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...:|

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.