TS: 90-94 vs. 95-99

I was just thinking how, for me at least, it seems like the latter half of the 90's is when all the stuff I find exciting about the former half kind of fizzled out. When the momentum from the turn of the decade coming from the further advent of lots of new forms of music that began in the 80's kind of fell flat and didn't replace it with much. I generally consider 94 as the cut-off date for hip-hop; Bleep/Ambient Techno and early warp stuff going away/turning into often boring, noodling IDM. I'm much for techno/house of the late 90's, either. Jungle's morphing into what would become dull drum n' bass. Pavement style indie-rock and post-rock having been done, I guess. Even the shift in the mainstream from Nirvana to the post-grunge vomit of Stone Temple Pilots et. al.

This has all been a pretty superficial overview on my part, thus far, maybe it's obvious, maybe not. A lot of it I think has to do with my age/relation to these time periods, especially considering how the early 00's, I consider to be great. Either way, thought I'd enquire about it.

Also if theres an existing thread about this, sorry, but I didn't see it.

I think of the summer of '97 (Spice Girls specifically- not that they were bad- but the change they brought in their wake) as when popular music fell off a cliff. Only to return in full force around 1992. There's bright spots (Drum 'n' Bass, Neutral Milk Hotel, early electroclash) but mostly it was boiling under and reaching fruition in the 00s. I'm sure there will be later excavations that turn up great stuff, but it makes the early 60's dead-spot look massively fecund (and it was never really that bad, just a bit pale in comparison to it's bookends). But then, I spent these years just catching up on the past.

i didn't even bother listening to music in the late 90's. i mean, a bit, but seriously it was all about how crazy a location one could find for a rave, weird burning man art happenings, exotic designer drugs, the music was just background - i mean, nothing so amazing was happening that one HAD to stop and listen. i remember living just down the road fromamoeba records on haight street - they had EVERYTHING, but there just wasn't that much i really cared to buy, it was kind of frustrating. the early 90s were infinitely better - all that crazy house trance hardcore jungle, and hip hop was going off at the time as well... although indie had fell off by 91 or so (but i didn't really care, rave music was way more fun)

that's how i remember it anyway.

u dudez r old

That's another thing I thought about, but didn't mention in my first post, the death of rave, I guess, as it emerged into what, well, most people now think of as rave.* Also I guess a the influx of commercial presence in hip-hop?

I also never considered the generational aspect, the late 90's being that odd wedge between generation X and the more prosperous, cusp-of-the-information-age generation of the 2000's (I just chalked it up to being too young to remember 92 but old enough to remember 98)
I mean had you asked me anytime which period I prefer I think it's pretty obvious the former half is better, but I never really considered the late 90's to be a kind of failure (to put it strongly) to sustain the momentum of the 90's.

*Summed up nicely by the flyers for Bob Marley tribute events, hair dreadlocking services, circus training, and how-to-snort-drugs-properly guides (which were amusingly circulated along with Marc Houle and Cari Lekebusch flyers at a local party co hosted by the local rave contingent and the European Minimal crowd).

I mean ultimately, I can't help but think of 95-99 as just really unmemorable, and it was only 10 years ago.

u dudez r old

― The Reverend, Saturday, February 21, 2009 6:30 AM (18 minutes ago)

there was just as much exciting stuff going on in the late 90s, most of it is just currently unfashionable

I'm stuck in anticipation for 10 through 14.

I, personally, am not old.

In the first post it should say "I'm NOT much on late 90's techno/house"

I should also iterate that this isn't born of of some sort of nostalgia/fashionable revivalism of early 90's music (xpost)

I really have no memory of what I was listening to between 95-99...well, I remember names and stuff, but all that mostly shallow post-Pavement/post-Archers of Loaf indie rock which seemed monumental at the time really didn't stick around with me past 2000. Same for all the big beat that followed in the wake of the Chemical Brothers.

They say stuff from ten years prior is always the most unfashionable thing around, and it always tends to be true. But I honestly don't see myself ever getting really nostalgic for anything from that time period.

yup, i'm old. hell, i was kinda old already by the late 90's for that matter. i was a teenaget during the 80's for that matter and they didn't suck half as much as the late 90's did musically (in many other ways the late 90's rocked harder than anything if you were living in sf/silicon valley and going to burning man, santacon, desert raves etc)

the only thing i remember listening to from that time and thinking "wow" was, like, early jay-z and timbo/missy/alliyah. i mean, don't get me wrong, i'd be happy to have someone revise the late 90's to where the tunes didn't suck - it was probably the best time of my life so far by a country mile, it'd be great to have some nostalgia music from then that was worth a damn. so someone prove me wrong, i need new playlist fodder anyway.

