00s Vs. 90s

Unfair. The 90s have a 2.4 year handicap.

That's true. Restrict to 97 in that case.

Wu-Tang, natch.

There. Lock thread.

93-97 ain't nothin' to fuck wit'.

90s were the worst

Wow this is getting really specific, which is exactly why I opened the thread. Are we really that lazy? I am. I made the thread, and then I decided - I am.

90's >>> 80's >>> 00's >>> 70's >>> 60's >>> 50's etc

Wait, are we talking about the EXTREME 90s? I thought we were talking about the Gay 90s of yore.

I thought we were just going to discuss Pete Yorn.

Nobody has come forward to defend hip-hop of the oughts though. Is there one rap album released this decade that'll stand up to 36 Chambers?

nothing makes me want to hate wu tang like ilx

lol forgot about gza at pitchfork :(

sorry deej but sometimes certain things actually WERE better in the past

Peasy. 00s. Aside from Nirvana, the 90s were drab and dark (maybe it was different in hip-hop and pop, where I've paid less attention).

Great post.

the 90's is the most woefully under-researched decade in the history of popular music

Great post.

Mine? Oh, I know better.

the 90's is the most woefully under-researched decade in the history of popular music

"researchers" are just now getting to the '80s; it'll be 10 yrs before the '90s get their due

sorry deej but sometimes certain things actually WERE better in the past

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:31 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

past has nothing to do with it, wu-tang was not the only rap group of the 90s worth giving a shit about

the uparalleled contributions of Mike Dean >>>> wu tang

past has nothing to do with it, wu-tang was not the only rap group of the 90s worth giving a shit about

hey c'mon you know I agree with you about this

OK here goes. I'll name my 5 favorite rap albums from the 90s, you name 5 from the 00s that blow these away.

1. Outkast - Aquemini
2. Tricky - Maxinquaye
3. Mobb Deep - Infamous
4. Goodie Mobb - Soul Food
5. Dr. Octagon - Octagonecologyst

I'm not naming stuff I didn't really like (Chronic, etc.), but those could be included in the conversation as well (I'm just not equipped to defend them). Also I include Tricky knowing it's not maybe a 'pure' choice, but that's part of what I liked about the 90s - the new direction of that album is unique and amazing in a way that I haven't heard in the 00s - but would like to if you can turn me on ... in a musical way.

This thread has started badly and will probably finish badly, with a saggy middle section. It also feels a bit like picking horses or something. And a lot of 90s hip hop continues to the 00s. BUT ANYWAY:

10 for the 90s:
Wu Tang Clan
Nas
Boot Camp Clik
Biggie
Outkast
Tribe Called Quest
Goodie Mob
Dr. Dre / Snoop
D.I.T.C.
Mobb Deep

10 for the 00s:
UGK
Kanye West
Lil' Wayne
Devin the Dude
Jay-Z
Def Jux
MF Doom
T.I.
The Roots
Missy Elliot

Well it actually shouldn't be about picking horses at all. Given your list, why don't you commentate on which you prefer? My main conceit is that everything I listed has absolutely no peer in this decade. I don't think this thread HAS to suck...

Hmm, humansuit. Not sure about "blows away", but here are some equals:

1. Outkast: Stankonia
2. Madvillian: Madvillainy
3. Ghostface Killah: Supreme Clientele (January 00, bitches)
4. Lil' Wayne: The Carter 2
5. Jay-Z: Blueprint

90s hauntology vs. 00s hauntology: GO

UGK is just as much 90s, if not more

Haven't heard 2 and 4. Stankonia many hold up as better than Aquemini, fair enough. Would you take Killah over Wu-Tang (to take an unfair comparison)? Jay-Z - OK. Not my cup of tea.

90s hauntology vs. 00s hauntology: GO

Come now.

I agree Deej. Outkast too probably. Wu Tang almost defintely. Jay-Z maybe. But having said that, as long as they've released some music in the 00s, I'll use 'em to try to defend the 00s argument.

Re: your 5 albums versus mine, I would of course take mine by a mile. The Killah album is indeed one of my favorites from this decade, but it would be way down the list if released mid-90s. If everything on the album was as original as 'La Ghost,' it would probably just crack the top 5, and then only just.

i for one think that Clipse belong on any top ten of the 00s.

Hmm, maybe we need a round two / next five (since you don't know two of mine, and Dr. Octogon wouldn't make my top 150 of any decade).

To answer your earlier question: I'd take Forever over anything else Wu-related, and Supreeme wouldn't make my top 5 Wu releases. That was to win a crowd vote: I actually prefer RZA's "Digital Bullet" as an 00s album.

Yeah I was just thinking that I got the ball rolling, others should pitch in. I'm in no realistic position to be discussing contemporary albums.

