and soul/hip-hop - where there is amazing music being made), there are a wide variety of styles being pursued. From The Avett Brothers and Tallest Man On Earth, to My Morning Jacket and Phosphorescent, to Grizzly Bear and Beach House, to Real Estate and Tennis, to Menomena and Dirty Projectors, all bands falling under the similar 'rock/alt/pop' heading, there is such a huge diversity of well made and interesting music.
So anyway, everyone has an opinion...
My praise for grunge is more for what it signified: a return to angry, gritty guitar-based rock. I don't like Pearl Jam anymore, but they are a real rock band even if they haven't had a hit in eons. The Creeds of the world came from grunge's same time period, but were influenced by a different brand of '70s and '80s music, i.e. bad shit - or at least interpreted it in putrid ways.
90s rock is for the most part, dated, but even thinking about most of what is (mis)branded as "80s music" makes me cringe. Thank the '80s rock gods for The Replacements.
Regarding the Crowes decline, they peaked with Marc Ford. I thought they were a breath of fresh early '70s air when they broke into the charts. I just don't think their albums after Amorica are overly memorable.
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 14, 2012, 02:57 PM
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 14, 2012, 11:48 AM
The Crowes went downhill pretty fast. I think real rock was around in the '90s in the form of grunge. Fucking rock was saved by grunge, and I'm not even a big fan of the genre.
Bleh, I am going to have to disagree with this almost completely. Funny thing is, that was really my time period as well, the 90s were my twenties, which is usually when your musical tastes are formed and when you are most interested in music (although this is what separates 'real' music fans, from casual listeners, it never wanes for those who really love music), and I look back on the decade as pretty over-rated, derivative, and kinda hollow. I don't think much of the music holds up all that well.
Especially 'grunge', which I was a huge fan of at the time, now sounds dated and dare I say 'lame'. The over-emoting and pseudo sincerity eventually just got to be too much for me. It all sounded the same, a lot of angst about bullshit. At some point, and it was pretty early on, probably around the time of Cameron Crowe's Singles, in hindsight, the whole thing jumped the shark (and I love Cameron Crowe movies and enjoyed Singles at the time). Sure, there was good music, some of which holds up, but I never play that music now.
Now the 60s, 70s, and even 80s are completely different. I still go back to that music on a regular basis. Maybe there's a burnout (not 'burnout', but that too) factor, having lived through it at such a formidable time and been inundated with those bands, but I really don't think I ever need to hear Jeremy or Fell On Black Days or Sex Type Thing or Cumbersome again, ever. The put upon over-seriousness of the whole scene was tiring. On the other hand, the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd, that never gets old, because it's truly great music, truly innovative and original. Same for Rush, Talking Heads, The Smiths, The Police, and Joy Division in the 80s. That's the music I still listen to and will intersperse with what is currently relevant.
Not that nothing from the 90s has held up for me, The Pixies, Blur, Pavement, The Beastie Boys, Rage Against The Machine, and even Beck had their heyday in the 90s, but I think the grunge movement itself, rather than elevating the 90s, almost casts a pall over the decade. Rather than thinking back to the great bands (Nirvana, Pearly Jam, Soundgarden), the bands who got their start (Radiohead, Wilco, The Flaming Lips), I can't help but think of The Offspring, Live, Bush, or 'god' forbid Creed. Even the great bands, I rarely go back to, because the 'sound' is so identifiable and dated - at least to me.
As for today, I think there is incredible music being made, and the best part is exactly what makes the 90s sound so pale in comparison. Diversity. Even within the 'genre' of rock/alt/pop (excluding electronic and soul/hip-hop - where there is amazing music being made), there are a wide variety of styles being pursued. From The Avett Brothers and Tallest Man On Earth, to My Morning Jacket and Phosphorescent, to Grizzly Bear and Beach House, to Real Estate and Tennis, to Menomena and Dirty Projectors, all bands falling under the similar 'rock/alt/pop' heading, there is such a huge diversity of well made and interesting music.
So anyway, everyone has an opinion...
I agree with every word of this, well put sir.
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 14, 2012, 02:57 PM
Rather than thinking back to the great bands (Nirvana, Pearly Jam, Soundgarden), the bands who got their start (Radiohead, Wilco, The Flaming Lips), I can't help but think of The Offspring, Live, Bush, or 'god' forbid Creed. Even the great bands, I rarely go back to, because the 'sound' is so identifiable and dated - at least to me.
That's a rather odd statement that you think of the music you don't like when you reflect back on the 90's. That could happen about any decade, really. I wonder why that is for you?
I go back and listen to Nevermind, In Utero,
any Radiohead, Rage Against the Machine, Soundgarden, U2, Pavement, and on and on and on and it isn't stale
at all. I'd even go as far to saying In Utero opened up for me in 2003 and in fact, I have been listening to Wowee Zowee pretty non stop over the last 2 weeks.
Maybe go back and listen again. Start with Wowee Zowee :happy:
No fuck that, listen to Sugar's Copper Blue; that stands up against anything ever made.
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 14, 2012, 05:05 PM
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 14, 2012, 02:57 PM
Rather than thinking back to the great bands (Nirvana, Pearly Jam, Soundgarden), the bands who got their start (Radiohead, Wilco, The Flaming Lips), I can't help but think of The Offspring, Live, Bush, or 'god' forbid Creed. Even the great bands, I rarely go back to, because the 'sound' is so identifiable and dated - at least to me.
That's a rather odd statement that you think of the music you don't like when you reflect back on the 90's. That could happen about any decade, really. I wonder why that is for you?
I go back and listen to Nevermind, In Utero, any Radiohead, Rage Against the Machine, Soundgarden, U2, Pavement, and on and on and on and it isn't stale at all. I'd even go as far to saying In Utero opened up for me in 2003 and in fact, I have been listening to Wowee Zowee pretty non stop over the last 2 weeks.
Maybe go back and listen again. Start with Wowee Zowee :happy:
No fuck that, listen to Sugar's Copper Blue; that stands up against anything ever made.
jeeez, Yo La Tengo!
What I am naming is not dated man, not the least bit, at all. Tell me Electr-O-Pura is identifiable and dated; how?
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 14, 2012, 03:36 PM
Regarding the Crowes decline, they peaked with Marc Ford. I thought they were a breath of fresh early '70s air when they broke into the charts. I just don't think their albums after Amorica are overly memorable.
