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?
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...
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 17:18:31
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?
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 17:18:31
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? :shock:
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.)
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 07, 2008, 17:36:15
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? :shock:
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...
Quote from: revolt on August 07, 2008, 18:18:21
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 07, 2008, 17:36:15
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? :shock:
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').
Quote from: revolt on August 07, 2008, 18:18:21
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.
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 07, 2008, 17:36:15
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 17:18:31
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? :shock:
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"?!)
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 19:03:08
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 07, 2008, 17:36:15
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 17:18:31
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? :shock:
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.
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 07, 2008, 18:39:28
[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! :-D
Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 10:58:10
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... :-D)
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 08, 2008, 11:29:31
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. ;)
Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 11:44:41
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'.
;)
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 08, 2008, 12:01:04
Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 11:44:41
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! :smth011 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" :-D )
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 17:18:31
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.
Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 12:11:23
Shame on me! :smth011 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" :-D )
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. :P).
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. :-D
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 08, 2008, 13:37:53
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... ;)
Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 13:29:47
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 17:18:31
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.
60's - Hippies
80's - Yuppies
Quote from: Janko on August 08, 2008, 14:20:47
Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 13:29:47
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 17:18:31
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.
60's - Hippies
80's - Yuppies
ok i sort of get your point but those groups are simply one phenomenon from those decades - yes certainly big movements but still just one thing. there's a lot more in there.
and if we are discussing the field of popular music as a whole, then hippies certainly don't define the whole 60's or yuppies the 80's. it's like saying that huey lewis & the news dominated the musical life of the 80s' and was what gave it its own peculiar quality... seriously.
ok, we can't name a group of people/movement from the 70's with a handy group name ending with "-ies", and 2000's and 2010's don't have a handy name like "sixties" - but:
sorry but i really don't know what you're trying to say with that?
because the names don't define the contents, it's the contents that create the name. names are linguistics, nothing more. and we can't say that 70's didn't have any peculiar musical quality just because of that(!) or that the 70's were not as defined era of its own or somehow stylistically more fragmented decade because of it.
:?:
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 08, 2008, 14:39:03
sorry but i really don't know what you're trying to say with that?
Hippies - liberal, anti war, anti-corporate, pro choice, antimaterialistic, idealistic, feminist, protestant, music that's free-floating-psychodelic-rebel...
Yuppies - conservative, corporate, competing, indifferent to wars and injustice, materialistic, down to earth, Genesis-Madonna-Huey Lewis and the News-new age-calm muzic...
70's were kinda in between, there were both progressive rock operas but there was also a punk rock, so...
90's with Reality Bites, grunge and rave culture - were pure undiluted hypocrisy and both intellectual and artistic ditch
Quote from: Janko on August 08, 2008, 14:20:47
Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 13:29:47
Quote from: Janko on August 07, 2008, 17:18:31
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.
60's - Hippies
80's - Yuppies
Well, hippies are just from about 1965-66 onwards, I believe. You have a similar case in the 70's: punks.
And 'yuppies' does simply define a life-style... Our conversation here was about THE MUSIC not about social issues. That is, I really would like to know what great music is there in the 2000's, social groups or phenomena like that don't interest me as much.
Quote from: Janko on August 08, 2008, 15:57:20
Quote from: japanesebaby on August 08, 2008, 14:39:03
sorry but i really don't know what you're trying to say with that?
Hippies - liberal, anti war, anti-corporate, pro choice, antimaterialistic, idealistic, feminist, protestant, music that's free-floating-psychodelic-rebel...
Yuppies - conservative, corporate, competing, indifferent to wars and injustice, materialistic, down to earth, Genesis-Madonna-Huey Lewis and the News-new age-calm muzic...
70's were kinda in between, there were both progressive rock operas but there was also a punk rock, so...
90's with Reality Bites, grunge and rave culture - were pure undiluted hypocrisy and both intellectual and artistic ditch
You are over-simplifying there. Those names you refer from the 80's are only a very small part of it, even on a commercial level. What about U2? The Cure? Depeche Mode? And so on...
"Rave culture" is only a small part of the whole electronic/dance thing. Perhaps if you took the time to really check the music out, you would be able to find that some of the most intelectually stimulating music ever was made in the 90's, in those particular fields.