I think albums, well specifically CDs, have changed enough in their construction over the course of the last ten years to make comparing albums from these two decades a pointless excercise.

LOCK THREAD

Yeah, because who actually gives a shit about albums any more? (in case you can't tell I'm not being sarcastic).

Boy. Does anyone know a good forum to discuss music?

http://www.dissensus.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7

Haha j/k

Ha! Thanks.

Wait, are we talking about the EXTREME 90s? I thought we were talking about the Gay 90s of yore.

I'm hoping that by EXTREME 90s you mean the decade characterized by the musical stylings of Nuno Bettencourt and Gary Cherone.

Fake black metal by Oregon peace hippies is better in the OO. Teengenerate is better in the 9O.

Very much so, jaymc.

I think albums, well specifically CDs, have changed enough in their construction over the course of the last ten years

worth a thread itself tho i guess there have been a million on the same subject or thereabouts already but a comparison of the technical changes/differences vs the artistic changes/differences remains interesting.

the 90's is the most woefully under-researched decade in the history of popular music

"researchers" are just now getting to the '80s; it'll be 10 yrs before the '90s get their due

but who are these researchers?

John Harris and the researchers at TMF

I'm a 90's researcher! Forgotten 90's alternative rock masterpieces WANTED

john harris plays with louise wener...:|

that guy who did those 'X' Forever' shows on ITV. he was a great researcher.

As of this moment, I don't get any sense that popular culture or popular music have progressed at all since 2003. In drastic contrast, there is an absolute progression that took place throughout the 90's, and certainly between 1993 and 1997. (Of course, this progression ultimately concluded with the horrendous 2 years that closed the 90's, but at least there was any progression at all.)

People try way too hard in the 00's.

In drastic contrast, there is an absolute progression that took place throughout the 90's, and certainly between 1993 and 1997. (Of course, this progression ultimately concluded with the horrendous 2 years that closed the 90's, but at least there was any progression at all.)

What was the progression?

Now I agree with that. I did try to discover some new music through this thread, specifically listening to a little bit of Clipse since it was mentioned. I think that Nas and Mobb Deep really moved the sound of rap forward at the same time that Dr. Dre was doing the same on the west coast (and mind you, I dislike Dr. Dre even so). But after that original movement, all of those guys stalled into generic gangsta rap stuff - or whatever Nas trailed off doing (which I think he has pulled himself out of). I don't see how that stagnation has lifted. With Clipse, the production is much more refined and interesting, but it's still the same gangsta / infantile subject matter, with nothing really to add. Care to disagree?

What was the progression?

Are you asking for examples?

I believe he is. And I'm not saying that I know what the progression is in the 00s, I clearly am behind. But show me some progression. When I casually heard things in the 90s, they definitely indicated progression. When I casually hear things now, they indicate a backwards movement. "Make it Rain," anyone? It's a cool little track with a nice hook, but fuck me if I'm actually going to be listening to shit like that. Is that even a musical progression?

In the 90's, MTV encouraged independant thought and creativity, which they would usually mix in with the ass and the materialism. In the 00's, the ass and the materialism are sandwiched between more ass and more materialism. I think people are far less creative today.. and easier to control.

I've always had confidence that MTV is the most accurate representation of youth culture and popular culture. So comparing MTV in the 90's VS MTV in the 00's is probably just as good of a comparison.

You're kidding, right?

shut up

In the 00's, the ass and the materialism are sandwiched

"In the 90's, MTV encouraged independant thought and creativity"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's still true taken out of context.

is it?

It's pretty much nonsense no matter what way you look at it or spell independent.

I didn't know this was a spelling bee.

The time for learning is now.

MTV doesn't encourage independent spelling anymore.

This thread: Essay long comment ... nothing ... nothing ... nothing ... Essay long comment by same poster ... smart ass one liner smart ass one liner smart ass one liner ... nothing ... nothing ... nothing ...

I don't understand how a deliberately moronic international cable channel could ever foster "independent thought and creativity" - especially not when its staffed by the likes of Kennedy, Bill Bellamy, and Matt Pinfield...

totally pauley

Kennedy is extremely underrated on ILM. Also, she has eye-cysts.

Proposition: The music itself fostered creativity and MTV fostered it.

reflected it.

Okay, I'll back up my comment even though I don't care.. I'm just bored at the moment.

Most high school kids watch MTV, so I think it's a valid point that it represents youth culture very well. I think Liquid TV was a pretty creative and interesting show. Once upon a time they used to occasionally air those weird "animation weekends." Maybe I'm crazy, but Rich Girls and Date My Mom are really not creative, although they can be mildly interesting in small doses. I guess this was the comparison I had in mind when I said that they used to encourage creativity a lot more often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_100_number-one_hits_of_1993_%28USA%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_100_number-one_hits_of_1997_%28USA%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_100_number-one_hits_of_2003_%28USA%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_100_number-one_hits_of_2007_%28USA%29

Television generally does not encourage "independent thought" so yeah, my mistake.

how old were billstevejim and humansuit from 1993-1997?