I get what you are saying, jaimoe, about the studio recordings (even though I don't completely agree, I love By Your Side and half of Lions is quite good, to my ears, and I think Warpaint is pretty good, too. Definitely not as strong as Southern Harmony, Amorica, Three Snakes, though, but not what I call a quick decline). But for a live rock 'n' roll band, and really that is what I'm talking about (bands that can bring it live), the Crowes arguably were just as good, if not better, live in 2005-2006 when Marc Ford came back than they were in 1992-1996. In 2005 they were playing two set, three hour shows, tons of great covers (Faces, Traffic, Manassas, Clapton, Grateful Dead, Muddy Waters, etc etc), back catalog played amazingly well and even great versions of the songs from the records Marc was not on. It was a tragedy to me when Marc and Eddie were out of the band again in 2006, but even the last few years with Luther Dickinson had some great great shows. No one was upholding the banner of the golden age of rock as good as the Crowes did in those years, IMO. Also don't forget about the tour they did with Jimmy Page where they slayed all those Zeppelin songs!
All of this is just because I love the Crowes so much. I'm sure a Pearl Jam fan could go off in detail about why the love them, too.
I'd like to retract my observation that '90s music is dated. I think I'm just sick of the groundbreaking stuff more than anything. I'd like to go back in a time machine and embrace the '90s again, but this time with a more full-on appreciation. I was too busy back then wasting time listening to jam bands.
While I agree with most of what you wrote Tracy, that was sort of my point. The bands that 'latched' onto the sound, grunge in this case, were so bad, I think they tainted the entire genre for me.
No, Pavement is never dated, never. So in that sense, I was being bit hyperbolic about not listening to ANY 90s music, it's just that I don't think back on the decade, or especially the grunge movement, very fondly. Rage is the same, still relevant for me, maybe more so given the message being almost more appropriate now. I don't think of Radiohead as a 90s band really, though I love everything they've ever done. U2, probably just played out for me, plus they became 'a thing', which turns me off, and all my age group peers still think that because they like U2 they are somehow 'into music', which again turns me off. Though yes, U2 certainly made some great albums in the 90s. Soundgarden, yeah, I could still listen and enjoy, but I usually don't.
Then we get to Nirvana. Maybe this is were I lose my rationality a little. I loved Nirvana, loved. Thought they made amazingly heartfelt music, were original, were honest, and just plain kicked ass. And I am not saying that I still don't, but something happened over the years. Kurt killing himself and the band taking on a sort of 'mythical' quality turned me off. I think they became over-rated, which is not easy, as they really were great. But were they THAT great? Nah, I don't think so. So, I am heaping a lot of what has happened since they ceased onto the actual music, which isn't fair, but is difficult to stop.
Anyway, I pretty much agree with you, despite still standing by what I wrote previously.
Quote from: Shug on Nov 14, 2012, 05:28 PM
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 14, 2012, 03:36 PM
Regarding the Crowes decline, they peaked with Marc Ford. I thought they were a breath of fresh early '70s air when they broke into the charts. I just don't think their albums after Amorica are overly memorable.
I get what you are saying, jaimoe, about the studio recordings (even though I don't completely agree, I love By Your Side and half of Lions is quite good, to my ears, and I think Warpaint is pretty good, too. Definitely not as strong as Southern Harmony, Amorica, Three Snakes, though, but not what I call a quick decline). But for a live rock 'n' roll band, and really that is what I'm talking about (bands that can bring it live), the Crowes arguably were just as good, if not better, live in 2005-2006 when Marc Ford came back than they were in 1992-1996. In 2005 they were playing two set, three hour shows, tons of great covers (Faces, Traffic, Manassas, Clapton, Grateful Dead, Muddy Waters, etc etc), back catalog played amazingly well and even great versions of the songs from the records Marc was not on. It was a tragedy to me when Marc and Eddie were out of the band again in 2006, but even the last few years with Luther Dickinson had some great great shows. No one was upholding the banner of the golden age of rock as good as the Crowes did in those years, IMO. Also don't forget about the tour they did with Jimmy Page where they slayed all those Zeppeling songs!
All of this is just because I love the Crowes so much. I'm sure a Pearl Jam fan could go off in detail about why the love them, too.
Trust me when I say I love what the Crowes brought to the table. It made sense when they became torchbearers of real rock and roll. They became more and more jammy and focused more on delivering a killer live experience partly out of necessity because they realized that their commercial appeal and hits weren't ever coming back.
Nothing like catching a band in full-flight, or still in full-flight and relevant. I saw them early in the Audley era, although I had chances to see them during their early years, but passed for some stupid reason. Even then, they had that spark. The Luther experiment was pretty good, but talk about a band that had the wheels fall off in a hurry: North Mississippi Allstars. From fucking awesome to fucking crap over the course of two albums.
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 14, 2012, 05:30 PM
I don't think of Radiohead as a 90s band really, though I love everything they've ever done.
It really doesn't matter if
you think Radiohead was a 90's band or not. The calendar says they began and created these 3 gems in the 90's:
Pablo Honey (1993)
The Bends (1995)
OK Computer (1997)
And I am simply stepping to your point you made about 90's music: "I look back on the decade as pretty over-rated, derivative, and kinda hollow. I don't think much of the music holds up all that well." Then, you went on to say "especially grunge".
You got Sugar-Copper Blue yet? Or Electr-O-Pura? Mind blowing stuff man, catch it.
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 14, 2012, 05:43 PM
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 14, 2012, 05:30 PM
I don't think of Radiohead as a 90s band really, though I love everything they've ever done.
It really doesn't matter if you think Radiohead was a 90's band or not. The calendar says they began and created these 3 gems in the 90's:
Pablo Honey (1993)
The Bends (1995)
OK Computer (1997)
And I am simply stepping to your point you made about 90's music: "I look back on the decade as pretty over-rated, derivative, and kinda hollow. I don't think much of the music holds up all that well." Then, you went on to say "especially grunge".
You got Sugar-Copper Blue yet? Or Electr-O-Pura? Mind blowing stuff man, catch it.
Yep, Radiohead helped define the 90s. And U2 are as much an '80s band and The Police were already making a name for themselves in the '70s.
And again, maybe the points made by both Jaimoe and Tracy illustrate my point, that I tend to lump the bands I actually still enjoy, that played in other decades, into decades other than the 90s, much because of my aversion to much of the music from that decade.
OK Computer, maybe my favorite album of all time, was a 90s album, no denying that. However, I think of it as 'late' 90s and more a part of 2000s Radiohead. Of course I just listened to The Bends in its entirety not two weeks ago, and there's no denying that's a 90s album.