Also, as far as music goes, you can just as well describe the 90's as the years of "world music".
Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 10:58:10
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! :-D
What... No names, yet?
I mean, I could suggest some good 2000s bands, but my music taste is mostly deathrock/gothic rock. See, I like Phantom Limbs, Cinema Strange, Subtonix, because they sound like the music from the good old days.
But I don't know of any outstanding, mindblowing mainstream artists I(although I find myself rather enjoying the indie pop they play in the Ipod commercials over here in the US). I'm drawn to stuff that sounds retro or offbeat.
Other than indie bands, I don't really see anything good about 2000s music. It's mostly just dancehall reggae hip-hop and rap, with some whiney pop rock groups that are all image and lack musically.
Quote from: Carnage Visor on September 02, 2008, 01:32:32
I mean, I could suggest some good 2000s bands, but my music taste is mostly deathrock/gothic rock. See, I like Phantom Limbs, Cinema Strange, Subtonix, because they sound like the music from the good old days.
Aren't you a little too young for that kind of attitude? I mean, "because they sound like the music from the good old days" is certainly an acceptable argument but it also seems kind of strange coming from young people...
Quote from: Carnage Visor on September 02, 2008, 01:32:32
But I don't know of any outstanding, mindblowing mainstream artists I(although I find myself rather enjoying the indie pop they play in the Ipod commercials over here in the US). I'm drawn to stuff that sounds retro or offbeat.
Well, I wasn't necessarily asking for mainstream acts. My guess was mainly that possibly some interesting 2000's stuff could be lurking somewhere in more "alternative" or "indie" fields, so to speak. By the way, "offbeat" is quite alright by me (but "retro", no thanks).
well, going back to the original question, i can try to answer the question from a personal point of view. why do i consider 2000's "better" (for the want of a better word) than the 90's for instance. because i suppose that's where the quesiotn was drawn from, discussing the 90's first in that other thread - anyway!
i've actually thought about this and found myself unable to present any comprehensive list of 2000's artists that would simply overblow the 90's 6-0, whichever way i look at it. i'm actually not surprised about that, it's actually very understandable: i probably said this someplace else already but i'd say it's quite impossible to really say this decade was "better" than that. unless you are really deliberately restricting your musical tastes to certain genre - which i'd personally find a silly thing to do anyway because good music does not have anything to do with gener anyway (and that's simply a fact, whatever the others might say, and therefore it's not under discussion :-D). so i can't present a formidable list that would alone "prove me right" here. but let's try and let's pick just a few things under discussion first, because otherwise it'll be too much.
and sorry, i can't talk about the 2000's without talking about the 90's 8although this is not the 90's thread) - but for me, the one defines the other.
i really think the main reason why i do have a somewhat positive impression of the 2000's derives from how i perceive(d) the 90's:
the first few years of the 90's very perhaps some kind of peak of everything that was good in the latter half of the 80's. then came the mid-90's which apart from a few good things was rather barren and genuinely uninteresting. at this point i have to say that perhaps my impression is somewhat(?) heavily influenced by my own location. perhaps it was different elsewhere but all i can say is that around here the post-92 era was really bleak musically. nothing worthwhile seemed to happen. (and actually this is very clearly connected to the economical/political situation: in the early 90's my country was battling what has been called one of the worst ever economical disasters/depressions in the modern day europe. that meant a lot of things in the music industry seemed to be almost at a standstill. for instance, the concert life seemed to be almost non-existent, festivals going into bankruptcy and so on and so on. and ok you can say that "that's not the reason to hate the 90's!" and you'd be right. but still, it did affect everything very heavily. and it meant that if there was anything interesting at all during those times, it came from abroad. and what was being imported from abroad? oh, brit pop and all that nonsense. so...