I will grant you that Liquid Television was great and remarkably innovative

I guess you guys are talking about hip-hop mostly -- fair enough, it was still young in the '90s and not nearly as mainstream so it had a lot more room to grow.

still 00s rap > 90s rap

Your one line posts are very informative. Thank you for sharing!

:(

I'm sorry

:)

Speaking of which, which hip-hop specifically is better today? I mean, also I just wanted to start with hip-hop but ... whatever.

I was also thinking of those weird cartoony "MTV" ID's they used to air between videos. (and the state, oddville, sifl & olly, and when they used to do "breakthrough videos" .. the shitty vj's hadn't even occured to me.)

Dr Dre was actually best in the 80s.

Are you asking for examples?

Yes, and a better feel for what you think the overall progression was. Again, I pay more attention to rock music, so I can't comment on hip-hop and pop. But in the 90s, I saw hair metal giving way to grunge, which gave way to bland ska-ish or similar-sounding music, e.g., No Doubt, Sugar Ray, Smash Mouth, which gave way to an onslaught of teenpop and hip-hop. I see the movement in that, but other than Nirvana's contribution to grunge, I don't see much forward progression in it.

Sorry, this is one of those "essay posts" humansuit was complaining about.

In the 00s, I see rock music shattering in many different directions, perhaps without an easily-defined progression, but still developing in far more interesting ways, at least with respect to independent rock music. Anyway, I'm in no way suggesting that my opinion is anything but a personal feeling, obviously. I genuinely look at 90s rock as bland, and 00s rock as much more interesting. But maybe I'm suffering from selective memory (or dementia). Or maybe 90s rock music, by and large, just wasn't meant for my ears. If I've missed something, by example or by way of broad trends and movements, I'm interested to know what it is.

I'm not that scholarly with regards to hip-hop (I probably know less than yr average 14-year-old girl) so my post about 00s rap being better basically means dick-all to the discussion on this thread. I just posted it to counterbalance my saying that '90s rap had more room to grow, in case anybody thought that meant it was better. It's just personal preference, I like dirty south etc. more than west coast rap etc.

That "Sorry, this is . . ." sentence was supposed to be at the end. Damn keyboard.

Ah, fuck it. MTV did encourage creativity. In the early daze, it rewrote the book on what a pop song should sound like and - crucial bit - look like. So you got lots of innovation, often on a very low budget. Fringe bands became superstars, and 70s dinosaurs starved.

The videos themselves, the amazing station bumpers, Liquid Television and 120 minutes: all innovative and influential. Pretty damn cheap compared to the 21st century enquivalent, too.

"Speaking of which, which hip-hop specifically is better today? I mean, also I just wanted to start with hip-hop but ... whatever."

African hip hop is better today!

Haha no seriously I think that the one basically indisputable fact is that NY hip hop is not as strong now as it was in the 80s or 90s. I think once you move beyond New York though (and LA), I think a good case can be made that hip hop everywhere else (from London to Marseilles to Senegal to Atlanta to Houston to the Bay Area) is much stronger in the last seven years than it was in the preceding ten.

Actually I wasn't complaining about the essay-long posts. I encourage them.

Re: your dirty south vs. West Coast, I think both have gone down the tubes. If you look upthread, two of my favorites were the earlier Outkast and Goodie Mob stuff. Where has that gone? It's been completely replaced by the cash and ass stuff, hasn't it? Seriously, what should I listen to to change my mind?

As for rock, what is really, really good in independent rock nowadays? In terms of rock music from the 90s, I don't think it was bland or interesting at all. Liz Phair? Red Red Meat? The Geraldine Fibbers? And then of course I liked the big three Seattle trinity, I thought Hole's first album was great ... does this not score with you?

many x-posts on that one.

OOs = indie rock surrendering to weirdo freak noise shit. Really, though - great era for metal.

MTV Europe definitely encouraged creativity/alternative ideas. This did mean a lot of shitty short animations being shown after 11pm chiefly.

http://www.mtv-chilloutzone.com/COZgraphics7.jpg

UNTHINKABLE TODAY

the 90's is the most woefully under-researched decade in the history of popular music

That would be the 80s. 90s pop music was a lot more accepted by critics in its own time than 80s pop music was.

I love the "cash and ass stuff," so I don't think my recommendations would be of any use! I like T.I. & Luda & Lil Jon.

