Favourite Era for music

[quickstraw]

Sorry, but that's music for an elevator. Bland, dull, and droning. 2000s 101. What do you do when you go see a band play that shit? Read a book? Get off on the top floor and jump off the edge of the building?

 

[CURVE]

My two favourite eras are:

The New Wave era of the late 70's early 80's which included artists such as Blondie, Talking Heads, Television, Devo, Hunters & Collectors, Flowers (Icehouse), Lene Lovich, The Go Go's, Kate Bush, Siouxsie & The Banshees and Nina Hagen. To name a few. Not all are considered New Wave, but they began around the same time, between 1976 & 1982.

The second is the Indie era of late 80's early 90's which included artists such as Curve, The Falling Joys, The Clouds, Lush, The Sundays, The Smithereens, Juliana Hatfield, PJ Harvey, The Breeders, The Cruel Sea, Died Pretty, Sonic Youth and Liz Phair. To name a few.

 

[The_Big_Ship]

Sorry, but that's music for an elevator. Bland, dull, and droning. 2000s 101. What do you do when you go see a band play that shit? Read a book? Get off on the top floor and jump off the edge of the building?

Standard rockist response. You don't like the 2000s, we get it, but why are you so angry other people do?

 

[RedmanWasHere]

The 2000s are my favourite, some of these could be considered 90s, but I loved their output in this decade as well so included them.

Burial
The Knife
Autechre
Radiohead
Bjork (On the list purely for Vespertine)
The Strokes
Interpol
Boards of Canada

Blond Redhead
The Radio Dept
The Field
Amon Tobin
Beck
PJ Harvey
Grizzly Bear
Portishead

Godspeed You! Black Emperor
Stars of the Lid
Spoon
Tim Hecker
Jon Hopkins
The National
Deerhunter
Max Richter

Beach House
Sigur Ros
Boris
Arcade Fire
LCD Soundsystem
William Basinski
Daft Punk
Broadcast

Also, Zero 7's remix of Terry Callier's love theme from Spartacus.

 

[quickstraw]

Standard rockist response. You don't like the 2000s, we get it, but why are you so angry other people do?

Most of the stuff in that list is what I consider rock. Just insipid and bland. And if you think I only like new bands who sound like Zeppelin or Cream you'd be wrong. I typically shy away from this stuff because a) it's old hat (that doesn't mean shit, just means i want to listen to new sounds from new bands), and b) why would I listen to Jet, Wolfmother, Bon Iver, or Tame Impala when I can listen to better stuff of the same style?

I'm open to new sounds or fresh versions of old sounds, whether that be rock/electonica hybrid or whatever. Just show me something with some balls. Has it dawned on you yet that modern rock is monotone and bland? That's been the trend for 7 or 8 years and it's rubbish.

Here's an example:

Today I heard a new Broken Bells track off the new album: Changing Lights. Not bad by any means but just bland. 2000s bland.

You sit there with your head in your arse and tell anyone who thinks it's bland that they are old but what you don't have the benefit of is the likes of The Sex Pistols and the punk generation enter the frame, or Nirvana and the Grunge generation enter the scheme.

You might tut tut and say these bands are shit but you'd be missing the point. Both these bands among others grabbed rocknroll by the balls and ushered in a new generation. I'm not really a fan of either band but I was there both times and it was exciting. They were fresh and their music was alive. I don't expect you to grasp this properly because what you see now are stale sounds. But when it was new it blew roofs off.

All the likes of you have the pleasure of seeing monotone sounds listened to by hipsters cruising around with their try hard beards listening to over produced bland gentrified versions of music from bygone areas.

One day a band will enter the fray that will knock everyone's socks off with some much needed energy and freshness. Maybe then you will get it.

 

[raskolnikov]

The 80s for me. 75% of my music collection is 80s. About 15% would be 60s and 70s and about 10% 90s(mostly Britpop).

 

[La Dispute]

I laugh at people like you who listen to mundane boring shit like Interpol and then have the hide to look down on people who like (among other things) what is considered as some of the best rock music ever made. It's like someone who has John McEnroe walking through Times Square print on his wall turning his nose up at someone who has a Picasso.