(btw please remember that i am deliberately leaving out these "offbeat" genres - and for instance all electronic music here. perhaps i'm focusing too much on describing the mainstream and the lack of interesting phenomena in the mainstream, but it's a bit deliberate. perhaps what i'm trying to say here is that the 2000's are actually a lot better than for instance the 90's ever were, IF/WHEN we're observing the mainstream. that doesn't mean i'd have any doubts that the reputation of the 90's can be salvaged by looking into the less-mainstream acts. and actually i guess that's what defines the 90s: it was mostly a rather barren era, an era without any real potential "movements" - unless you abandon the mainstream altogether and go sideways. and actually that's where we come to the real importance of those poor 90's: a lot of stuff that was underground-ish back then actually started to emerge back into spotlight/become more widely acknowledged in the 2000's. so i actually find the final years of the 90's to be the most important/interesting/fruitful era in the long time. a lot of things start really re-emerging then and stop being pushed to the marginal:
the so-called post rock scene: mogwai, explosions in the sky, 65dos, sigur rós
perhaps at least partially thanks to radiohead, even the UK starts getting over the idiotic "brit pop is all we (or anyone else) need!" phase. even in the UK bands with completely different attitude start to emerge: most notably bands like placebo or muse, for instance. at their best they are pretty hard to categorize (like muse is) and sometimes people even label them under some sort of "neo-prog" or something (although i don't know what that means :-P). these are actually bands that are hard to clump together since they are quite different from each other, but the thing they have in common is that they are a complete antithesis (imo) for everything that british rock/pop seemed to stand for just a bit earlier in the mid-90's.
"real" progressive rock re-emerges: porcupine tree, new reason revolution, etc. - and then a bit later prog rock starts a very fruitful "conversation" with metal bands (take bands like opeth etc.). that's a really interesting vein in the 2000's, i think!
besides you can listen to Yes again without having to explain it to everyone around you. ;)
to mention a few.
with this i'm not saying things only matter if and when they are brought into mainstream. of course not. sometimes it's toatlly the opposite, a lot of times things stay better IF they stay out of mainstream. what i mean here is just that i do feel the musical atmosphere is more "healthier" if/when it is capable of accepting rather innovative musical phenomena in its mainstream - i don't think the atmosphere in the first half/mid-90's was ever really capable of that. at least not to the extent it has happened in the last years of the 90's/2000's.
(oops, a lot of words. hey sorry ;))
oh, one more small thing, to root for the 2000's: i have found it delightful that some some really great artists have made some really great (surprise) comebacks in the 2000's. starting from kate bush etc.
surely comebacks alone wouldn't save any era, but adding this to the previous points i made i think it might say something about the times.
Quote from: Carnage Visor on September 02, 2008, 01:32:32
Other than indie bands, I don't really see anything good about 2000s music. It's mostly just dancehall reggae hip-hop and rap, with some whiney pop rock groups that are all image and lack musically.
well i do agree that looking at places like MTV it's nothing but hip-hop/R&B shit-crap for sure. but why even pay attention to all that, to MTV etc.? MTV is not a music channel anymore, it hasn't been one for a long time. it's just a hip-hop/R&B lifestyle channel for people who don't want anything else than that. so the real music is elsewhere.
so 2000's are really a lot more than all that. you just have to look around with an open mind and see for yourself.
like i mentioned above, for instance the prog (whether neo or "non-neo" ;)) scene is very much alive today and it's certainly not lacking innovative and musicality. and not all good things has to be more or less similar to good old early 80's (besides, that would actually make it rather uninnovative, wouldn't it?).
like said, good music is never defined by genre alone.
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 02, 2008, 12:24:51
oh, one more small thing, to root for the 2000's: i have found it delightful that some some really great artists have made some really great (surprise) comebacks in the 2000's. starting from kate bush etc.
surely comebacks alone wouldn't save any era, but adding this to the previous points i made i think it might say something about the times.
Well, the 90's are not inferior to the 2000's when it comes to great comebacks or rebirths of long-time artists that were starting to decline (or had been declining for a long time): Lou Reed, Bob Dylan, U2... Can you get more mainstream examples than this? I think not.