OK thanks. :)

In terms of rock music from the 90s, I don't think it was bland or interesting at all. Liz Phair? Red Red Meat? The Geraldine Fibbers? And then of course I liked the big three Seattle trinity, I thought Hole's first album was great ... does this not score with you?

Not really. I liked only one-third of the big three Seattle trinity, and aside from Nirvana, thought the rest of the grunge movement -- in hindsight, mind you -- was mostly drab. And grunge was, to me, the best part of the 90s rock sound (by comparison to, say, hair bands and ska-punk). I shouldn't overstate the case; many of those grunge songs were powerful, but -- again, to me -- they lacked humor, wit and tunefulness.

As for rock, what is really, really good in independent rock nowadays?

Lots, I think. I mean, I don't think there's a dominant rock sound of the 00s (if there is, I guess it's that emo/mall punk stuff I dislike). But there's interesting experiments happening everywhere, from re-contextualizing older sounds to drum and bass-driven rock to orchestral rock to sugary power pop to prog rock, and lots of other interesting stuff that's hard to classify for me. I guess I'm not making an apples-to-apples comparison, since I'm looking at what rock songs charted in the 90s versus indie rock in the 00s (although some indie stuff is now apparently doing well on the Billboard charts). Instead, I'm comparing what I remember as the dominant rock sound of the 90s against the more diverse, melodic rock sounds of the 00s.

Like I said upthread, I'm not trying to be beligerant. If there's great rock in the 90s that I completely missed (and I'm sure there is), I wouldn't deny its value just to win an argument; I'd be happy to discover it and modify my view.

Uh . . . I meant "belligerent." Damn typos.

No, I enjoy your argument, no belligerence assumed. But seriously, just give me let's say your 10 favorite indie bands right now. Or five. I'm very interested.

And of course when you talk about the 90s versus the 00s, I think you have to consider charted rock in the 90s versus 'indie' rock now (since the stuff that charts now is often putrid, as far as I can tell and excepting maybe the one My Chemical Romance album in terms of the 'emo' stuff).

But in that case I really think it comes down taste (and, uh, what else should it come down to?) I mean, in terms of the major rock of the 90s, I LOVED Soundgarden more than any of the other bands. Also, I didn't really like a lot of Alice in Chains stuff, but boy did I love SAP / Jar of Flies. And I'm a huge fan of Smashing Pumpkins (which I realize is very much a polarizing force).

I thought REM released their finest album, as did U2, so those are a few of the really major ones that solidify it for me.

My favorites change constantly. At the moment, and in no particular order, I'd say they are:

• The New Pornographers
• Liars
• Studio
• Map of Africa (I guess some say they're electronic artists, but their disc seems pretty rock-oriented to me)
• Spoon
• Stars (mostly on the strength of their new disc)
• The Clientele
• Wilco (mostly on the strength of YHF and SBS)
• The Shins
• Iron & Wine

With a few more selections, I'd veer toward world music (Rachid Taha and Tinariwen) or artists that straddle the line between electronic and rock (maybe Caribou) or prog-type rock (The Decemberists -- based on their last disc -- or maybe Battles) or moderized Americana (Califone, Sun Kil Moon). Again, it's pretty fluid, and maybe my preference for the 00s has to do with the fact that I'm exposed to much more music now than I was in the 90s, since it's so easily available these days.

Oh yeah, whoever recommended that A Mountain of One band, thanks! They'd probably be in my top 10 at the moment(assuming you'd consider them a rock act; I'm not sure who they'd push out (maybe MOA)).

Awesome, I'll check those out.

Some more good-to-great '00s indie (and related genres) bands:

Arcade Fire
Fountains of Wayne
Drive-by Truckers
White Stripes
Strokes
Hives
Gogol Bordello
Mountain Goats
Bright Eyes
Mouldy Peaches
etc.

Indie was better in the 90s than in the 00s. In the case of hip-hop, it was at its nonexistant best in the 60s.

Aha, a true blue James Brown fan revealed for all to see at long fucking last!!!

90s! Golden age of indie! Hello!

Pavement
Guided by Voices
Pixies
Archers of Loaf
Sebadoh
Built to Spill
Dinosaur Jr
Wedding Present

I could go on.

Pixies and Dino Jr were '80s bands. Some good stuff there, nonetheless, sure.

goshdarnit

Indie was better in the 90s than in the 00s.

Hmmm. I can't agree based on that list that ledge gave (sans D, Jr. and Pixies, both great bands but both 80s bands). A matter of taste.

I think there's more to it than taste.

If bands like the Arcade Fire, Spoon, Shins and New Pornographers are the yardstick, contemporary indie rock does seem awfully tired & timid when compared with the best of the 80s & 90s. Reason for this has nothing to do with quality. The sounds these bands deploy were developed in the 80s, became a viable mainstream commodity in the 90s, and have all but ossified now. They aren't bad sounds or even bad bands, but they're hardly surprising, and artists treading in well-established ruts will always seem a bit less significant – whatever that means – than those who blazed the trails in the first place.