was struggling on my bus ride home from my friends place to come up w/ a way to make this thread interesting

Even Portishead improved after leaving the late 90s

I would pretty much fall into the 90-94 camp too. I was mostly listening to electronic and dance music back then, and the early 90s were just such an exciting time for those genres, it felt something like something new and exciting was emerging every other month. I'd extend the better part of the decade all the way to 1996 though, as there were still some cool things happening in 95-96 (techstep, Mouse on Mars style kiddie electro, minimalism). But after that it felt like electronic and dance music went from forward-looking to past-recycling, with new styles being less innovative and more boring: jazzstep, big beat, electroclash, Aphew Twin/Squarepusher style IDM wankery, etc. Though I'm pretty sure a part of my nostalgia for 90-96 is that I was a teen then (I turned 20 in 1999), and exploring new music coincided with exploring other cool things and not being jaded yet.

depeche mode - ultra (1997)

end thread

instinct says 90-4

Sundays
Lush, Ride, MBV even, et al
good early Britpop

easily beats 95-99

bad later Britpop
droning slow rock (verve, Radiohead etc)
Robbie Williams
other rubbish

-- the one exception: Belle & Sebastian.

I suppose that Magnetic Fields run across the decade, score well in either half.

I turned into my dad, hating all of today's new music, the moment I heard Bare Naked Ladies "One Week", Smashmouth "Walking on the Sun", and some Bush song on the radio in one "rock block". Anything that made Stone Temple Pilots seem reasonable wasn't going to be for me.

Yeah, I'm old. I'm eligible to be president now.

I would say 95-99, although for me, the real pick would be 93-97. The 90s were at their best around the middle, when Blur and Oasis were at their creative and commercial heights, and the hitlists were filled with acts like them.

instinct says 90-4

Sundays
Lush, Ride, MBV even, et al
good early Britpop

easily beats 95-99

bad later Britpop
droning slow rock (verve, Radiohead etc)
Robbie Williams
other rubbish

I would actually say late Britpop was better, because it was more pop and less rock/indie. It was a return of old great pop values from the 60s, 70s and early 80s, which was very much needed at the time.

For instance ???

You think Be Here Now, Blur or This Is Hardcore were a return to great pop values?

It's so obviously 90-94 for almost every genre I can think of. The early 90s, especially the very beginning (and the late 80s as well maybe) still seem like this unrivalled explosion of creativity. By the late 90s, with a few honorable exceptions, things seemed a lot more conservative and played out.

for almost every genre I can think of.

except for teenpop. the late 90s was an excellent time to be an 11-14 year old girl. :D not even gonna try to convince anyone here of the musical merits of 98 Degrees and the Moffats though.

I would pretty much fall into the old camp too. I was mostly listening to NPR and my doctor's advice on how to treat my osteoporosis back then, and the early 90s were just such an exciting time for us geezers, it felt something like something new and exciting was emerging every other month. I'd extend the better part of the decade all the way to 1996 though, as there were still some things happening in 95-96 (technology, my kids got old enough to properly program our electronics, minimal back pain). But after that it felt like electronics and digital media went from forward-looking to past-recycling, with new models being less innovative and more boring: uhhhh who can remember name of things, anymore. Though I'm pretty sure a part of my nostalgia for 90-96 is that I was finally pension-eligible then (I turned 60 in 1999), and exploring new music coincided with exploring other cool things like gardening and not being house-bound yet.

except for teenpop

agreed! also uhhh timbaland and neptunes in the late 90s. this is such a dumb question though, i don't know why people keep having to try to play eras off against each other (and why most people go for the older era)

you just went for the newer era

Xpost, I'm not, despite the extremely misleading thread title.

I want to consider how the latter half of the 90's acted as logical extention of the early 90's, and why, in spite of this, it seems like such an unmemorable/dull time (other than the fact that the music was just flat out better).

You think Be Here Now, Blur or This Is Hardcore were a return to great pop values?

No, no. But Dodgy, Lightning Seeds, Bluetones, Supernaturals etc....

Mehlt I reject the frame of the question

yes, yes, I'm still interested in why it's rejectable, though.

This thread is a lot more boring than it has any right to be.

again, why?