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 02, 2008, 12:20:53
well, going back to the original question, i can try to answer the question from a personal point of view. why do i consider 2000's "better" (for the want of a better word) than the 90's for instance. because i suppose that's where the quesiotn was drawn from, discussing the 90's first in that other thread - anyway!
i've actually thought about this and found myself unable to present any comprehensive list of 2000's artists that would simply overblow the 90's 6-0, whichever way i look at it. i'm actually not surprised about that, it's actually very understandable: i probably said this someplace else already but i'd say it's quite impossible to really say this decade was "better" than that. unless you are really deliberately restricting your musical tastes to certain genre - which i'd personally find a silly thing to do anyway because good music does not have anything to do with gener anyway (and that's simply a fact, whatever the others might say, and therefore it's not under discussion :-D). so i can't present a formidable list that would alone "prove me right" here. but let's try and let's pick just a few things under discussion first, because otherwise it'll be too much.
and sorry, i can't talk about the 2000's without talking about the 90's 8although this is not the 90's thread) - but for me, the one defines the other.
i really think the main reason why i do have a somewhat positive impression of the 2000's derives from how i perceive(d) the 90's:
the first few years of the 90's very perhaps some kind of peak of everything that was good in the latter half of the 80's. then came the mid-90's which apart from a few good things was rather barren and genuinely uninteresting. at this point i have to say that perhaps my impression is somewhat(?) heavily influenced by my own location. perhaps it was different elsewhere but all i can say is that around here the post-92 era was really bleak musically. nothing worthwhile seemed to happen. (and actually this is very clearly connected to the economical/political situation: in the early 90's my country was battling what has been called one of the worst ever economical disasters/depressions in the modern day europe. that meant a lot of things in the music industry seemed to be almost at a standstill. for instance, the concert life seemed to be almost non-existent, festivals going into bankruptcy and so on and so on. and ok you can say that "that's not the reason to hate the 90's!" and you'd be right. but still, it did affect everything very heavily. and it meant that if there was anything interesting at all during those times, it came from abroad. and what was being imported from abroad? oh, brit pop and all that nonsense. so...
(btw please remember that i am deliberately leaving out these "offbeat" genres - and for instance all electronic music here. perhaps i'm focusing too much on describing the mainstream and the lack of interesting phenomena in the mainstream, but it's a bit deliberate. perhaps what i'm trying to say here is that the 2000's are actually a lot better than for instance the 90's ever were, IF/WHEN we're observing the mainstream. that doesn't mean i'd have any doubts that the reputation of the 90's can be salvaged by looking into the less-mainstream acts. and actually i guess that's what defines the 90s: it was mostly a rather barren era, an era without any real potential "movements" - unless you abandon the mainstream altogether and go sideways. and actually that's where we come to the real importance of those poor 90's: a lot of stuff that was underground-ish back then actually started to emerge back into spotlight/become more widely acknowledged in the 2000's. so i actually find the final years of the 90's to be the most important/interesting/fruitful era in the long time. a lot of things start really re-emerging then and stop being pushed to the marginal:
the so-called post rock scene: mogwai, explosions in the sky, 65dos, sigur rós
perhaps at least partially thanks to radiohead, even the UK starts getting over the idiotic "brit pop is all we (or anyone else) need!" phase. even in the UK bands with completely different attitude start to emerge: most notably bands like placebo or muse, for instance. at their best they are pretty hard to categorize (like muse is) and sometimes people even label them under some sort of "neo-prog" or something (although i don't know what that means :-P). these are actually bands that are hard to clump together since they are quite different from each other, but the thing they have in common is that they are a complete antithesis (imo) for everything that british rock/pop seemed to stand for just a bit earlier in the mid-90's.
"real" progressive rock re-emerges: porcupine tree, new reason revolution, etc. - and then a bit later prog rock starts a very fruitful "conversation" with metal bands (take bands like opeth etc.). that's a really interesting vein in the 2000's, i think!
besides you can listen to Yes again without having to explain it to everyone around you. ;)
to mention a few.
with this i'm not saying things only matter if and when they are brought into mainstream. of course not. sometimes it's toatlly the opposite, a lot of times things stay better IF they stay out of mainstream. what i mean here is just that i do feel the musical atmosphere is more "healthier" if/when it is capable of accepting rather innovative musical phenomena in its mainstream - i don't think the atmosphere in the first half/mid-90's was ever really capable of that. at least not to the extent it has happened in the last years of the 90's/2000's.
(oops, a lot of words. hey sorry ;))
I'm in a bit of a hurry, so sorry if I do not quote specific senteces from your text...
