What's so good about the 2000's?

[revolt]

OK, the title of this thread might seem a little provocative, but the intention here is not one of disapproval.

If someone who has always been a fan of music but for some unexplained reason has been asleep for the last 8 years suddenly wakes up and feels the urge to update with the music he has been missing while asleep, what are the genres / subgenres / bands / albums that you would recommend to this poor creature?

Now, as I stated before, I have a sort of bias against the 2000's. I'm sure that, if I really think about it for a while, I can come up with some 20 very good albums from this decade, considering all "popular" musical genres (that is, including world music, electronica and so on), but that is really a poor result, since on any other decade I could probably reach the mark of 100 without trying too hard...

I agree that it is easier to judge fairly with some time perspective, that is, the answer to this question would probably be more complete/insightful if given in 2011 or 2012, but the fact remains that back in 1988 and 1998 I had the feeling that I was living a great musical decade and I just don't have that kind of feeling towards the music of the 2000's right now.

So, what are your thoughts / recommendations on this?

[Janko]

 

Well, what was so good about 90's?!

I mean, only 80's and 60's have some sort of defined peculiar quality. Other decades are really not that peculiar...

The Ubercrapness is the fact that you dont have any name for 2000's and 2010's...

[japanesebaby]

Well, what was so good about 90's?!

I mean, only 80's and 60's have some sort of defined peculiar quality. Other decades are really not that peculiar...

as all that has just been discussed in another thread so i don't repeat myself here, just say that i don't completely agree.
seriously, are you saying 70's don't count?

The Ubercrapness is the fact that you dont have any name for 2000's and 2010's...

that was briefly discussed elsewhere too, but i'd repeat it's too early to judge. especially to judge 2010's which didn't even happen yet...
or does that mean you have a time machine? 

there are good names from 2000's, certainly. just consider the new rise of the prog-rock scene alone.

the thing is the the era we are living in is bound to feel more crappy than some past decades because the truth is that MOST of the music created here & now is indeed crap. but we forget that that was always the case, in all decades: 60's, 70's, 80's... you name it. most of the music IS crap and will be forgotten shortly. only the best names endure. that's why it's easy to look back and say that past decades were somehow "better" than the current one.

(this applies to all culture/art, not just popular music. and example from classical music:
just consider the late 18th century vienna. what comes to mind when you think of that period TODAY is probably soemthing like "oh, that was the time haydn & mozart & beethoven were there, wow it must have been awesome there, 24/7 greatness all around". but just look into it a bit more closely and you'll notice that there were literally hundreds of more or less crappy composers then, trying to make their living out of writing some stereotype menuets and sonatas etc. read mozart's letters and you'll notice how he was tearing his hair with all that crap pouring on him from all directions, trying to not be swallowed by it. by the way he even wrote pieces where he directly makes fun of all these crappy "colleagues" of his, it's pretty hilarious listening.
anyway, the point is that 90% (or more) of everything created today is crap, on whatever century or decade that "today" was. and i believe this will never change, because it's how it always was...
every era more or less is bound to be "übercrap" in its own time, but that doesn't mean it'll stay that way.)

[revolt]

by the way he even wrote pieces where he directly makes fun of all these crappy "colleagues" of his, it's pretty hilarious listening.

LISTENING!? You have recordings of Mozart reading his letters aloud? 

Anyway, on a more serious note, you are right about that "filter of time" effect that makes us forget the bad and the insignificant and remember mostly the good and the great.
But the thing I was talking about is that AT THAT TIME, when I was living in the 80's and 90's, I had the impression that I was living great musical decades. And I don't get that feeling with the 2000's...

[japanesebaby]

by the way he even wrote pieces where he directly makes fun of all these crappy "colleagues" of his, it's pretty hilarious listening.

LISTENING!? You have recordings of Mozart reading his letters aloud? 

heh well not quite - that would be a finding of the century, that kind of recording hehe.
by 'pieces' i meant pieces of music there, the most famous one being a divertimento called 'ein musikalischer spass' ('a musical joke').