Though pop has incorporated "indie" as a viable commercial form, it's important to remember how very strange many of the proto & first-wave indie bands sounded way back when - and how deliberately marginal they imagined/hoped they were. If you're listening to music that approaches music & commerce in a similar spirit, then you're barely listening to pop-rock at all: Providence noise, hippie Boredoms, garagey electro punk, Animal Collective & Paw Tracks, outsider black metal, fennesz & the minimal-digital crowd, neo-Fahey guitar drone, freak-folk and "wyrd" racket, Sunn0))) & doom/drone/stoner metal, Celebrate PSI & Jewelled Antler, Excepter, Wolf Eyes, etc.

As far as that stuff goes, 00s are proving just as fertile, creative and active as the 80s/90s, perhaps more so.

Excellent post -- I agree with just about all of that (and the list of artists in your second paragraph matches mostly the stuff I've found to be the most interesting in the 00s. I've tried the most popular 00s indie rock a la AF, Shins, etc, and haven't found any of terribly interesting.)

*it

If bands like the Arcade Fire, Spoon, Shins and New Pornographers are the yardstick, contemporary indie rock does seem awfully tired & timid when compared with the best of the 80s & 90s. Reason for this has nothing to do with quality. The sounds these bands deploy were developed in the 80s, became a viable mainstream commodity in the 90s, and have all but ossified now. They aren't bad sounds or even bad bands, but they're hardly surprising, and artists treading in well-established ruts will always seem a bit less significant – whatever that means – than those who blazed the trails in the first place.

That's unfair. First, the bands you cite weren't the only acts I mentioned. The other acts -- e.g., A Mountain of One, Studio, Map Of Africa and others are very innovative (more specifically, they're re-contextualizing, rather than just parroting, music and culture references from the past). Some of the bands you mention in your next-to-last paragraph are similarly innovative.

Second, the issue is what decade's music is better, not which decade's music has less identifiable antecedents. For instance, I suppose you can argue that grunge was "innovative" in the 90s (although, to be fair, it's leading light -- Kurt Cobain -- said his band was heavily inspired by Cheap Trick), but being "innovative" doesn't necessarily mean grunge music is "better" than music in the 00s. I'll concede that "innovative spirit" is a factor to consider in determining which decade is "better," just not the only factor.

More later, maybe. I'm swamped at the moment. Again, I'm not trying to belligerent. Just chatting.

I agree that that breaking new ground is interesting and exciting, but it's no guarantee of good music. I've seen so many indie bands who can't deliver what a generic bar band does as a matter of routine. Consistent quality isn't the same as being stuck in a rut. So the idea that the 00s are worse than the 90s because there is less "progress" doesn't hold water for me. It may be harder to get excited about artists who are building on precedent and consolidating strengths, but there's plenty of great work being done in that vein. I'm thinking of Gillian Welch and Iron & Wine, who aren't particularly experimental or new, or if they are, that's not what's interesting about them.

I think it's a more interesting challenge for musicians to figure out how to express themselves well in a pre-established format than to stake out new ground in experimental, anything-goes music. So I think Bob Standard's right that next-generation bands tend to seem slighter, but maybe for a different reason - it's because most bands aren't up to the challenge.

Agree with both daniel and dad a. I'm not even attempting to say which decade is better. That seems like an impossible question and a total waste of time.

I'm just saying that formalist indie rock has lost most of the ground-breaking sparkle and willingness to take big, ugly risks that characterized the genre in the 80s/90s. Doesn't make new century indie any worse, but it does make it different. Arguably less interesting.

I'm just saying that formalist indie rock has lost most of the ground-breaking sparkle and willingness to take big, ugly risks that characterized the genre in the 80s/90s.

What "big, ugly risks" were taken in indie rock in the 90s? Do you mean grunge? I see where you're coming from with regard to the 80s.

You weren't asking me, but I'd nominate Royal Trux and Palace for taking the big ugly risks of constant reinvention throughout the 90s. These are rare examples of making the experiment pay off on a regular basis. But I wouldn't chalk that up to anything about the 90s or the 00s, more to them being singular artists.

Good point, Dan. It's kind of a sliding scale. 80s indie was an open playing field. Term wasn't really in use, tons of disparate, often wildly uncommercial bands roped together in the college rock ghetto.