Regarding post-rock, I don't think the 2000's brought anything new, or more well thought-of, or more inspired than the 90's... All major post-rock albums ('major' in an artistic sense) are from the 90's: the first album by Godspeed You Black Emperor, "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" by Tortoise, "Hex" by Bark Psychosis, "Surrender to the Night" by Trans Am, "Lifelike" by Ui, "The Amateur View" by To Rococo Rot... I'm sure I'm forgetting some here, but all these are albums from the 90's.
Actually, probably the only new post-rock-associated development in the 2000's was its incorporation in metal... I'm talking about the so-called "post-metal" bands like Isis, Cult of Luna and so on... But as far as artistic results go, this didn´t really last, because the best albums of this subgenre were all made in the early 2000's.
PS: I only know 2 Mogwai albums so I cannnot say I'm an expert as regards their music, but I believe their 2 best records are also from the (late) 90's, not from the 2000's.
PS2: From what I know of Explosions in the Sky, they are more or less just a copy of Godspeed and the Canadian Constellation label variety of post-rock... That doesn't make them any bad, of course, but it kind of renders them irrelevant as an argument for the 2000's-being-better-than-the-90's...
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 02, 2008, 12:20:53
and sorry, i can't talk about the 2000's without talking about the 90's 8although this is not the 90's thread) - but for me, the one defines the other.
This actually should get the alarm bell ringing in your years... ;) Because if it is impossible to talk about the 2000's without mentioning the 90's, it means that the 2000's are derivative, that is, INFERIOR to the 90's. Because you certainly can talk about the 90's without mentioning the 80s, about the 80's without reference to the 70's, and so on...
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 02, 2008, 12:20:53
the first few years of the 90's very perhaps some kind of peak of everything that was good in the latter half of the 80's. then came the mid-90's which apart from a few good things was rather barren and genuinely uninteresting.
i actually find the final years of the 90's to be the most important/interesting/fruitful era in the long time. a lot of things start really re-emerging then and stop being pushed to the marginal:
So: you think that the beginning of the 90s was great and the ending of the 90's was also great... The only problem there for you seems to be the middle of the decade! But, you see, it was precisely in 1984-1986 that POST-ROCK emerged as a true force in the music world. Not just one or two bands, but a whole array of them! Not to mention bands that, even though they should not be specifically labelled as post-rock, have some sort of connection with it and also helped the average quality and innovation-ability of 90s rock rise substantially: Soul Coughing, Morphine, Red Snapper, Laika...
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 02, 2008, 12:20:53
the so-called post rock scene: mogwai, explosions in the sky, 65dos, sigur rós
I think I can spot one of your "problems" here: you only mention one particular subgenre of the post-rock "movement", the epic/atmospheric/goes-up-goes-down style...
But post-rock is actually much more than this!
You have the whole CHICAGO scene, which is actually a world in itself, and that for me represents the most exciting part of post-rock (too bad they probably were never able to produce a true masterpiece, but just an array of good/very good albums): Tortoise, Ui, Trans Am, Him, etc. Their influences range from jazz to dub to krautrock and what not.
You also have the GERMAN scene, which is generally more electronic and perhaps more cerebral, represented by the likes of To Rococo Rot and Kreidler (I confess that here "The Amateur View" is perhaps the only album that I find truly GOOD, because these guys can be really boring, sometimes).
And... I was going to swear there have been FOUR major scenes in post-rock but right now I can only recall three... Maybe it will all come to me later. :-D
actually it just occurred to me that perhaps we are looking at the whole subject of "decades" a bit differently, from the very beginning of the conversation.
i think i've been (rather deliberately) trying to observe the sort of general atmosphere of the decade, the general impression i've gotten about it, about the musical environments and so on - and that means i'm probably talking a lot more about mainstream than you.
if i really start listing individual remarkable albums and put them on the time line simply according to the year they came out, then perhaps i wouldn't say the 90's were so dull. surely there were a lot of interesting things which were starting to emerge in the 90's, i very well admit that, but however fine they were, they were not strong enough to have much impact on the general atmosphere, and eventually to be able change the course of the mainstream. it took some time before they really started to have that much impact on the musical life around us (if they ever had any impact on it at all. i mean, not all wonderful things ever manage to really emerge and redeem everything that they'd certainly deserve). but sometimes things grow strong enough and end up really having positive impact on the general atmosphere. that's why i talked about post rock and prog/ neo prog, as examples of things which, let's say which presence in the mainstream today actually do make it all much more bearable.