Again, maybe I was being hyperbolic about the 90s, I do have a tendency to do that, so I probably over-generalized. Nevertheless, in as much as grunge defines the decade, I am pretty much over it. Another shark jumping moment for me, which I always think of when I think of 90s music, is Temple of the Dog's Hunger Strike. I like Chris Cornell in Soundgarden, and it's not that it's a bad song per-se, but I think it just defines the emotive excess of the era. The wailing plaintive guitars and vocals, it's just too much, all I can think now is - 'get over yourself', 'stop being so overly sincere', 'just stop'.
Ok Tracy, I'll check out Sugar. I was never a big Husker Du fan honestly, but I recognize the eminence of Bob Mould (my 'punk' rock friends always raved), so I'll give it a shot. I am guessing it's gonna be a little too hard, a little too fast, and a little too punk rock for me, but I'll check it out.
Important albums that come out at an end of any given decade often help define the next 10-15 years, so Ok Computer certainly played a big role in 2000s rock.
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 14, 2012, 06:24 PM
Another shark jumping moment for me, which I always think of when I think of 90s music, is Temple of the Dog's Hunger Strike. I like Chris Cornell in Soundgarden, and it's not that it's a bad song per-se, but I think it just defines the emotive excess of the era. The wailing plaintive guitars and vocals, it's just too much, all I can think now is - 'get over yourself', 'stop being so overly sincere', 'just stop'.
I am not trying to be an ass, but just sayin'...
Temple of the Dog was released
before the Trinity of Grunge: Nevermind, Ten and Badmoterfinger. You can't "jump the shark" because grunge hadn't even begun having commercial success; i.e. you can't "sell out" due to your popularity before you become popular! I don't think that's physically possible. Now, you can hate them for all the emotive-posturing, but saying they "jumped the shark" is inaccurate b/c really, Joanie hadn't even
met Chachi...
and no, Sugar is not punk, IMO; actually Bob can craft some sonic pop!
Sugar - The Act We Act (from "Copper Blue) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQObGeEEW0#ws)
Temple of the Dog were a one-off and didn't become popular until a year after their debut dropped. Only one mild hit too.
Well, aren't you the stickler for dates there Tracy... Nah, just kidding, you're completely correct of course, and clearly that was a terrible example of shark jumping, Mr.C was still a young man and sleeping in the same bed as Miriam when Hunger Strike came out. I guess it's a memory transposition, as I must have heard it around the same time (or even a bit after) as the 'big 3', since that's when it was pushed/recognized. Though in my memory, again admittedly biased, it was a collaboration to take advantage of their celebrity, which clearly it was not, as it happened prior. My bad. I am going to stick with the bulk of my analysis though, at least until you complete tearing it apart piece by piece, as I am still turned off by the grunge sound and pretty much associate it with the entire decade.
Curious on your thoughts about my Nirvana 'bashing', you haven't yet addressed that aspect.
I like the Sugar, though I suspected I would. I am not unaware of the influence and significance of Husker Du and Bob Mould, like I said it was just never really my thing. I actually liked Hoover Dam a bit better, but I will give the whole album a proper listen when I get a chance.
Temple was an honest band paying tribute to Mother Love Bone's Andrew Wood. Great and honest one-off.
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 14, 2012, 07:14 PM
Curious on your thoughts about my Nirvana 'bashing', you haven't yet addressed that aspect.
I used to go back and forth with Nirvana, but as I get older I don't care as much and simply like them better than PJ.
At the time, all the "cool" people I knew were saying that Nirvana was the next Beatles; speaking particularly about Bleach /About a Girl. They were very quick to dismiss PJ and said they were "corporate rockers". I think part of this charge came from Kurt himself b/c, for whatever reason, he hated PJ. I always thought from a pure "sell out" format, Nirvana "sold out" more than PJ. Let's just take music videos, the purest form of "sell out" right? Well, Nirvana had a lot and PJ had that 1 formal one for Jeremy and then Even Flow had sort of a live one. I mean, PJ could have made tons of videos and really, REALLY sold out, but they didn't, right? So to speak. I didn't like Eddie V. for a while b/c I thought he was posing a bit; I think his work with Neil Young and Pete Townsend mellowed him a bit, plus if he's hanging out with those guys then he's OK in my book!
Do I think Nirvana was overrated? Yes. 3-4 albums and a couple of hits should not catapult anyone into rock God status. Sort of like Guns n' Roses. 1 really good album and a couple of misfired follow ups and they get the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame? Whatever...Pinning Kurt Cobain as "the spokesperson of a generation" was nonsense. People were looking for that person and that's what they got. (sort of like when Marcia Brady thought she was in love and Alice, I think, told her she was more "in love" with the idea of being in love.) He was a drug addict who was suffering a lot of mental and physical pain and he couldn't handle it. Sad, to me.
I will say this, as far as popular music goes, that was the last hey day as far as good music being popular. I remember actually watching the MTV Music awards and seeing Nirvana and Red Hot Chili Peppers and maybe Pearl Jam, perhaps U2. These days I vomit at the thought of watching that show. I believe popular good music is dead. Talk about a rut of a musical genre:
Rap. And I admit I am old, but good Lord, popular rap music sux asses and asses.
It's only rock n' roll (but I like it)
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 14, 2012, 09:07 PM
I will say this, as far as popular music goes, that was the last hey day as far as good music being popular. I remember actually watching the MTV Music awards and seeing Nirvana and Red Hot Chili Peppers and maybe Pearl Jam, perhaps U2. These days I vomit at the thought of watching that show. I believe popular good music is dead.
And a more true statement has never been made. Although I respectfully disagree with you about rap.
Hey Darkstarflashes! I wondered what happened to you. Don't let two comments on this board run you off. We all have different tastes and we all have bad days. I can say for sure that I've said things I wish I hadn't in the past and been crankier with people than I would wish to be.
Yeah, now we're kinda getting off-topic, but I am with Fully on the 'rap' (I actually call it hip-hop, and find people who don't like it often identify it as rap, but why quibble). Anyway, I wouldn't argue that anyone hasn't listened enough or isn't qualified to discuss music, just because they don't like, it's just a matter of taste. Not bad taste, or good taste, but general taste. Life is too short to listen to bad music (even in a genre you enjoy), and it's much too short to listen to an entire genre of music you don't like. I find that it, hip-hop, speaks to me. It tells me stories about worlds I am not familiar with, often in amazingly creative and beat/hook laden ways. I don't like it all, but then again I don't like all so-called rock (Knickelback anyone?), I tend to like what I think is the best of most genres, I'm pretty open to different types of music in general.