By the 90s, though, indie rock was becoming a defined genre. A broad genre, but one that could be named and understood. In there you had literate, pop friendly guitar music, but you also had noisy rawk in the Sub-Pop/AmRep mold, Touch & Go weirdness, the Sonic Youth art umbrella, mutant drug music on labels like Shimmy-Disc, lo-fi bedroom noisepop, brainy HC and punk, etc. All that stuff seemed to belong to indie rock.

Not so true anymore. New century indie is much more conservative and formal. The boundaries have pulled in. Now when we talk about indie, we mean a fairly narrow range of styles and approaches. It's not so much that the bands have changed, just that a formerly inclusive and experimental genre has become a very narrow and conservative one.

Not such a bad thing, really. Allows other umbrellas and organizing principles to flourish: noise, folk, new weird whatever, broader approaches to metal, etc. Hell, it even gives non-trad punk back to punkrock, which is nice.

Unfortunately, I only have time to comment on your post briely now, and I'll try circling back to it later. This comment jumped out at me:

By the 90s, though, indie rock was becoming a defined genre. A broad genre, but one that could be named and understood. In there you had literate, pop friendly guitar music, but you also had noisy rawk in the Sub-Pop/AmRep mold, Touch & Go weirdness, the Sonic Youth art umbrella, mutant drug music on labels like Shimmy-Disc, lo-fi bedroom noisepop, brainy HC and punk, etc. All that stuff seemed to belong to indie rock.

That's a pretty elastic concept of indie. I don't think it's been shrunk (or, to use your term, "ossified") so much as its now bending in new directions. For instance, I think of lots of current electronic acts as "indie," e.g., acts on labels like Wagon Repair, BPitch and so forth. They are all pushing boundaries, too (for instance, Cobblestone Jazz brings jazz-like improvisation to electo-dance music), and in ways that aren't identical to what was being done in "indie" in the 90s. So maybe we need to define terms a bit more before making an apples-to-apples comparison. My guess is that it will be much harder than we think to define those terms (it will be easy to identify obvious "indie" acts, but much harder around the margins).

To be clear, though, I wasn't really thinking of these electronic acts when I was posting earlier. But I think they should be considered.

Come to think of it, are there acts who are better now at basically what they themselves (or someone else) innovated 10 years ago? I want the answer to be yes but haven't kept up enough to say, and for most musicians inspiration doesn't last that long.

Daniel: Gah, that's a big wrinkle. What about indie/backpacker hip-hop then? Lots of genres have indie fringes, but I don't know that all the islands can be treated as single continent. But maybe I'm off-base. I suspect there's actually a lot of buyer crossover for indie rock, rap and electronic music.

Anyway, reason I used the elastic definition I did is that that's how I recall the term evolving. Key moment being Sebadoh's Gimme Indie Rock single from '91, which namedropped Pussy Galore, "sludgerock" and Sonic Youth, among others - Barlow bitching abt the commercialization of what had been an explicitly and entirly anticommercial way of thinking about music.

dad a: I dunno. Again, the whole "better" thing scares me. I can talk about what I like, but that doesn't extend beyond my tastes. That said, I think it's awful damn hard to find rock musicians who don't do their best work early on.

Gah, that's a big wrinkle.

And maybe an unfair one. Defining terms is, however, a challenge. Is a disc that rates highly on Pitchfork's year-end survey necessarily "indie," because it's highly-visable to indie enthusiasts?

Ah, I started writing more, but work intervenes. More later, if I can.

Bob, I wasn't asking for some objective "better"! Just talking about tastes and preferences here. But it's a puzzler. Longevity as a performing artist is rare enough, rarer still is continuing to develop in interesting ways. I have friends who prefer the records that Captain Beefheart and the Fall made in their second decades, for example, and I can at least understand that. I just can't think of anyone who's pulling that off now.

Agree about both Cap and MES, but they're rare exceptions, and I think the best either did was to meet a bar previously set. I much prefer the 80s Tom Waits stuff to what came before. Spoon fiddled around for quite a while being a sub-Pavement indie garage band before settling into the middle-aged, R&B inflected, chardonnay rock thing, which arguably suits 'em better. Lotsa people seem to prefer the bloated soft-psyche Flaming Lips of today, but I fuggin' hate 'em. Maybe they're the same folks who rate Goo-thru-Washing-Machine Sonic Youth over the earlier stuff? Again, disagree, though not so violently.

I know that I am certainly biased because much of what I heard in the 90s sounded new and original to me, whereas a lot of what I hear now has definitely 'circled the wagons' a bit. This dovetails with the discussion of innovative artists remaining original - the ripest years for me were Red Red Meat, when Jimmyswine was so luscious, and contained some of the my favorite songs of all time, and then the swing to Star Above the Cradle. Califone just seems to mirror those earlier movements, and indeed never reaches those peaks. The same is very true of Sebadoh, Liz Phair, Smashing Pumpkins, etc. Those artists made stunning music in the 90s (it isn't just because it was new). Those musicians aren't making such stunning music now.