one thing is for sure at all times. there will always be loads of crap in the mainstream. that will never change, never has, never will. so instead of staring at that constant load of garbage, piling up decade after decade, i think the thing to focus on is to try and see how much good ingredients there are in the mainstream - IF any. and in this respect i think the 2000's are much more "lucky" than the 90's.
for instance this is all why i am talking about post rock in 2000's context: surely it emerged in the 90's, but it was still a rather marginal thing that didn't yet have much impact outside its own scene. but look at the 2000's and you can see that actually those marginalized post-rock influences actually started to make it to mainstream too - and THAT's something good. because it means the mainstream was/is not completely dull today. the same with all those prog/neo prog influences: of course they existed "already" in the 90's but they were more or less totally marginalized then. so there was very little "hope" that they would have been able to refreshen the general musical atmosphere at that time. it took some time before they really emerged and by then we were already in the very last years of the 90's/already in the 2000's. and at least i find it all a very healthy thing for the musical atmosphere today, that there are artists/styles in the main stream today who certainly could not have been there ten years ago - just because ten years ago the overall climate was so utterly dull and almost against all kinds of innovative/progressive things. today all that is allowed again - and THAT's why i like the 200's more.
so perhaps we're simply looking at this from a different point of view?
(about all the various scenes of post-rock: when i mentioned some artists i didn't even intend to give any sort of comprehensive list. surely there is much much more. and to be honest i don't even know anything about the chicago scene so it's better that i don't try to appear like i could even talk about it. but the reason i just mentioned a few bands is because i just meant them as examples of some sort of influences which i think are valuable ingredients of the wider general musical climate of today.
this is also the reaosn why it's so difficult to talk about one decade without also talking about the one that was preceding it. because the musical atmosphere of any decade greatly depends on the one before it - that's where it takes it's "flavours" and colours, it's themes to develop, whether it'll be in good or bad.)
ps. it's not because i thought mainstream was somehow the most important scene out there - certainly not! i just think that the musical atmosphere/attitude of the mainstream actually does have an enormous impact on all fields of (pop/rock) music, whether or not artists themselves want to admit it. because even if they say "but i don't give a shit about the mainstream!", even that's one way of choosing one's ground, even that is a clear chosen attitude, actually... and therefore it MAY very well affect the way this person creates his/her own art. :!:
because i actually believe people (in this case, artists, musicians) are influenced by their surrounding a LOT more than they even know, much more than they ever want to admit. it doesn't have to mean there are direct influences - not all influences are that "blatant". but we are influenced by the world we live in, 24/7, so in the end there's no escape.... not completely.
i guess i am really interested in observing the world this way - not just music but everything in general. and that's why it's what i think about when i think/when i'm asked about my opinion about "the atmosphere of the 90's" or something similar.
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 03, 2008, 14:48:43
ps. it's not because i thought mainstream was somehow the most important scene out there - certainly not! i just think that the musical atmosphere/attitude of the mainstream actually does have an enormous impact on all fields of (pop/rock) music, whether or not artists themselves want to admit it. because even if they say "but i don't give a shit about the mainstream!", even that's one way of choosing one's ground, even that is a clear chosen attitude, actually... and therefore it MAY very well affect the way this person creates his/her own art. :!:
because i actually believe people (in this case, artists, musicians) are influenced by their surrounding a LOT more than they even know, much more than they ever want to admit. it doesn't have to mean there are direct influences - not all influences are that "blatant". but we are influenced by the world we live in, 24/7, so in the end there's no escape.... not completely.
i guess i am really interested in observing the world this way - not just music but everything in general. and that's why it's what i think about when i think/when i'm asked about my opinion about "the atmosphere of the 90's" or something similar.
Japanesebaby, that's all very well, but I think the subject of all this was never "the atmosphere of the 90's" as it can be perceived from the mainstream or otherwise... As far as I understand the purpose of this discussion was to establish the quality of 2000's rock music as compared to the 90's... I said the 90's are by far better, you seem to have the opposite opinion, but so far I don't think you have succeeded in substantiating that opinion. I hope I am not being too harsh here.