Oh, and Tracy, I think that analysis of Nirvana was pretty spot on. And I also feel similarly about Pearl Jam. I thought for quite a while they were kinda lame, EV was a self important doofus, and I basically just stopped paying attention to them. And I still frankly don't pay any attention to them, but my view has softened. I respect what they have done as far as building a following, and I no longer think EV is a jackass, but more a pretty down to earth guy just trying to live his life productively.
just to clarify before the hip hop police take me away, I am talking about how bad POPULAR RAP is; the crap they play on the radio. I am perfectly hip to the fact that there is some amazing hip hop and rap happening.
So there
Popular music in general these days is terrible. Look at the top 40 crap...it is...well...crap. In an age where My Morning Jacket should hold the same status that Led Zeppelin had in the 70's (and still has), Nickleback reigns supreme in popularity instead.
I am not a fan of rap music (yes I know there is some decent rap out there). I will listen to anything from classical to classic rock to alt. rock to metal to folk to jazz and so on, but rap and that top 40 pop and mainstream country are the three genres I avoid at all costs. The mainstream music lacks any kind of intelligent and thought-provoking lyrics as well as any unique sound. So many artists these days rely on their voice to carry the song and not the actual music. The lack of human and instrument contact is a sad thing. Most mainstream artists shouldn't be considered musicians, but rather, they should be considered purely entertainers and nothing more.
Quote from: Idiot Redneck on Nov 14, 2012, 10:20 PM
Quote from: Fully on Nov 14, 2012, 10:06 PM
Hey Darkstarflashes! I wondered what happened to you. Don't let two comments on this board run you off. We all have different tastes and we all have bad days. I can say for sure that I've said things I wish I hadn't in the past and been crankier with people than I would wish to be.
That's cool, Fully. I appreciated the things you said in that other thread, but I truly love so many kinds of music and have been trying to turn others on to obscure stuff for so many years (since the late 1970's!) that I felt really hurt when it was said I no longer had any credibility to discuss music here when I expressed my thoughts on rap...so, I left. I do check in all the time these days (as a guest) and have adopted the name I got called (and I know you are probably as sensitive to the term "redneck" as I am; Kentucky & Tennessee are our homes after all!) I am not a redneck. I am just...lame.
I will be back to post more in the not too distant future, but not much on what I think or feel about music I don't like (other than this re-hashing of my dislike of rap).
Dude, it's good to see you as well. :beer: I apologize if my comments rubbed you the wrong way. I have no problem with people saying that they don't get or enjoy rap music. It's when they say it's crap and only discuss what they heard on the radio or saw on TV.
Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.
RUSH
The Roots
Bruce Springsteen
Dylan
Herbie Hancock
The Church! (thanks Ralph, though I still haven't explored even a quarter of their work!)
Tom Petty
Now back to the thread :grin:
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 14, 2012, 11:16 PM
just to clarify before the hip hop police take me away, I am talking about how bad POPULAR RAP is; the crap they play on the radio. I am perfectly hip to the fact that there is some amazing hip hop and rap happening.
So there
On that I agree with you for the most part!
Whoever it was way back in this thread who thought The Black Crowes had gone downhill, I'd like to suggest that you listen to Croweology. It's a beautiful album.
My favorite are
MMJ- obvs
Drive By Truckers
Pearl Jam
Jay Z- not sure if he's allowed, but I love his music so there
And I'll give Radiohead honorable mention because I can't deny that they are genius, I just don't love them as much as like them.
Also Shug, ruckus and Penny introduced me to The Futurebirds and I really love them.
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 14, 2012, 09:07 PM
Do I think Nirvana was overrated? Yes. 3-4 albums and a couple of hits should not catapult anyone into rock God status. Sort of like Guns n' Roses. 1 really good album and a couple of misfired follow ups and they get the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame?
It's only rock n' roll (but I like it)
Hey Tracy, with your criteria regarding Nirvana being overrated because they only 3-4 albums: where do other minimal output artists stand in the equation such as The Sex Pistols, The MC5, Television, Stooges, My Bloody Valentine (not a fan, but give them props), The Yardbirds, Jeff Buckley, Robert Johnson etc...? Most important bands only have 1-3 good albums in them before they've blown their proverbial creative wad. Heck, I'd rather spin The Knack's debut LP over-and-over than listen to almost anything released from Pearl Jam from the past 10 years or more. Prolific and pioneering/influential are often not intertwined, although Neil Young has it all.
And I respectfully disagree that releasing videos is "selling out". Every band cut videos back in the day (still do) and as you probably know, by the late '70s and ealy '80s, videos were produced merely as promo companions to a new single and/or album release. The music video phenomenon evolved naturally and for a long time became more important than the tried-and-true 45 single. It was another outlet for expression, although with more immediate mass appeal because of the power of television. What I'm saying is that you can bet your ass that if Hank Williams Sr. were alive in the '80s and '90s, he would've released tons of videos. Same with Jimi Hendrix (who only released three studio albums with his Experience).
Quote from: Ruckus on Nov 15, 2012, 12:49 AM
Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.
What's wrong with Foreigner and Van Hagar? :evil: :evil: :evil:
Quote from: Shug on Nov 15, 2012, 08:57 AM
Quote from: Ruckus on Nov 15, 2012, 12:49 AM
Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.
What's wrong with Foreigner and Van Hagar? :evil: :evil: :evil:
Early Foreigner were kinda like Bad Company, which is ok in my books. "Jane" is still a good song, although Jefferson Starship generally suck, even in their early days.
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 15, 2012, 08:59 AM
Quote from: Shug on Nov 15, 2012, 08:57 AM
Quote from: Ruckus on Nov 15, 2012, 12:49 AM
Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.
What's wrong with Foreigner and Van Hagar? :evil: :evil: :evil:
Early Foreigner were kinda like Bad Company, which is ok in my books. "Jane" is still a good song, although Jefferson Starship generally suck, even in their early days.
Man, you are as cold as ice.
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 15, 2012, 07:56 AM
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 14, 2012, 09:07 PM
Do I think Nirvana was overrated? Yes. 3-4 albums and a couple of hits should not catapult anyone into rock God status. Sort of like Guns n' Roses. 1 really good album and a couple of misfired follow ups and they get the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame?
It's only rock n' roll (but I like it)
Hey Tracy, with your criteria regarding Nirvana being overrated because they only 3-4 albums: where do other minimal output artists stand in the equation such as The Sex Pistols, The MC5, Television, Stooges, My Bloody Valentine (not a fan, but give them props), The Yardbirds, Jeff Buckley, Robert Johnson etc...? Most important bands only have 1-3 good albums in them before they've blown their proverbial creative wad. Heck, I'd rather spin The Knack's debut LP over-and-over than listen to almost anything released from Pearl Jam from the past 10 years or more. Prolific and pioneering/influential are often not intertwined, although Neil Young has it all.