I bet you put Tom Waits on your list because you think it'd make you look cool.

I don't have a problem with you considering Interpol boring. In fact; it'd be a pretty bleak world in which everybody had the same tastes and opinions. My biggest issue though, is your lack of engagement with the topic. Your standard response of 'that's boring' doesn't provide any discernable argument as to WHY you find it boring and how this compares with the music you listen to. The discussion on bands that you claim to know and understand (Arcade Fire, Dino J, The Smiths, Interpol Eels) appears to centre around you're own opinions on the type of people who listen to the music and the sort of subcultures that proliferate around alternative rock. To me, that is completely beside the point of a subjective discussion on the artistic merits of an artist. I can't take your critique seriously because you're failing to (either through laziness or a complete lack of knowledge - I suspect the latter) give me any sort of cohesive debate.

In other words, you come across as a very 'casual,' or populist music fan; which is fine. If you think about it, the majority of people probably are and you can certainly have a discussion with someone who is, as long as they don't pretend they inhabit knowledge they just don't have. Your lack of information has already been shown up once when you claimed none of the bands in my list created heavy rock riffs, to which I raffled off ten artists who certainly do. It's also been shown up in a number of other threads to which you've been exposed as a bit of a rookie when it comes to modern music. Of course, again, if you had some critical engagement and could discuss the bands posed by myself and other posters, you might win some credibility, but otherwise you're pretty out of your depth.

Also, Tom Waits is on the list because of how ****ing good he is and how amazing albums like Blue Valentine and Small Change Are. And he continues to put out quality. Strange point.

It's also abundantly clear you don't listen to a huge variety of music. You like rock music and that's Okay but deeming timeless electronic music such as Boards of Canada as 'elevator music' well and shows you as fairly narrow-minded. Given you seem to only accept critically acclaimed, widely acknowledged artists it seems a little contrary to your position to pander one of the biggest IDM duo's in existence. You just don't really have a holistic understanding and appreciation for a wide variety of music. But again, that's OK; as long as you recognise it.

I'm open to new sounds or fresh versions of old sounds, whether that be rock/electonica hybrid or whatever. Just show me something with some balls. Has it dawned on you yet that modern rock is monotone and bland? That's been the trend for 7 or 8 years and it's rubbish.

Well no, you're not; that's very clear. You're obsession with 'balls' and masculinity appears to be another enduring fetish of yours. It's a bizarre pre-requisite and certainly limits your listening experience. If you're looking for heavy rock music, as you have indicated, the post-hardcore scene has evolved substantially over the years and has yielded a heap of heavy, technically proficient and lyrically aware bands such as La Dispute, Touche Amore, Pianos Become The Teeth and a heap of others are killing it. Sludge metal has also converged (another great band) with rock music to yield bands such as Mastodon, Baroness, Kylesa and Torche, who certainly have 'balls'.

You sit there with your head in your arse and tell anyone who thinks it's bland that they are old but what you don't have the benefit of is the likes of The Sex Pistols and the punk generation enter the frame, or Nirvana and the Grunge generation enter the scheme.

Nirvana are OK. Kurt Cobain was a pretty bad guitarist and for the most part, an average songwriter so using them as some sort of musical gauge is, in my opinion, a little bizarre. Your argument centres on the cultural impact of the band really than focusing on the aesthetic merit of the group. Again though, if you could actually provide some insight it'd be much easier to debate it with you. Silent Alarm provided a great analysis on why TOTBL was largely regarded as a classic turn of the century indie album, while paying close attention to the musical landscape of the album and it's lyrical wares. This is what you'd expect when trying to dissect music and it's part of the reason you're largely ignored in threads such as these.

You provide some interesting opinions in other threads, but as we've seen over the years, you provide next to nothing on the music board and you certainly perpetuate the stereotype of the dissociated dad. So, unfortunately I can't really take your intransigent views seriously until I can see you as an active consumer of modern music, which you currently aren't.