So is it just a bias towards older artists? Part of it must be that you have to dig so much harder now to hear something extraordinary. Maxinquaye is a perfect example of that. It was available, and boy was it mind-blowing. To date, I haven't heard anything that original - but also that masterful - at all in this decade. I'm sure it may be because I haven't dug for it, but I'm not sure how much digging one must do to come up with something truly amazing. If it's really that good, it will become available won't it? Apparently not anymore.

It's always safe to say "music hasn't changed, I have." But I think there's been a real shift in the basic character of pop over the last 10-20 years. I retrospect, the 90s seem naively experimental - a romantic, generous and self-indulgent era:

Golden Age Hip-Hop - conscious, gangsta, novelty - endlessly mutating, way too much stuff to list
Populist Dance/Club Music - acid, drum 'n' bass, trip hop, big beat, rave era, etc.
Ambitious, Risky Arena Rock - Jane's Addiction, Smashing Pumpkins, U2, Tool
Hysterical Angst Release - Nirvana/grunge, nu-metal, Ministry & NIN
Unselfconscious Cross-Pollination - Red Hot Chili Peppers, Beastie Boys, Beck, Madchester into the rave explosion, Prodigy, Portishead, countless rock/rap/dance collaborations
Art Music On Pop Turf - Sonic Youth, Mr. Bungle, electronica craze, etc.

Since the late 90s, we've seen retrenchment:
Dance music falls for astringestly anti-populist minimalism.
Rap becomes obsessed with its history & identity - more curatorial than boundary-breaking.
Rock & rap part ways.
Fringe rock reigns itself in & smartens up, favoring dryly sophisticated post-punk styles over cartoonish 90s extremes.
Indie ossifies into a few limp teatime subgenres.
Experimental, independent-minded art music disappears down a noise/drone wormhole.

Emo, metal & southern/party hip-hop seem like the only wildly absurd pop genres left. So it isn't too surpising that you're not so often amazed. Other than that, who's taking the big (STUPID big) risks nowadays? Last mainstream album that really amazed me was The Love Below.

"Other than that, who's taking the big (STUPID big) risks nowadays?"

M.I.A. HAHA!

Good point. Even if you're goofing, I agree. Plus Diplo & Co. are at least trying to look ridiculous. And I forgot about Electroclash in discussing the 00s. It's not as black & white as all that.

M.I.A. HAHA!

Honestly, I don't think that's such a bad answer. In fact, I think the some of the most innovative stuff being made today involves re-contextualizing past sounds and cultural material. There's a lot of "indie" acts doing this, e.g., Studio, M.I.A., Girl Talk, A Mountain Of One, among others.

And I don't see what's so experimental or innovative about many of the acts that Bob cites above. Jane's Addiction, Smashing Pumpkins, U2, Tool, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers hardly seem so revolutionary to me. Again, my opinion only.

Great post back there Bob. Let the 90s revival begin.

re-contextualizing past sounds and cultural material

zzzz

Exactly. How innovative! Hip hop has only been pulling that trick since what...the mid-'70s?

its not even new by indie standards, haven't you dudes been talking about how great beck and the beastie boys are for doing the same shit for over a decade now?

And I don't see what's so experimental or innovative about many of the acts that Bob cites above.

What they share, however, is a kind of naive bravado - a willingness to do anything for the sake of their music, and a lack of concern for how stupid they might look while going about it. I find that refreshing, even admirable.

Re: deej & JN$OT

Exactly. Just throwing shit into the pomo blender doesn't seem at all risky or forward-thinking at this point. Fun maybe, but hardly anything to get worked up over.

Unselfconscious Cross-Pollination - Red Hot Chili Peppers, Beastie Boys, Beck, Madchester into the rave explosion, Prodigy, Portishead, countless rock/rap/dance collaborations

I consider most of those examples to have been pretty self-conscious about what they were doing.

What they share, however, is a kind of naive bravado - a willingness to do anything for the sake of their music, and a lack of concern for how stupid they might look while going about it. I find that refreshing, even admirable.

How do you see this in those bands and not today's bands?

Rockist, yeah. Me too. I need to clarify my thinking a bit. Yes, they were aware of what they were doing and why they were doing it. Beck & the Beastie Boys are even super ironic and distanced about both the music and their image as viewed by others. But, at the same time, they all have a willingness to go REAllY big and look stupid while doing it (Portishead excepted, they're working small).