And I respectfully disagree that releasing videos is "selling out". Every band cut videos back in the day (still do) and as you probably know, by the late '70s and ealy '80s, videos were produced merely as promo companions to a new single and/or album release. The music video phenomenon evolved naturally and for a long time became more important than the tried-and-true 45 single. It was another outlet for expression, although with more immediate mass appeal because of the power of television. What I'm saying is that you can bet your ass that if Hank Williams Sr. were alive in the '80s and '90s, he would've released tons of videos. Same with Jimi Hendrix (who only released three studio albums with his Experience).
I was speaking mainly about being considered Rock royalty. I could ask my sister (a pure baseline for someone who listens to basic music) about all those bands you mentioned and she probably hadn't heard of any of them, maybe the Yardbirds. But she knows Nirvana; she knows who Kurt Cobain is. As well as The Stones, the Beatles, etc...Hell, some of my friends who are "in to" music haven't even heard of TV or MBV.
As far as videos, I was mimicking my pretentious friends who hated Pearl Jam and videos. I like videos (or, liked videos).
Quote from: Shug on Nov 14, 2012, 05:28 PM
I get what you are saying, jaimoe, about the studio recordings (even though I don't completely agree, I love By Your Side and half of Lions is quite good, to my ears, and I think Warpaint is pretty good, too. Definitely not as strong as Southern Harmony, Amorica, Three Snakes, though, but not what I call a quick decline). But for a live rock 'n' roll band, and really that is what I'm talking about (bands that can bring it live), the Crowes arguably were just as good, if not better, live in 2005-2006 when Marc Ford came back than they were in 1992-1996. In 2005 they were playing two set, three hour shows, tons of great covers (Faces, Traffic, Manassas, Clapton, Grateful Dead, Muddy Waters, etc etc), back catalog played amazingly well and even great versions of the songs from the records Marc was not on. It was a tragedy to me when Marc and Eddie were out of the band again in 2006, but even the last few years with Luther Dickinson had some great great shows. No one was upholding the banner of the golden age of rock as good as the Crowes did in those years, IMO. Also don't forget about the tour they did with Jimmy Page where they slayed all those Zeppelin songs!
All of this is just because I love the Crowes so much. I'm sure a Pearl Jam fan could go off in detail about why the love them, too.
YES YES YES YES..
and Tracy--agree about YLT and Pavement...definitely not dated...infinitely good
Quote from: EverythingChanges on Nov 14, 2012, 04:37 PM
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 14, 2012, 02:57 PM
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 14, 2012, 11:48 AM
The Crowes went downhill pretty fast. I think real rock was around in the '90s in the form of grunge. Fucking rock was saved by grunge, and I'm not even a big fan of the genre.
Bleh, I am going to have to disagree with this almost completely. Funny thing is, that was really my time period as well, the 90s were my twenties, which is usually when your musical tastes are formed and when you are most interested in music (although this is what separates 'real' music fans, from casual listeners, it never wanes for those who really love music), and I look back on the decade as pretty over-rated, derivative, and kinda hollow. I don't think much of the music holds up all that well.
Especially 'grunge', which I was a huge fan of at the time, now sounds dated and dare I say 'lame'. The over-emoting and pseudo sincerity eventually just got to be too much for me. It all sounded the same, a lot of angst about bullshit. At some point, and it was pretty early on, probably around the time of Cameron Crowe's Singles, in hindsight, the whole thing jumped the shark (and I love Cameron Crowe movies and enjoyed Singles at the time). Sure, there was good music, some of which holds up, but I never play that music now.
Now the 60s, 70s, and even 80s are completely different. I still go back to that music on a regular basis. Maybe there's a burnout (not 'burnout', but that too) factor, having lived through it at such a formidable time and been inundated with those bands, but I really don't think I ever need to hear Jeremy or Fell On Black Days or Sex Type Thing or Cumbersome again, ever. The put upon over-seriousness of the whole scene was tiring. On the other hand, the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd, that never gets old, because it's truly great music, truly innovative and original. Same for Rush, Talking Heads, The Smiths, The Police, and Joy Division in the 80s. That's the music I still listen to and will intersperse with what is currently relevant.
Not that nothing from the 90s has held up for me, The Pixies, Blur, Pavement, The Beastie Boys, Rage Against The Machine, and even Beck had their heyday in the 90s, but I think the grunge movement itself, rather than elevating the 90s, almost casts a pall over the decade. Rather than thinking back to the great bands (Nirvana, Pearly Jam, Soundgarden), the bands who got their start (Radiohead, Wilco, The Flaming Lips), I can't help but think of The Offspring, Live, Bush, or 'god' forbid Creed. Even the great bands, I rarely go back to, because the 'sound' is so identifiable and dated - at least to me.
As for today, I think there is incredible music being made, and the best part is exactly what makes the 90s sound so pale in comparison. Diversity. Even within the 'genre' of rock/alt/pop (excluding electronic and soul/hip-hop - where there is amazing music being made), there are a wide variety of styles being pursued. From The Avett Brothers and Tallest Man On Earth, to My Morning Jacket and Phosphorescent, to Grizzly Bear and Beach House, to Real Estate and Tennis, to Menomena and Dirty Projectors, all bands falling under the similar 'rock/alt/pop' heading, there is such a huge diversity of well made and interesting music.
So anyway, everyone has an opinion...
I agree with every word of this, well put sir.
I have a big problem with reading something bash Pearl Jam and Soundgarden and support Beach House. I've never been a big Soundgarden person, but I truly believe that Chris Cornell has one of the most powerful voices in Rock and Roll history. I don't care for any of Cornells bands, but I'll listen to SG or AS and get chills because of his voice.
And Pearl Jam is, in my very, very baised position, one of, if not the most important bands of the past 35 or so years. Sure, Ten is one of the most overplayed albums of all time, but its still BRILLIANT. Considering the context under which the album was made, it's hard to say that its overly-serious or irrelevent or whatever. And furthermore, they have a ton of albums and have evolved just like any other great band. I mean try to tell me that Yield isn't a 5-star record.
I also have a problem with this: "The put upon over-seriousness of the whole scene was tiring." But then you go on to mention Rage as a still relevant 90's band? I don't really know how "seriousness" is a bad thing. I mean, its hard rock.