 

[quickstraw]

TL;DR

 

[hawk for 37]

Good on you blokes having a good ol tantie about your musical tastes. One discussing current bands that show a bit and are current and now and the other lamenting the days where whole new eras were ushered in by bands like the Sex Pistols and Nirvana.

I'm sorry La Dispute, but Quickstraw's point is far more valid. Saying you don't like Nirvana because Kurt was a crap guitarist completely misses the point. One song he plays changed the history of music. Likewise the Sex Pistols.

They ushered in the 2nd (77 - 81ish) and 3rd (91 - 95) historical great eras in popular music (safe to say the Beatles and Stones own the first). Not one band on your list has or will change music (Radiohead come closest) and hardly any will go down as bands talked about in 25 years time as greats of popular music history.

Gee I hope the next Kurt is ready to break out because jeez we need it.

 

[La Dispute]

I'm sorry La Dispute, but Quickstraw's point is far more valid. Saying you don't like Nirvana because Kurt was a crap guitarist completely misses the point. One song he plays changed the history of music. Likewise the Sex Pistols.

I do like Nirvana. I wrote an earlier post stating how much I listened to them when I was younger and how much of an influence they've been on me but that doesn't change how bad a songwriter Kurt was.

Smells Like Teen Spirit didn't 'change the history of music' (what a dramatic thing to say) and it's certainly one of their weaker tracks. It's cultural impact seems to overshadow how poor a tune it is and from reading various sources, it's fairly apparent Kurt hated it as well. The Pixies were everything Nirvana tried to be and they did it a hundred times better.

Why does any one band need to change music? What sort of flimsy evaluation is that? These days musical subcultures are much more diverse and communities are in constant motion. Bands like Deerhunter, The Flaming Lips, Streetlight Manifesto, Sigur Ros, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Isis and Mastodon, Boards of Canada are currently the figureheads or vanguards of their respective genres and they aren't reliant on one contemporary pop hit to do so. All are putting out original music, which is being appropriated by other artists, inherently continuing the creative process and allowing new genres and sounds to emerge organically.

 

[quickstraw]

Deerhunter. Lollerskates.



I just want to cut my wrists.

 

[quickstraw]

Deerhunter. Lollerskates.



I just want to cut my wrists.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Deerhunter. Lollerskates.



I just want to cut my wrists.

Yep, shocking song.

 

[La Dispute]

Why? Helicopter is a beautiful track.

I've seen Deerhunter close with it live and it's just as climactic. In fact the whole set was just so unbelievably tight and loud.

Bradford Cox is certainly a better songwriter than Kurt Cobain. Lyrically, there's no comparison.

 

[Papa G]

Music just doesn't have the cultural impact it once did. Whether it has got shitter over the last couple of decades or whether the masses have moved on because there is so many other things out there to occupy your senses, I'm not entirely sure. Probably a bit of both.

 

[hawk for 37]

Why? Helicopter is a beautiful track.

I've seen Deerhunter close with it live and it's just as climactic. In fact the whole set was just so unbelievably tight and loud.

Bradford Cox is certainly a better songwriter than Kurt Cobain. Lyrically, there's no comparison.

The the thread is about eras. As I said, The Sex Pistols and Nirvana defined and started 'eras'. Your example of Deerhunter as a band of this era is lost on me as the song 'Helicopter' is just a ballad that could be released anytime in the last 30 years. Nothing about them say 'this is now' I'm afraid.
But I can see your passionate about your favourite bands at the 'moment' so I will bow out. I hope one of them will define an era, but I doubt it. Good day to you.

 

[The_Big_Ship]

The thread is about peoples favourites eras, nobody can be right or wrong in their preferences. Music is subjective no? Pointless arguing about it. You can say something is bland as much as you want, it doesn't make it fact, it's just your opinion. Someone saying the 70s is their favourite era is just as valid as someone saying the 2000s is their favourite.

Not sure why quickstraw needs to continually push his view that the entire 2000s are rubbish and bland, as well as bashing music that others like, do you want everyone to have the same music preferences as yourself? That's be a boring world wouldn't it.