I want to consider how the latter half of the 90's acted as logical extention of the early 90's, and why, in spite of this, it seems like such an unmemorable/dull time

Well, at least in dance and electronic music the latter half of the nineties was more boring exactly because it was a logical extention of the early 90s, and nothing more. In the first half of the nineties it felt like new sounds and genres were coming out all the time, you never knew what was around the corner. Whereas during the late 90s the genres had already been segmented and even stagnated, most of the stuff released sounded like same old same old, formerly innovative acts were copping out to become rock stars (The Prodigy, Moby, etc) and even the "new" genres (big beat, electroclash) just felt like dance music recycling it's own past.

Nu-Stereolab, Cornelius, NewsRadio, Season 7 & 8 of The Simpsons, etc.

The latter half of the 90s still had some ups.

the idea that 'extension' is actually spelled 'extention' seems to be catching on, on this thread.

'connection' did use to be spelled 'connexion', of course, in real life.

But Dodgy, Lightning Seeds, Bluetones, Supernaturals etc....

I am capable of great nostalgia and rose-tinted vistas - more than most, goodness knows. You might think that any list of pop groups from a younger time in my life would stir a ripple of fondness.

But this mid-to-late-1990s list is practically chilling -- the horrific varieties of blandness, mediocrity and gurning grins. Whatever else may have happened, let us never go back to that.

agreed! also uhhh timbaland and neptunes in the late 90s.

Timba I'll give you, I think of the Neptunes as early 00s really.

i don't know why people keep having to try to play eras off against each other (and why most people go for the older era)

You know how you always go on about how the charts and Radio One are shit these days and not a patch on the start of the 00s? This is a bit like that.

The music from your teen years will remain the best music ever for the rest of your life. Right or wrong?

there is more than one teen year ... you might feel that the early teens were great, the late not, or vice versa. you might start PLAYING THEM OFF AGAINST EACH OTHER.

the music you listened to most as a teen might not have been released in those years. then maybe the best music ever for you would remain something released before you were born.

A whole heap of my favourite records come from 95-99.

yes, yes, I'm still interested in why it's rejectable, though.

― mehlt, Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:26 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

because youre taking it as a given that 90-94 >> 95-99 & i disagree with that premise

'90-'94 probably my least favorite half-decade for music since the early '20s or something; basically, I like Spanish-language rock music from then and not a whole lot else. Things seem to pick back up around '95 for me, though. So, second half, easy.

Actually, though, that's in terms of albums; it's possible I could be convinced that the early '90s were better for singles. (Which means my '20s etc. comparison makes no sense, since it's not like I listen to many albums from before the '60s. But the early '90s mostly bored me regardless.)

xxpost. Oh, ok, I kind of misread you a bit. Yeah, that's quite fair.

95-99 contains UK Garage, also Daft Punk, also Green Velvet, also the flowering of full-on pop jump-up d'nb (Tru Playaz etc) some amazing stuff on Force Inc, some great Drexciya albums, lots of great (pre-electroclash) Detroit-based electro and the last two releases on Cold Rush. And that's before you even consider slightly ropey stuff like big beat or loop techno.

Even if you were to introduce some reductive binary, it's at least reasonable to say that the late 90s is when the new ideas of the early 90s reached their definitive forms...

score draw

silly question rly.

it's at least reasonable to say that the late 90s is when the new ideas of the early 90s reached their definitive forms

agreed, but can see why people take the novelty over the consolidation

the trouble with the argument is that how do you then claim the 00s offered anything new or different?

it's at least reasonable to say that the late 90s is when the new ideas of the early 90s reached their definitive forms

doesn't sound that reasonable!

otoh, it's not like everything changed on 1 jan 1990. but e.g. trip hop did not reach its definitive form in the late 90s.

Nor did rave, trance, acid, etc. They might've taken some other forms later in the decade, but I still prefer the earlier forms.

it did tho (if we mean 95-99) xp

disagree. (technically maxinquaye came out in like january 1995 but only coz of sample clearance hold-ups.)

Actually, I can think of few forms of electronic music gestated in the late 80s/early 90s that would've mutated into something better in the late 90s. Except maybe minimal techno/house, and even for that the early 00s was a more definitive era.

A few random things that happened in the late '90s, fwiw: (1) Certain kinds of European extreme metal started absorbing Enigma/Kate Bush/Cocteau Twins/Joy Division/Kate Bush, and turned really beautiful; (2) other kinds of metal rediscovered '70s stoner music and got their groove back; (3) techno got a big beat and rocked out more, which lots of peple here apparently hated but I thought it made it way the hell more fun; (4) Nashville country got a big beat beat and rocked (and popped, and souled) more; (5) certain kinds of indie rock turned less sexless and more rhythmic, frequently by rediscovering what a garage is; (6) grunge turned more shameless and catchier and less dull and dire; (7) English-as-foreign-language bubblegum dance pop from continental Europe turned really wacky and delirously catchy. (And that doesn't even take into account individual artists, just genres.)

would probably dismiss late 90s quicker if i hadn't been at college at the time

xp I mean Christ, both techno/house and grunge clearly peaked in the mid/late '80s, if you had your ears open.