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 14, 2012, 07:20 PM
Temple was an honest band paying tribute to Mother Love Bone's Andrew Wood. Great and honest one-off.
thank you. this bashing was starting to upset me, especially since it was all pretty much based on misinformation, other than the fact that he didn't like it (which is totally fine, btw)
TotD is a fantastic album. To me, the fact that it predates the popularity of Grunge, makes it more amazing. I mean it goes to show (imo) that theres a reason that Ament, Cornell, Gossard are where they are today. They've always had it, and what may seem "over-sincere" is really just actual sincerity.
Again, not liking it is totally fine , I can't bash anyone for not liking something, but you can't say "grunge sucks." Too broad of a statement for a music-lover.
I will agree, Nirvana is overrated. I have a vendetta against that band.
All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.
Quote from: Shug on Nov 15, 2012, 08:57 AM
Quote from: Ruckus on Nov 15, 2012, 12:49 AM
Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.
What's wrong with Foreigner and Van Hagar? :evil: :evil: :evil:
I have a shameless soft spot for Van Hagar...well at least for 5150 and F.U.C.K. :evil:
In response to e-wind...
Well, since this thread has been fully hijacked, might as well proceed.
I wasn't 'bashing' Pearl Jam or Soundgarden, although I can see how it might've appeared that way. In later posts regarding this topic, I explained my feelings about Pearl Jam more completely. And I never claimed Beach House was 'better' than Pearl Jam or Soundgarden (although they eventually could be I suppose, but that's yet to be known), but only that they were an example of how varied current rock/alt/pop is and how there is interesting music being made on a very broad scale within that very broad spectrum.
Maybe some of this is really about what types of music a person favors along that spectrum. My Morning Jacket is very different from Beach House (although maybe Jim's new album not so much), but I still lump them both under rock/alt/pop. Now pure 'pop' is I suppose Bieber and New Direction (I think those are both currently popular musical acts, but don't quote me), but thinking of traditional pop, in the vein of The Beatles and Stones, I think we can lump MMJ and Beach House or Phosphorescent and Grizzly Bear together. But clearly some people are ROCK fans, and if it doesn't have guitars or doesn't properly emote, it doesn't qualify. I am not claiming that's you e-wind, or any of the others I am debating here, but I think there are certainly people who would more narrowly define rock than I do.
With that definition being explicated, I think my complaint about 90s music, and more specifically my comparison to today's music (which is being dismissed by some), becomes more clear. 'Grunge' took over rock music in the 90s, and I suppose that ubiquity bred contempt, at least for me. I can't say I listened to much after the first couple Pearly Jam and Soundgarden albums, because the whole 'sound' became stale for me. And yes, for awhile, I kinda thought EV was a self-important tool, that has changed, but I never went back to their music. I have already explained my issue with the 'seriousness' 90s rock, as well as my impression it was co-opted by shittier and shittier bands (and frankly, my impression that even the 'good' bands just continued to rehash the same sound and get shittier - Radiohead excepted). Was that 'grunge' sound harder rock? Yes, it was. Is HARDER (and more emotive) my only criteria for good rock? Not at all.
"Hard" is not my qualification for good, AT ALL. In fact, I don't tend to gravitate towards hard rock.
I agree with your qualification for the current alt/pop/rock genre, and would throw a band like Beach House in there, but I am predominately a rock and roll fan, so BH and the likes don't really do it for me, but I digress.
I've had this grunge argument so many times it's ridiculous. Obviously the "different strokes for different folks" is a big part of all this, but I just don't think fair to lump a broad genre together. I'm a youngin and can't really agree or disagree with the variety in 90's music to the variety in todays music, becuase I simply wasn't old enough to take it all in then, and I am now.
However, I do think that the "greats" of today are as few and far between as the "greats" of the 90s. Variety is a good thing, but its hard to argue because obviously a lot of the music today won't stand the test of time, just like the music of any era.
There was some sort of variety in the 90's though, outside SG, PJ, AiC, etc. It may not be the best, but there was the beginning of "pop-punk". 1039 Smoothed Out Slappy Hours and Dookie are still great records, regardless of the irrelevance of those idiots today. And hip-hop was arguably at an all-time high in the 90s. Then you have REM in their most popular stage, and shit like Hootie and Blowfish. Hell, even Blink-182 and No Doubt were popular (and poppier). And as earlier mentioned, there was YLT, The Pixies, The Flaming Lips, and Sonic Youth. (who I guess one could argue pre-date PJ, though they weren't yet relevant). Shit, theres Nine Inch Nails and 311. As you can tell, these bands are popping into my head as I write.
Then there was obivously the Beibers and Miley Cyrus's of the day too, like Mariah Carrey and Lisa Loeb. "Stay" is my go-to kareokee song, btw :wink: .
So, the point is: the variety of music was there. I know we're talking simply about "Grunge", but thats not fair, imo. If you don't like grunge, thats a-okay. You can even say 90s is the worst era of music, but don't pigeon hole it.
Jaimoe - I know my vandetta against Nirvana isn't justified, and Kurt was just makin the music he wanted to, but I hate that they're the ones who were known as the inventors of "Alternative", not that theyre the ones who claimed that, but it just drives me nuts.
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 15, 2012, 11:46 AM
All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.
well that's easy: Oasis and Blur both suck
:happy:
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 15, 2012, 11:51 AM
And I never claimed Beach House was 'better' than Pearl Jam or Soundgarden (although they eventually could be I suppose, but that's yet to be known), but only that they were an example of how varied current rock/alt/pop is and how there is interesting music being made on a very broad scale within that very broad spectrum.
If I want to listen to Beach House (and I like their stuff) I will first listen to who they are copying: Galaxie 500 and Yo La Tengo.
(sorry, but I really haven't "argued" about music in about 2 years)
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 15, 2012, 12:48 PM
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 15, 2012, 11:46 AM
All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.
well that's easy: Oasis and Blur both suck
:happy:
it's crazy how the bands I liked more in the 90s sound more dated than the lesser stuff (to me) at the time...
for example, ewind, agree about TEN being an amazing album--i just think it sounds dated today..you can pinpoint exactly when it was recorded...which isn't the case with Nevermind. Same with Oasis-whom I loved, completely dated and Blur's Parklife doesn't sound as dated today.
songwriting, PJ and Oasis killed it on their first few albums--but that stuff is DEFINITELY dated.
wait, what was the original question?
Ruckus-I like Van Hagar
and i love that we're talking about music again...and not just butt plugs or butt chugs or what not
Quote from: Penny Lane on Nov 15, 2012, 01:27 PM
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 15, 2012, 12:48 PM
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 15, 2012, 11:46 AM
All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.
well that's easy: Oasis and Blur both suck
:happy:
it's crazy how the bands I liked more in the 90s sound more dated than the lesser stuff (to me) at the time...
for example, ewind, agree about TEN being an amazing album--i just think it sounds dated today..you can pinpoint exactly when it was recorded...which isn't the case with Nevermind. Same with Oasis-whom I loved, completely dated and Blur's Parklife doesn't sound as dated today.
songwriting, PJ and Oasis killed it on their first few albums--but that stuff is DEFINITELY dated.
wait, what was the original question?