Anyway, on a more serious note, you are right about that "filter of time" effect that makes us forget the bad and the insignificant and remember mostly the good and the great.
But the thing I was talking about is that AT THAT TIME, when I was living in the 80's and 90's, I had the impression that I was living great musical decades. And I don't get that feeling with the 2000's...

well to be completely honest i've had the same feeling a lot of times. but i've also been wondering how much I have changed since let's say the 80's. i've changed, my response to things (in this case music) has changed - so perhaps it's me who has changed and not the world...? or at least both have. 
i don't say this because i wanted to defend the 2000's by all means necessary (i've no agenda for that, really). but i'm willing to accept it that i've simply changed with age  and that perhaps i can never again be that enthusiastic about things, like i was back then when i was younger. perhaps it's because i've grown more reserved (whether i like it or not)?
and actually it doesn't have to be tragic, maybe just something that happens to us. or, in some ways it might be more tragic if i didn't change at all(?). i don't know.

[Janko]

The Ubercrapness is the fact that you dont have any name for 2000's and 2010's...

that was briefly discussed elsewhere too, but i'd repeat it's too early to judge. especially to judge 2010's which didn't even happen yet...
or does that mean you have a time machine? 

there are good names from 2000's, certainly. just consider the new rise of the prog-rock scene alone.

No, no, you didn't understand my point.

I was referring to "name" as in "sixties", "eighties" "seventies" and "nineties", as opposed to 2000's and 2010 ("tens"?!)

[japanesebaby]

The Ubercrapness is the fact that you dont have any name for 2000's and 2010's...

that was briefly discussed elsewhere too, but i'd repeat it's too early to judge. especially to judge 2010's which didn't even happen yet...
or does that mean you have a time machine? 

there are good names from 2000's, certainly. just consider the new rise of the prog-rock scene alone.

No, no, you didn't understand my point.

I was referring to "name" as in "sixties", "eighties" "seventies" and "nineties", as opposed to 2000's and 2010 ("tens"?!)

ok, i see! (but shouldn't we blame that on our calendar/our arithmetic system that is based on the number ten. so if the nature had only given us twelve or fourteen fingers instead of ten, we might at least escape this problem for a while... or, if jesus had been born let's say 100 years later. or... ok ok.)
anyway, i don't think the name (or the lack of it) means that much for me. people will always come up with something in the end, with new names to new things.
imo it (the name) has nothing to do with the quality of the era itself:
you don't judge a book by it's cover or a puppy by it's color.

[revolt]

[well to be completely honest i've had the same feeling a lot of times. but i've also been wondering how much I have changed since let's say the 80's. i've changed, my response to things (in this case music) has changed - so perhaps it's me who has changed and not the world...? or at least both have. 
i don't say this because i wanted to defend the 2000's by all means necessary (i've no agenda for that, really). but i'm willing to accept it that i've simply changed with age  and that perhaps i can never again be that enthusiastic about things, like i was back then when i was younger. perhaps it's because i've grown more reserved (whether i like it or not)?
and actually it doesn't have to be tragic, maybe just something that happens to us. or, in some ways it might be more tragic if i didn't change at all(?). i don't know.

Well, the thing is, I am as enthusiastic about music now as I have ever been. I haven't lost any of the feeling or ability to get excited about it. So I must conclude that the problem doesn't lie in me but in the present day musical world.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for all of you to post here your recommendations as far as great 2000's music goes... I want names! 

[japanesebaby]

Well, the thing is, I am as enthusiastic about music now as I have ever been. I haven't lost any of the feeling or ability to get excited about it. So I must conclude that the problem doesn't lie in me but in the present day musical world.

well i didn't mean i'm not able to be enthusiastic anymore (although i probably came across like that, i can see). i just mean my enthusiasm is different, i pay attention to different kinds of things in music and i sort of "demand" different kinds of things before i'm truly satisfied with something. it's changed mostly because i've studied music since the 80's, i've realized new ways to approach music (there was a discussion elsewhere on the forum about analyzing music, remember?) and i feel like that has broadened my approach. music is not just "either good or bad" anymore and i don't have the need to categorize it like that, whereas at some earlier point in time i think i did.
that's why i really am not the same as i was when i was listening to music in the 80's.
once again, i do not want to imply that analysing has taken any fun out of music. because it hasn't. i can still get really enthusiastic but mostly about different things than i used to. and perhaps i could say that my enthusiasm doesn't come and go in such peaks anymore. i can listen to music i do not like (which i really couldn't do/didn't want to do back then), just in order to learn what's so bad in it. and i can find that really satisfactory at times too (well, of course i don't mean to say i "enjoy" listening to crap music, i certainly don't!). i don't know, i guess it's difficult to explain. a slightly embarrassing metaphor (although rather plausible, though) would be to say that it's like comparing the feeling of falling in love for the first time to the feeling of having been in love (truly) for 20 years. it's certainly different and the latter one is not that "sharp" so to speak... but it's not necessarily weaker. it's lacking the brilliance on the surface but it's actually deeper.