English-as-foreign-language bubblegum dance pop from continental Europe turned really wacky and delirously catchy.

You don't think Eurodance was wacky in the early 90s?! If anything, I'd say Eurodance became more refined in the late 90s after the delirious "Techno Techno Techno, It's My Life, Mr. Vain" early 90s.

basically the 90s was awesome

xp I mean Christ, both techno/house and grunge clearly peaked in the mid/late '80s, if you had your ears open.

House maybe, techno definitely not (since it was only taking it's baby steps around that time). And that applies only to the US, in Europe the peak years were quite clearly in the 90s.

You don't think Eurodance was wacky in the early 90s?

Not anywhere near as wacky as Aqua or Toy Box or Los Umbrellos or Dr. Bombay or Gina G (okay, she was Australian I think, whatever. So hell, throw in OMC too, if you want.)

xp I mean Christ, both techno/house and grunge clearly peaked in the mid/late '80s, if you had your ears open.

And if you prefer the kind of house/techno made in the mid/late '80s, of course. Interestingly, in the mid/late '90s as techno was getting bigger beats and "more fun" in some arenas, in others it was miniaturizing sounds and learning its way around comparatively new technologies, setting the stage for the mid '00s rise of "minimal." Which may not be 100% a good thing (I don't think Chuck would find a contemporary minimal party terribly fun, and he might be plenty right), but there were certainly significant moments. Kompakt and Perlon both launched around 1998, for instance.

Sundays: first two LPs 1990, 1992: magnificent

third LP 1997: inferior

I can think of few forms of electronic music gestated in the late 80s/early 90s that would've mutated into something better in the late 90s.

...presumably because you don't like vocals much.

From early 90s sample-house ---> classic NJ garage sound --> UK garage is a procession of increasing awesomeness.

Also Armand Van Helden >>>>>> 99% of hip-house

I could have sworn that Chuck just used DR BOMBAY to defend the late 90s, but he couldn't have, could he?

Sundays: first two LPs 1990, 1992: magnificent

third LP 1997: inferior

In my estimation, it's more like: RRA>>>>>>>>>>>>>Static & Silence>>Blind

Mmmm. Racial.

to be fair MacDoo WAS hilarious

Wu-Tang Clan was such a humongous EVENT that it's 90-94 in a landslide, but really all the innovations in rap/hip-hop in the first half of the decade--how sampling had to work its way around copyright laws and became more cluttered and distorted and morbid and crazy--puts the first half of the decade over the top.

Okay, maybe late 90s Eurodance had more wacky characters, but from a musical point of view I'd say early 90s Eurodance was wackier.

Hahaha OMG I had not realised until now just how racist the lyrics are.

Many many people in my family tree
Almost everybody looks exactly like me
42 Cousins, I will never be alone
Every 20 seconds there's a ring on my phone

blimey.

Wu-Tang Clan was such a humongous EVENT that it's 90-94 in a landslide, but really all the innovations in rap/hip-hop in the first half of the decade--how sampling had to work its way around copyright laws and became more cluttered and distorted and morbid and crazy--puts the first half of the decade over the top.

― talrose, Monday, February 23, 2009 3:32 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

peak wu-tang is on either side of the arbitary 01-01-95 divider.

peak wu-tang is on either side of the arbitary 01-01-95 divider.

― meme economist (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, February 23, 2009

No doubt, but the arrival of Wu-Tang--from a conceptual, stylistic, and marketing perspective--is what I'm referring to. And even though deciding between Wu-Tang albums is almost impossible, I'd still choose the debut over just about anything else.

I just sort of contradicted myself there, but the basic point is that the momentous implication of Wu-Tang's debut is considerable.

90-95

Shoegaze
Jungle
Proper dub/minimal/detroit techno

96-00
Brit pop
Ibiza/handbag house/trance
boy/girl band overload

Oh, you mean

90-95
Arbitrarily chosen stuff you like

96-00
Arbitrarily chosen stuff you don't like

Congratulations.