Ruckus-I like Van Hagar
and i love that we're talking about music again...and not just butt plugs or butt chugs or what not
I now question everything I've ever loved about the two of you. Maybe it's because you're both so young and you don't remember how awesome VH rocked with Roth nor did you feel the sting of betrayal when Eddie and Dave parted ways. However, I must say that original VH sounds incredibly dated to me now. I only listen to it and remember the original trans ams with t-tops and firebirds painted on the hood, girls with long blond hair and winged bangs with large combs in the back pocket of their flare legged jeans, back when my big sister and her friends looked like the cast of the movie about The Runaways - you know, back in the glory days of badass.
Agree with Penny on this, like Oasis much more than Blur at the time, now it's completely flipped. Don't think Blur sound dated, but more like the predecessors to sounds we're hearing now. Of course some of that feeling is retrospective, as I know what Damon Albarn has done since and have seen his progression, while Oasis, well...
And yes, some of my argument this whole time has been that the 'grunge sound' sounds dated. While admittedly some of that is holdover exhaustion from living through the 90s and being inundated with that sound, I think the point still holds some inherent credence (and speaking of Creedence, that's a band that was great, but also I think sounds dated, and doesn't hold up like maybe The Beatles, Stones, or even The Allman Bros.).
As for listening to the predecessors of Beach House, sure, I listen to Galaxie 500 and Yo La Tengo too (new YLT out soon by the way), and appreciate their significance. However, it's easy to dismiss a newer band and say that an earlier incarnation was 'better', as opposed to just maybe first. Not saying Beach House is better, but maybe we don't know yet. Feel like I am Beach Houses publicist all of the sudden, I am from Baltimore, maybe I could get the job. Frankly I don't even love Beach House, though I do like them, but was simply using them as an example of similar new bands doing what I think is pretty great music.
I may end up looking back at this time period, and saying the same thing I am now saying about grunge, that it's not that great and is over-rated. I would be a fool not to recognize that possibility, as it's happened to me many times before. But I am sort of the opposite of someone who clings to a certain style of music from an earlier time, I am reactionary by nature and am much more likely to 'throw off' the older music in favor of new, sometimes simply because it's new. This is problematic as well. That's really a personality issue as much as anything else, hoping I am learning and growing all the time, and that I know or appreciate something now that I didn't previously.
Quote from: Penny Lane on Nov 15, 2012, 01:27 PM
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Nov 15, 2012, 12:48 PM
Quote from: Jaimoe on Nov 15, 2012, 11:46 AM
All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.
well that's easy: Oasis and Blur both suck
:happy:
for example, ewind, agree about TEN being an amazing album--i just think it sounds dated today..you can pinpoint exactly when it was recorded...which isn't the case with Nevermind. Same with Oasis-whom I loved, completely dated and Blur's Parklife doesn't sound as dated today.
hmm. I think that that's a near impossible point to argue, one way or the other. Of course we know when it was recorded, because we know all about music eras and what not. But that could be said about SO MANY great records. I mean, DSOTM, for example.... who today is making anything like that? Wouldn't that, by this knowledge, make that a dated topic? Or am I missing something? I mean we can pigeonhole MOST majorly popular records to an era.
And I do think Nevermind sounds dated in the same way. I think you can listen to it and know that it didn't come out last year.
Quote from: Penny Lane on Nov 15, 2012, 01:27 PM
and i love that we're talking about music again...and not just butt plugs or butt chugs or what not
don't talk shit on butt chugs.
What I need to know is why sounding "dated" is a bad thing. I would say the following pieces all sounded "dated"; so what?
The Beatles - I Want to Hold Your Hand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKHFUKZ-IXE#)
Deep Purple Highway Star (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh0iihjANPc#)
J J Fad.......... Supersonic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_tIlVT1iDg#)
Pearl Jam - Even Flow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxKWTzr-k6s#)
When I say something is dated, I'm saying that it doesn't hold up over time. It's not a timeless classic. Dated music can be fine, but it isn't necessarily something that will become a classic. But it's also opinion so...
It's not that everything that sounds dated is bad, it's just dated. I would argue that music from the same time periods that doesn't sound dated, and it does exist, was/is what was the better/best music of the time. The best music doesn't end up sounding dated, it ends up sounding like the precursor to whatever is best in current music, regardless of time.
I could suggest 50 Beatles songs that I don't think sound dated at all, despite being 40 years old. Songs that sound like if someone put them out today, we'd be saying, 'this is amazing, how creative, listen to how they do this/that.'. None of the examples you gave do that in my opinion. And The Beatles are kinda an easy example, being probably the greatest modern musical act, but I can think of other bands as well. I can think of songs from Bowie, The Clash, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, The Smiths, Blur, Talking Heads, Rush, etc., that don't sound dated, but actually still sound fresh today. To me, that is better. Not that sounding dated equals bad, but that not sounding dated is a feature of higher quality music overall.
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 15, 2012, 03:55 PM
It's not that everything that sounds dated is bad, it's just dated. I would argue that music from the same time periods that doesn't sound dated, and it does exist, was/is what was the better/best music of the time. The best music doesn't end up sounding dated, it ends up sounding like the precursor to whatever is best in current music, regardless of time.
I could suggest 50 Beatles songs that I don't think sound dated at all, despite being 40 years old. Songs that sound like if someone put them out today, we'd be saying, 'this is amazing, how creative, listen to how they do this/that.'. None of the examples you gave do that in my opinion. And The Beatles are kinda an easy example, being probably the greatest modern musical act, but I can think of other bands as well. I can think of songs from Bowie, The Clash, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, The Smiths, Blur, Talking Heads, Rush, etc., that don't sound dated, but actually still sound fresh today. To me, that is better. Not that sounding dated equals bad, but that not sounding dated is a feature of higher quality music overall.
cool, thanks :cool:
even though it's a little fantasy land to suggest if something came out today from the past it wouldn't sound dated.
Quote from: exist10z on Nov 15, 2012, 03:55 PM
It's not that everything that sounds dated is bad, it's just dated. I would argue that music from the same time periods that doesn't sound dated, and it does exist, was/is what was the better/best music of the time. The best music doesn't end up sounding dated, it ends up sounding like the precursor to whatever is best in current music, regardless of time.