(names names names... names will follow... it'll just take some time. you know with old age comes slowness and a lot of stuff is buried up there in the attic...  )

[revolt]

a slightly embarrassing metaphor (although rather plausible, though) would be to say that it's like comparing the feeling of falling in love for the first time to the feeling of having been in love (truly) for 20 years. it's certainly different and the latter one is not that "sharp" so to speak... but it's not necessarily weaker. it's lacking the brilliance on the surface but it's actually deeper.

Well, I don't think I really know of a (true) love that has lasted so many years, but if you say you have come across it, I'll have to believe it.  I suppose you're a lucky girl, then... Anyway, I think I get your point. You were coming across as somewhat "tired" and "unenthusiastic", but it seems that was just a wrong impression, after all.

Anyway, what's all that "old age" nonsense about? Thirties is not old, methinks. 

[japanesebaby]

Well, I don't think I really know of a (true) love that has lasted so many years, but if you say you have come across it, I'll have to believe it.  I suppose you're a lucky girl, then...

well it goes off-topic but the reason i said the metaphor was "embarrasing" was because i certainly don't believe in everlasting romantic love. i'm perhaps the last person to wave my flag for something like that haha - you know i like the music of 'lovesong' but truly, the line "i will always love you" makes me laugh. it's just so stupid. i think bob was much more on it with "it is a lie". anyway!
luckily love is a mighty big thing so to speak and not all love has to be romantic kiss-kiss-mwa-mwa stuff. so i suppose my metaphor is still valid. just don't associate it with 'lovesong'.

[revolt]

Well, I don't think I really know of a (true) love that has lasted so many years, but if you say you have come across it, I'll have to believe it.  I suppose you're a lucky girl, then...

well it goes off-topic but the reason i said the metaphor was "embarrasing" was because i certainly don't believe in everlasting romantic love. i'm perhaps the last person to wave my flag for something like that haha - you know i like the music of 'lovesong' but truly, the line "i will always love you" makes me laugh. it's just so stupid. i think bob was much more on it with "it is a lie". anyway!
luckily love is a mighty big thing so to speak and not all love has to be romantic kiss-kiss-mwa-mwa stuff. so i suppose my metaphor is still valid. just don't associate it with 'lovesong'.

Shame on me!  You just reminded me that there seems to exist at least one real case of everlasting love, that of Robert and Mary... How could I forget that, and in a Cure forum, of all places... I should get stoned! (hey, like Bob Dylan once said, "Everybody must get stoned"    )

[revolt]

Well, what was so good about 90's?!

I mean, only 80's and 60's have some sort of defined peculiar quality. Other decades are really not that peculiar...

What defined peculiar quality is that, by the way? Something that the 60's and 80's possess that the 70's, for instance don't... I confess that I can't see it.

[japanesebaby]

Shame on me!  You just reminded me that there seems to exist at least one real case of everlasting love, that of Robert and Mary... How could I forget that, and in a Cure forum, of all places... I should get stoned! (hey, like Bob Dylan once said, "Everybody must get stoned"    )

seriously, i find it funny that people always refer to the relationship of robert & mary like something otherwordly. i bet it's been far from kiss-kiss-mwa-mwa at times over the years. and sure they've stayed together all this time but hey so do a lot of couples, for whatever reasons - so what do we really know? hey perhaps mary stayed because of the money  (hey for that, i might have hahaha. ).
i find it rather funny, how people actually seem to idolize not only the people themselves but their relationship(!).

ok, next time, back on-topic... i doubt it that we need to make this an "ooh-aaah robert&mary mwa-mwa now aren't they just cute?" thread. 

[revolt]

i find it rather funny, how people actually seem to idolize not only the people themselves but their relationship(!).

That must be the sentimental-little-me in all of us. I confess that whenever I see that Lovesong single cover I sense a tear wanting to reach the corner of my eye and I get the urge of sending Robert and Mary congratulations, best wishes, and all that. Silly and funny it might be, but I can't help it...