 

[La Dispute]

Music just doesn't have the cultural impact it once did. Whether it has got shitter over the last couple of decades or whether the masses have moved on because there is so many other things out there to occupy your senses, I'm not entirely sure. Probably a bit of both.

Completely agree. Good post.

Due to the clinical breakdown of the mainstream there hasn't been as many bands universally accepted by all. Foo Fighters (even though they are pretty boring) and maybe even QOTSA would probably be the closest. The rest is all down to personal taste, which, IMO, is a good thing.

The the thread is about eras. As I said, The Sex Pistols and Nirvana defined and started 'eras'. Your example of Deerhunter as a band of this era is lost on me as the song 'Helicopter' is just a ballad that could be released anytime in the last 30 years. Nothing about them say 'this is now' I'm afraid.
But I can see your passionate about your favourite bands at the 'moment' so I will bow out. I hope one of them will define an era, but I doubt it. Good day to you.

I don't personally see the fascination with 'defining an era' and in many ways musical definition comes down to personal association. People are naturally going to be inclined to like the music they grew up with and accompanied them and this certainly represents your position. I call bullshit on Helicopter sounding like any other ballad of any era and that Halcyon Digest sound spurred on a heap of similar artists of the time.

In ten years time, I'll no doubt be reminiscing about The National and The Tallest Man On Earth and Converge and how important those LP's were.

 

[quickstraw]

Bradford Cox is certainly a better songwriter than Kurt Cobain. Lyrically, there's no comparison.

This comment suggests you really don't get my point. He may well be a better song writer, but that's neither here nor there. It's about the effect certain abnds had on rock music after a period of mediocrity. Unfortunately you don't understand this because you don't have the hindsight of people like me who have lived it and seen it.

PS I used Sex Pistols and Nirvana purposely because they are bands I am indifferent about. There's a lot more to punk rock than sex pistols and a lot more to grunge than Nirvana. These bands are just the face of these eras, but it runs far deeper than that.

I grew up in the 80s and listened to 60s and 70s mostly because 80s had a lame synth sound. There were guys like you who tried to tell me I was wrong and old school, and that Van Halens 1984 and Def Lepard was the shizzel-iznits, but I was confident we were going though a shit period in rock.

The 90s cam and Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, FNM, Pumpkins, Beck, RATM came and i welcomes the new era. Guess what? Those Van Halen and Def leopard fans still listen to that shit today. Sound familiar? The next wave will come out of necessity and you'll be still listening to bland boring shit.

 

[quickstraw]

I don't personally see the fascination with 'defining an era'

Because you haven't witnessed the pattern. Rock goes through cycles of freshness and staleness. fresh, stale, new band that breaks the mould in fresh, tons of bands follow and soon becomes stale, new band that breaks the mould in fresh :| (that means repeat)

You're not actually aware rock is in the stale part of the cycle right now. In fact, you're not even aware that what you listen to is just an evolution of rock. You think rock is Led Zeppelin and anyone who listens to rock is Rolling Stone obsolete.

The truth is you're just listening to bland placid rock which sooner or later will evolve again into something a bit more ballsy.

Stop kidding yourself that anyone older is some sort of middle aged person claiming new music is just "noise". Your tastes are boring. Please bring me something that old people actually complain as "that's just noise". You'll peak my interest.

 

[Richard Cranium]

If we're being honest, ol' mate Skrillex and his bro-step pals probably were the closest thing to a grunge or punk level movement we've had in while, and it probably was as big as we're ever going to see again - music festivals suddenly catering to that sound, tv and film jumping on the bandwagon and 'The Drop' suddenly becoming a serious music term.

And I say this as someone who despises what the wub wub movement (momentarily) did to electronic music and music in general.

 

[La Dispute]

This comment suggests you really don't get my point. He may well be a better song writer, but that's neither here nor there. It's about the effect certain abnds had on rock music after a period of mediocrity. Unfortunately you don't understand this because you don't have the hindsight of people like me who have lived it and seen it.