I could suggest 50 Beatles songs that I don't think sound dated at all, despite being 40 years old. Songs that sound like if someone put them out today, we'd be saying, 'this is amazing, how creative, listen to how they do this/that.'. None of the examples you gave do that in my opinion. And The Beatles are kinda an easy example, being probably the greatest modern musical act, but I can think of other bands as well. I can think of songs from Bowie, The Clash, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, The Smiths, Blur, Talking Heads, Rush, etc., that don't sound dated, but actually still sound fresh today. To me, that is better. Not that sounding dated equals bad, but that not sounding dated is a feature of higher quality music overall.
yep, exactly..i love TEN and i didn't like Nevermind as much...but there's something about the music that doesn't date it, the same as the classics above (especially classics like DSOTM)
credence--i think that's totally timeless, also, and bands like Drag the River and Deer Tick are following in their footsteps...a little messier but i think timeless, also.
if you asked me what was a better album and a better band in the 90s, i'd definitely say PJ (over Nirvana or Soundgarden, etc)..but PJ's music is just a bit more dated. (sorry eric! just my opinion--sawwwy)
and Fully--definitely VH is wayyyyy better than Van Hagar -no contest
Just my .02, but as a huge Soundgarden fan the first two albums aren't really grunge at all, much more hard rock. It wasn't until BadMotorFinger that the grunge sound came about with their music. And for what its worth BMF is my favorite album from the 90's total classic and one very underrated album IMO. Core from STP is also a classic album, crazy good.
Plus I think all music is related to its era and you can usual tell it in its sound. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but you can hear it in all of the so called classics. I also think that most of these arguments are based on personal preference so theres always that.
DLR in Van Halen was awesome, after that not so much.
When I hear the term grunge, the only band that comes to mind is Mudhoney. PJ, Alice, Soundgarden, and Nirvana are all so different other then they play rock music and are from the same city.
I have been a huge Pearl Jam fan for soooo long, so of course I think their music holds up and still sounds fresh. No Code is a classic, great and artistic album. The remastered version of Ten sounds incredible and less dated (not that there's anything wrong with that).
I could never get into U2, Guns/Roses, Van Halen so I was so excited when the 90s music resonated with me. I was thankful that passionate, rocking music I could listen to over and over came out (PJ, Radiohead, Tool, Soundgarden). I don't find the sincerity of the best 90s music to be false at all.
I can't forget Jeff Buckley's Grace, which was so different but so powerful, sincere, and incredible.
Not counting MMJ, that's the stuff I listen to most because I love the most. I started college in 1990 so I am biased towards that era. Likely that the music people discover in their late teens or early 20s is what they like best.
Top 5 current bands
- MMJ
- Wilco
- The National
- Arcade Fire
- The Walkmen
The '90s
I spent too much time with jam bands in college. I have recently discovered/rediscovered so much good music from that decade. Some of these bands extend beyond the 90s but their best albums were released then. Figure most of you are familiar with these bands but if you want recommendation on where to start i would be happy to provide. I think the all make a very solid case for timeless music from the 90s
- Pulp
- Blur
- Neutral Milk Hotel
- Yo La Tengo
- Built to Spill
- Pavement
- Spritualized
- Stereolab
- Beck
- Flaming Lips
Quote from: Penny Lane on Nov 15, 2012, 04:33 PM
and Fully--definitely VH is wayyyyy better than Van Hagar -no contest
Whew. My faith is restored. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Fully on Nov 15, 2012, 02:06 PM
However, I must say that original VH sounds incredibly dated to me now. I only listen to it and remember the original trans ams with t-tops and firebirds painted on the hood, girls with long blond hair and winged bangs with large combs in the back pocket of their flare legged jeans, back when my big sister and her friends looked like the cast of the movie about The Runaways - you know, back in the glory days of badass.
If I only had a time machine....LD and I would have some fun!
Quote from: Ob1jacobe on Nov 16, 2012, 10:49 AM
Top 5 current bands
- MMJ
- Wilco
- The National
- Arcade Fire
- The Walkmen
The '90s
I spent too much time with jam bands in college. I have recently discovered/rediscovered so much good music from that decade. Some of these bands extend beyond the 90s but their best albums were released then. Figure most of you are familiar with these bands but if you want recommendation on where to start i would be happy to provide. I think the all make a very solid case for timeless music from the 90s
- Pulp
- Blur
- Neutral Milk Hotel
- Yo La Tengo
- Built to Spill
- Pavement
- Spritualized
- Stereolab
- Beck
- Flaming Lips
Good top 5 list, though I left The National and Arcade Fire out simply because they didn't have enough output to qualify in my opinion. Not sure if they would have made it if they did, but they'd be contenders.
We've mostly been 'arguing' about the so-called 'grunge' genre of 90s rock. Some find it more important/valuable/worthy than others. I think the bands you listed, for the most part, stand on their own, regardless of time period. I personally would 'rate' the first six you listed, as well as The Flaming Lips, better than most anything burdened with the grunge label. Yes, that would include Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, all of which I like/liked. I think all those bands you listed held up better over time, progressed, expanded or improved their sound, and more to the point - I just would rather listen to them now. Of course that's not to discount personal taste, which is pretty much everything in this discussion.
I've never stopped listening to classic 60s and 70s rock, those bands have always been and will always be my most favorites. Not many new bands could really compete for my musical attention.
But, in the 80s the "current" bands I was listening to:
Tom Petty
U2
REM
SRV
Georgia Satellites (they, along with SRV, were guitar-weilding rock 'n' roll saviours to me, God they kicked fucking ass live!)
and unusual for me to listen to non-guitar oriented music, but I did get into
Kate Bush
Peter Gabriel
In the 90s, besides the Grateful Dead, it was:
The Black Crowes
The Jayhawks
Lenny Kravitz
U2
Matthew Sweet
Freedy Johnston
Jules Shear
I was never much into grunge or indie rock, other than the really melodic and songwriting-crafty stuff. I like guitars and Hammond organ and harmony singing. My musical tastes are not very complicated nor very broad. Most of you guys put me to shame, if broad musical tastes is the issue. As Skynyrd sang, "be a simple kind of man, be something you love and understand" I guess that's me. :grin:
Quote from: Shug on Nov 16, 2012, 12:11 PM
Matthew Sweet
Freedy Johnston
I used to LOVE both these guys. Saw Freedy several times in small clubs. I think I only have their stuff on cassettes and I don't have a cassette player anymore!
Jaye, I have This Perfect World on CD, I'm sure its out of print. I also have some live radio show tracks, too. PM me if interested.