Best decade for music

[thetime]

I've gone with this decade, although that's mainly due to what I know. Sure a huge number of the bands I really love formed earlier, but there's still a huge number of fantastic bands forming and developing in this decade, and a number of older acts have produced some fantastic work.

Also, while I still buy CDs, the internet has done wonders for music. It's increased its exposure, it means bands have much more freedom to defy record labels. We no longer need magazines to find out about gigs. Fans are much more connected to discuss music with each other (eg. this forum, blogs).

[thomasowen]

Music in the 00's will be rememberd for the internet boom and the x factor.

[rivalschools.price]

Without really thinking too hard about it I chose the 90s, predominantly for bands such the Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Nine Inch Nails etc. But being a teenager in the 2000s I have enjoyed alot of music from these last 8 years, though admitably not from the first two bands I mentioned earlier...

[rivalschools.price]

oh,and nirvana

[kaosmark2]

by productive I mean bands are making far less records. Look at The Strokes, they released the decades most important album nearly 9 years ago and they have made 2 albums since. The Big hitters like Metallica, Green day, R.E.M have made 2. The Beach boys for example released 4 classic albums in one year and in the space of time its taken franz ferdinand to go from YCHIUSMB to Tonight, The Beatles went from with the beatles to the white album!

[kaosmark2]

add rage,alice in chains,FNM and great albums by the chilis and metallica.

[thetime]

They weren't making records at that fast a pace in the 80s or 90s either. It's new bands that release more records, older bands tend to take more time.

Look at the new acts over here. Arctic Monkeys released their 1st in 2006 and 3 years later are on their 3rd. That's a pretty decent pace. Remember, apart from a few like The Strokes, Libertines and Kings of Leon, most of the 'NME indie' bands released their first album in 2005 or since, and have been releasing albums. New bands crank out records at a rate of about every 1-2 years, which is similar to most acts since the 60s.

[robsadler]

Yes, nothing is completely new (not even rock n roll or Punk or dance etc) its just in the 90sthey were evolving at a much much slower pace, and what bands were doing seemed less new and original.

[thomasowen]

They weren't making records at that fast a pace in the 80s or 90s either. It's new bands that release more records, older bands tend to take more time.

Look at the new acts over here. Arctic Monkeys released their 1st in 2006 and 3 years later are on their 3rd. That's a pretty decent pace. Remember, apart from a few like The Strokes, Libertines and Kings of Leon, most of the 'NME indie' bands released their first album in 2005 or since, and have been releasing albums. New bands crank out records at a rate of about every 1-2 years, which is similar to most acts since the 60s.

[thomasowen]

i think the 90's was a bit of a backlash to the self indulgent 'creativeness' of the 80's.

men dressed in make up prancing about was replaced by teenagers/young people in bands having fun!

it maybe wasn't original but at the time it was fresh and was what the public wanted.

nothing is truly original, everyone has inspiration from various sources.....even john lennon!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon's_jukebox

robx

[kaosmark2]

the wonderful bob dylan has released something like 35 original albums, I dont think any bands from the 90s and 00s will do that.

[kaosmark2]

60s in America the average was 4 a year, England it was more like 2. 70's slowed things down a bit but even in the 80s bands were making records at a much quicker pace (R.E.M, The Smiths etc at least one a year) whereas now your lucky to get one every couple of years (even the quicker bands like Artcic Monkeys, Killers, Kings of Leon etc). This is as much to do with the labels as anything but its still annoying, esspecialy when they finaly get round to making the 2 albums there ussualy rubbish.

[SpiralD]

70s and 80s, Glam Rock beats all.

[Explosions_In_The_Sky]

60s in America the average was 4 a year, England it was more like 2. 70's slowed things down a bit but even in the 80s bands were making records at a much quicker pace (R.E.M, The Smiths etc at least one a year) whereas now your lucky to get one every couple of years (even the quicker bands like Artcic Monkeys, Killers, Kings of Leon etc). This is as much to do with the labels as anything but its still annoying, esspecialy when they finaly get round to making the 2 albums there ussualy rubbish.

[thomasowen]

Right if this makes little sense it's because I'm about to go out and have started on the Brahmas...

But the reason bands take longer with music now is merely due to the explosion of media global interest. Now you don't only record an album, you do it in like 9 different studios worldwide...You have to tour for a year and a half or so to sell the bloody thing as due to the saturation of music on the market there's way too much competition to just release it and hope quality sells. Moreover, you have all the complicated sales stuff with chain stores, orders...etc etc...

Back in the 60s most bands save the obvious mega stars just kinda sold to their local music scene, and even if they had to promote, the ethos was generally to do so by saturating the market with YOUR music. Nowadays the music industry is so dense and obsessed with advertising and promotion that the bands actually spend less time writing and recording and more time promoting! Contemporary exceptions to the rule: NIN, Radiohead...but they have earned that special privlage.

That probably made no sense anyway !

Edited May 8, 2009 by thomasowen

[rexclark]

Being a teenager in the 90s it's my obvious choice. My early teens were dominated by Britpop then (admittedly a tad late) myblate teens were all about grunge. The only two bands that I never stopped listening to were The Smashing Pumpkins and Pulp. I think the music at the beggining of the 00s was pretty good but seems too much style over substance now.

[rivalschools.price]

In the 90s? I count 1 very good studio album and one live one.

[kaosmark2]

the black album was released early in the 90's and re-load was technically another album even though it was just leftovers from load.(also,the covers album was released in this time but we prob cant count that as a 90s album)

[rivalschools.price]

green day also released some good albums in the 90s.

(note to anyone under 21--green day are not an emo band formed in 2004)

[robsadler]

saw on other forums that lightning seeds and kula shaker have been banded about as possibilities.

i'd love to see a few bands from the 90's like these play.

OCS as well please!!!

robx

[tombenj]

OCSSSS

[scottt]

Very early 2000's for me. Not really a decade, just a few years. Oh well

Can i have my own decade of 94-2004?

Edited May 12, 2009 by scottt

[hearing_aid]

I had to say 80's. Obviously its difficult as lots of music crosses over the decades. Though in the early 80's we had post punk going on and the alternative music scene in America. Bands like Sonic Youth, Devo, The Jesus Lizard, The Cure, Killing Joke, Spacemen 3, Nine Inch Nails, Black Flag, Throbbing Gristle, My Bloody Valentine, Gang of Four were all doing great things. I think the 80's was a great time for bands experimenting and being creative, and while that was carried into the 90's it kinda got killed off in that decade. I also think post punk was arguably the last decent musical 'movement' or whatever it should be referred to in the UK. I also automatically didn't vote for 00's. Although I listen to loads of music from this decade it is still early to tell if I will be listening to in in 20 years time.

[thomasowen]

How is the 60s in second to last place?

[rivalschools.price]

How is the 60s in second to last place?