The whole thread is a debate as to which era had the better music. I've put my argument forward as to why I believe the 2000's yielded more interesting artists; where as you're still clinging to nostalgia, completely devoid of any intellectual discussion into artistic aesthetic.

I don't require hindsight. I've grown up listening to all the bands you've brought up and IMO, they don't compare to bands of the past fifteen years. I've already shown a steadfast knowledge of any artists you bring up, yet you still haven't provided any discourse on modern music. Your discussion begins and ends at 'they're boring' and from this I can discern you don't have the information require to participate in a logical discussion. As previously stated, I've shown up your lack of knowledge a few times in this thread already.

PS I used Sex Pistols and Nirvana purposely because they are bands I am indifferent about. There's a lot more to punk rock than sex pistols and a lot more to grunge than Nirvana. These bands are just the face of these eras, but it runs far deeper than that.

How convenient. This point still remains for the figureheads of this generation so I hardly see your point.

I grew up in the 80s and listened to 60s and 70s mostly because 80s had a lame synth sound. There were guys like you who tried to tell me I was wrong and old school, and that Van Halens 1984 and Def Lepard was the shizzel-iznits, but I was confident we were going though a shit period in rock.

Pretty poor comparison tbh. I've already stated that I don't really rate the 80's and your speculating really is quite humorous. I do rate the 1990's ahead of the 70's, ahead of the 60's. Weird point.

The 90s cam and Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, FNM, Pumpkins, Beck, RATM came and i welcomes the new era. Guess what? Those Van Halen and Def leopard fans still listen to that shit today. Sound familiar? The next wave will come out of necessity and you'll be still listening to bland boring shit.

I listen to every one of those bands bloke. The Smashing Pumpkins would be in my top ten bands of all time, with RATM not far off.

Again, I don't really understand your point. You're entitled to continue listening those bands, but there's plenty of bands just as good and better in the 00's. I understand though that as you get older you have less time to discover new bands due to family and work responsibility, as well as most other people in your age frame adapting the same lifestyle. So from that perspective I completely forgive your inability to source out new music, and to some extent I understand why you're nostalgic for the sounds you grew up with. It certainly is easier to get defensive, especially when you've spent much of your life believing in the rhetoric of your generation but as mentioned, it's been revealed on numerous occasions in this thread, and in many others that you've got a very limited knowledge of music of the past fifteen years and as such, your opinions are very hard to take seriously.

 

[quickstraw]

I don't really understand your point.

I've noticed.

 

[Bazzar]

best 70s, worst 90s.

 

[La Dispute]

Because you haven't witnessed the pattern. Rock goes through cycles of freshness and staleness. fresh, stale, new band that breaks the mould in fresh, tons of bands follow and soon becomes stale, new band that breaks the mould in fresh :| (that means repeat)

You're not actually aware rock is in the stale part of the cycle right now. In fact, you're not even aware that what you listen to is just an evolution of rock. You think rock is Led Zeppelin and anyone who listens to rock is Rolling Stone obsolete.

The truth is you're just listening to bland placid rock which sooner or later will evolve again into something a bit more ballsy.

Stop kidding yourself that anyone older is some sort of middle aged person claiming new music is just "noise". Your tastes are boring. Please bring me something that old people actually complain as "that's just noise". You'll peak my interest.

I've always considered your taste obsolete. Not that it's they are terrible; just very middle of the road, MMM type stuff that's not all-together embarrassing to listen to but pretty safe and mostly geared towards rock riffs and poor lyrics. Which is fine - Some people are into that.

You still haven't responded RE the evolution of post-hardcore and sludge metal. Again, I'm not sure if you can't be bothered arguing or you just aren't really aware. I still suspect you're not aware. None of these bands are 'bland placid rock' and they're certainly more 'ballsy' than Pearl Jam and Nirvana, who you seem to have quite a fascination with.

But again, being ballsy is just so lame. Being marketed and adulated on the basis of your masculinity is a pretty outdated ideology which is being slowly phased out of rock music for the better.