Leaving Beck and Portishead out of the picture, all these artists have a quality of goofy, almost childish enthusiasm for the possibilities of pop. They're garish, colorful, silly and wildly excessive. That's the kind of unselfconsciousness I'm talking about. The willingness to be a joke.

as far as I can tell '90s "ambitious, risky arena rock" was never "ambitious" or "risky," & '90s "unselfconscious cross-pollination," as RS said, was never "unselfconscious"

"hysterical angst release" characterizes a lot of the rock music of this era but I'd consider it less self-indulgent than narcissistic. It's also very, very one-dimensional.

xpost

How do you see this in those bands and not today's bands?

Curtis: I can accept that. I see a quality of imaginative risk-taking and ambition in the bands I mentioned, a quality that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I like or even respect them. But this stuff is subjective, so whatever.

Still, even accepting all quibbles as valid, the 90s seem wilder to me: more outre, grotesque, genre-mixed, narcissistic (definitely), silly, and engaged with transforming - rather than just refining - pop.

re-contextualizing past sounds and cultural material . . .zzzz

_________________

its not even new by indie standards, haven't you dudes been talking about how great beck and the beastie boys are for doing the same shit for over a decade now?

Many good points above. As to this one, you're right; it isn't "new" in indie rock (and certainly not in hip-hop). But I don't think it's been done as frequently in indie rock, or in the same way, as it's being done now. But that's really not my main point. There's a lot of regular posters here who are smarter than me, and certainly more knowledgeable about music than I am, who can evaluate what's innovative, if anything, about 00s indie rock.

I still don't see what's so innovative about the 90s indie rock acts Bob mentions. Curtis' "hysterical angst release" post nails this point nicely, I think.

I knew this was gonna be a fight. Half thought-out post making sweeping generalization with shake support guarantees that.

But if I'm wrong, what are the big differences - or what's the big difference - between then and now. When looking at the 90s, I think of Sonic Youth. That's me, my own myopia, but they seem like a decent lens through which to see the decade's rock. Toiling in the anticommercial trenches in the 80s; in the 90s finding ways to integrate that with what radio could maybe stand. Similar to the way Nirvana mainstreamed a decade's worth of genuinely independent American indie rock.

Looking back, I'm tempted to frame the 80s as generational, the 90s as integrative. Roughly. Accepting that the 80s began in the late 70s, and the 90s began in the late 80s. Maybe I'm way off base, but if so, gimme a better paradigm.

"shaky"

I knew this was gonna be a fight.

Not fighting, trust me. Just discussing. I get my fill of fighting as part of my job.

Somehow I think this thread would have some relevant discussion:

Class, etc. pt. 4 - Did post-rock "kill" indie? (Also, did it realign the "rhythmic impulse" towards an alternative to funk-based rhythms?)

I hadn't read that thread. Still haven't, though working on it. The fucntion of post-rock was something I've been thinking about on this thread but not talking about. I tend to agree that post-rock represented the spearhead of what killed 90s-style flamboyance - what I was foolishly calling "unselfconsciousness", for lack of a better word.

But I disagree that post-rock was rebutted by rock-rock (as Nabisco suggested on that other thread). I think they're the same thing - narrow formalism rebelling against the ludicrous extremes of 90s pop. A culture of "informed coolness" excusuing itself from the big stupid party.

Damn, that thread is really long.

Jane's Addiction, Smashing Pumpkins, U2, Tool, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers hardly seem so revolutionary to me. Again, my opinion only.

I would venture to say that some of these bands were 'revolutionary,' as much as bands can be with so much history in rock music. And where they weren't, they made some great music. Of course, that's all opinion, but if you're going to talk about the biggest bands from that era, compare them to the biggest bands from this. I see My Chemical Romance and System of A Down as carrying on the tradition of moving things forward, but a lot of stuff as extremely stock and boring. Care to disagree? This is of course not getting into the 'indie' stuff.

Exactly. How innovative! Hip hop has only been pulling that trick since what...the mid-'70s?

That's not really a good criticism. So hip-hop has been innovating since the 70s. True. The 80s created a huge jump in the evolution of hip-hop, and I would say that the 90s consolidated much of that. At this point though, hip-hop is McDonaldizing, and innovation is coming at the fringes.

Looking back, I'm tempted to frame the 80s as generational, the 90s as integrative. Roughly. Accepting that the 80s began in the late 70s, and the 90s began in the late 80s.

Most certainly right.

As for 'zzzzz' - no way. It's very interesting indeed.

Yeah, I'd totally sign on with MCM and System of a Down as 21st century descendents of the ambitious 90s stuff I see as easily able to "amaze" fans (back upthread you talk about Maxinquay seeming "extraordinary ... mind-blowing"). I'm not saying that such music isn't out there, just that it's mostly occurring in genres that ILX doesn't seem too enthused about.

P.S. My previous post is way fucked-up. Spelling aside, post rock isn't the "spearhead" that killed anything, just a fringe manifestation. Head hung low.