But anyway, you really can't win this discussion, you know? ;) :-D But good things could come out of it... For instance: you checking some 90's music previously unknown to you that eventually will help you "correct" your seemingly "distorted" view of that decade... And a similar thing happening to me as regards the 2000's...
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 03, 2008, 14:39:15
actually it just occurred to me that perhaps we are looking at the whole subject of "decades" a bit differently, from the very beginning of the conversation.
i think i've been (rather deliberately) trying to observe the sort of general atmosphere of the decade, the general impression i've gotten about it, about the musical environments and so on - and that means i'm probably talking a lot more about mainstream than you.
if i really start listing individual remarkable albums and put them on the time line simply according to the year they came out, then perhaps i wouldn't say the 90's were so dull. surely there were a lot of interesting things which were starting to emerge in the 90's, i very well admit that, but however fine they were, they were not strong enough to have much impact on the general atmosphere, and eventually to be able change the course of the mainstream. it took some time before they really started to have that much impact on the musical life around us (if they ever had any impact on it at all. i mean, not all wonderful things ever manage to really emerge and redeem everything that they'd certainly deserve). but sometimes things grow strong enough and end up really having positive impact on the general atmosphere. that's why i talked about post rock and prog/ neo prog, as examples of things which, let's say which presence in the mainstream today actually do make it all much more bearable.
one thing is for sure at all times. there will always be loads of crap in the mainstream. that will never change, never has, never will. so instead of staring at that constant load of garbage, piling up decade after decade, i think the thing to focus on is to try and see how much good ingredients there are in the mainstream - IF any. and in this respect i think the 2000's are much more "lucky" than the 90's.
for instance this is all why i am talking about post rock in 2000's context: surely it emerged in the 90's, but it was still a rather marginal thing that didn't yet have much impact outside its own scene. but look at the 2000's and you can see that actually those marginalized post-rock influences actually started to make it to mainstream too - and THAT's something good. because it means the mainstream was/is not completely dull today. the same with all those prog/neo prog influences: of course they existed "already" in the 90's but they were more or less totally marginalized then. so there was very little "hope" that they would have been able to refreshen the general musical atmosphere at that time. it took some time before they really emerged and by then we were already in the very last years of the 90's/already in the 2000's. and at least i find it all a very healthy thing for the musical atmosphere today, that there are artists/styles in the main stream today who certainly could not have been there ten years ago - just because ten years ago the overall climate was so utterly dull and almost against all kinds of innovative/progressive things. today all that is allowed again - and THAT's why i like the 200's more.
so perhaps we're simply looking at this from a different point of view?
(about all the various scenes of post-rock: when i mentioned some artists i didn't even intend to give any sort of comprehensive list. surely there is much much more. and to be honest i don't even know anything about the chicago scene so it's better that i don't try to appear like i could even talk about it. but the reason i just mentioned a few bands is because i just meant them as examples of some sort of influences which i think are valuable ingredients of the wider general musical climate of today.
this is also the reaosn why it's so difficult to talk about one decade without also talking about the one that was preceding it. because the musical atmosphere of any decade greatly depends on the one before it - that's where it takes it's "flavours" and colours, it's themes to develop, whether it'll be in good or bad.)
Actually, I kind of guessed that you were not (very) familiar with Tortoise and all those American post-rock bands (not all from Chicago, so to call it "Chicago" scene as I have is a simplification...)... Or maybe some of the other post-rock-related bands too (although I have to guess that at least you've heard of Morphine). Because if you had known all these back then I think you would never have gotten the impression that the mid 90's were dull... Then again, I'm only guessing... Some of those bands could also be boring, sometimes.
But as regards that mainstream-absorbing-"underground"-influences thing, I think you are generally right as regards post-rock, but you should also not forget the whole 90's electronica/dance scene which had a BIG impact in 90's mainstream rock: starting with Primal Scream's "Screamadelica" and U2's "Achtung baby" from 1991, and going through other U2 albums as "Zooropa" and "Pop", David Bowie's "Outside" and "Earthling" (this last one is kind of an artistic failure, IMO, but it sports a blatant influence of drum & bass)...