Britpop != 1996-

it was first announced as a movement at least as far back as 1993; I think it peaked in 1994 % 1995. In fact that 'I think' looks silly, it's a pretty consensual statement.

it's true for me though that, in order of virtue,

MBV
Lush
Ride
Slowdive
Chapterhouse

et al = late-1980s - early 1990s, + that would be a main reason for preferring 1992 to 1997, etc

but like I said, B&S = 1995-

Wu-Tang Clan was such a humongous EVENT that it's 90-94 in a landslide, but really all the innovations in rap/hip-hop in the first half of the decade--how sampling had to work its way around copyright laws and became more cluttered and distorted and morbid and crazy--puts the first half of the decade over the top.

― talrose, Monday, February 23, 2009 8:32 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i love wu tang but the degree of importance theyve been given these days is absolutely insane
speaking from flyover country, dr. dre & snoop were way bigger
tupac too

but as it pertains to the thread question, the fact is that even 'early 90s was the best' rap heads would probably acknowledge that plenty of the best shit 'of' that era happened on the other side of '95

i mean dont get me wrong, wu-tang were huge & revolutionary -- but they were hardly the only ones
bone thugs were as big tho maybe less so with the white stoner crowd that grew up on cypress hill

& i would take cuban linx over the debut anyway

Yah, Cuban Linx and Liquid Swords > 36 Chambers. Wu-Tang are somewhat of an outlier anyway, to be all OMG they changed everything is v dishonest.

I'm not trying to create a reductive binary as I was charged upthread. I'm interested in considering the 90's as a whole, that even encapsulates the late 80's and early 00's to look at how it has evolved, (the title was pretty stupid on my part). I do think saying 'this came out in 96 so that wins is short sighted', which is what I've been avoiding. On that note, I think it makes little sense to distinguish Liquid Swords/Cuban Links from 36 Chambers based on being past 94 (although, I do look at them as kind of an exception to the rule, in that case). I think of 93-95 Wu tang as having a lot more in common than 95-98 'Tang.

Also Armand van Helden will never make me feel anything close to what Hip House has.

The problem with the argument that the later half of the decade is just an extension of the first half of the decade is that any major trend within music takes about 5 years at least to gesticulate and run its course. You could just as easily pit the late 90s against the early 00s and say "Oh, well things that were big in the early 00s like crunk, neo-garage rock, etc. were already going on in the late 90s." Which would be true, and you could do that with any two consecutive five-year periods you wanted, but it has no baring at all on the quality of the music.

well, if he makes a comparison between what was peaking in the early 90s vs. late 90s its hard to argue that rap was in a 'better' place in the early 90s although obv that depends on what kind of aesthetic you're going for ...

really the peak of crossover rap is like a late 90s thing, the point at which u had rap starting to really make its mark nationally & being commercially successful at the same time ... where the most popular early 90s raps were sorta all over the place

the trouble with the argument is that how do you then claim the 00s offered anything new or different?

Did they? I mean, if there is ever going to be a 90s revival, it would have to be about either rave or grunge, as that is the only typical 90s genres that aren't still very much mainstream in some form or other.

it was first announced as a movement at least as far back as 1993; I think it peaked in 1994 % 1995. In fact that 'I think' looks silly, it's a pretty consensual statement.

Depends where you come from. Surely, the four big names peaked in either 94 or 95. But I would say that Britpop shaped 1996 to a bigger extent than it shaped any other year. Never before or since did Britpop dominate the UK hitlists to such an extent. Because there weren't only the four big names. There were lots of other Britpop bands doing really well too.

90-94 in a wash for me. i don't believe this is true of other decades; but the late 90s were all about further fleshing out fresh ideas from the late 80s and early 90s to such a degree that they became sterilized and overdone. The two genres that stick out to me personally as the best examples of this are death metal and all of the little micro-genres encompassing rave music. From raw, primitive and filled with excitement to... prog.

surprised "I generally consider 94 as the cut-off date for hip-hop" didn't turn this thread into an early 90s vs late 90s rap argument. :D

95-99 wins.

Even though the first half of the decade had 3 mega super duper classic records in Slanted & Enchanted, Nevermind & Loveless, after that it's not quite as much of a musical bounty.

However, the 2nd half of the decade had 1997, which is one of the most super duper years in all of musicdom. There were so many great records in that year, I could plotz.

xposts. no, no, no I'm trying to envision it as one whole. I'm imagining a continuous line that starts to fade near the end of the 80's and fades out at the beginning of the 00's (and wondering why that line is much brighter closer to where roughly 90-94 is than say 96-99) and NOT as two separate, or one dissected line. If it (and I made a request to change the thread's title on account of this) appears I've tried to imply that things should be thought of in 5 year spurts that my fault, but I'm officially denying that now.