Quote from: revolt on September 03, 2008, 15:33:20
Actually, I kind of guessed that you were not (very) familiar with Tortoise and all those American post-rock bands (not all from Chicago, so to call it "Chicago" scene as I have is a simplification...)... Or maybe some of the other post-rock-related bands too (although I have to guess that at least you've heard of Morphine). Because if you had known all these back then I think you would never have gotten the impression that the mid 90's were dull... Then again, I'm only guessing... Some of those bands could also be boring, sometimes.
well i perhaps this topic was not about "the atmosphere of the 90's" but i don't think it was "does jap-baby know this band or that band or does she not?" either. sorry if that sounds like i'm grumpy, but i kind of feel like you're missing my point in my previous point when/if you say that "this is a conversation you can't win". because i never intended to try to win anything, or to make people agree with me. i don't need to prove i'm right - i'm simply describing why i feel the way i feel and what my impressions about the 90's/2000's are based on. so i just simply came to discuss something. ;)
and in fact, i'm really not sure if anybody can even win this sort of conversation - and that's because if we really get down to it, past all our personal likes and dislikes then there really are no "better" or "worse" decades out there. i think. just decades.
i know i was veering off in my last two posts but it was because i just realized that the two of us have been talking about this issue from a completely different perspective - and also been unaware (both of us, i think) that our perspectives were so different.
that is bound to change the course of the conversation, i think.
ps. is my knowledge of all the bands out there lesser than yours? obviously it is. yet i don't let that bother me. you see, all i have to offer for this discussion is what knowledge i happen to have - which is (yes) probably quite limited after all.
surely i'd be much more at home discussing something like the counterpoint technique in the works of orlando di lasso or the use of neapolitan chord in the early romantics or something like that - that would be my line of specialty, something i know quite a lot.
about post-rock, i don't know quite that much. but i guess i'm old enough (too old ;)) to not feel stressed about having to admit that here's where my knowledge ends. if that means i'm not fully equipped and capable of having this discussion, then i have to say i'm sorry for that and just sneak off the stage(?). :)
and i know you wanted a list of names, a list of bands and scenes that would prove that the 2000's are really worth something.
but since the name of the topic actually does give me some leverage ;) perhaps my answer would be
"what's so good about the 2000's?" - "the fact that i've noticed that i'm simply enjoying the musical climate of the 2000's a whole lot of more than i ever enjoyed that of the 90's, whatever the (various) reasons for this are".
ok i know that might easily sound like i'm trying to be intentionally clever and just annoy you (although i'm not!) - but i think that's actually also a true answer, i'm not lying when i say that.
"whatever the reasons are" - they can be really various. some of them i tried to sum up above. and i also know that some of these reasons are actually at least partially of non-musical origin. that's what i mean by saying it's always a "general climate" kind of thing.
i guess i could write out two lists of band/album names, one for the 90's and one for the 2000's, and if i'd post them here you could say "hey i don't see much difference there, both lists are almost quite as long etc., so i don't know why you insist that the 90's were bad!". certainly true - but i'd still know that feel totally different about the 90's than i feel about the 2000's and i know i'd prefer the 2000's at any time, if i had to choose.
is that a too personal answer? perhaps it is. so you can say it doesn't explain that much. but then again writing a list of band/album names would kind of be the other extreme to me, and therefore it wouldn't perhaps explain that much either.
let me put it in another way for you: "what's so good about the 2000's?" - i could say "the mere fact that there're enough interesting things floating around and despite all the multitudes of crap out there there is still enough good music to cancel that out, balancing it, still making a lot of difference and having impact on people, so that there's no reason to believe that there wouldn't be more and even more interesting things springing from all that and therefore there is a very high probability that the next decade will be even better (which i wouldn't mind, actually)".
that almost sounds like i'm being optimistic :shock: - me of all the people! hehe :-D
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 02, 2008, 12:20:53
perhaps it was different elsewhere but all i can say is that around here the post-92 era was really bleak musically. nothing worthwhile seemed to happen. (and actually this is very clearly connected to the economical/political situation: in the early 90's my country was battling what has been called one of the worst ever economical disasters/depressions in the modern day europe. that meant a lot of things in the music industry seemed to be almost at a standstill. for instance, the concert life seemed to be almost non-existent, festivals going into bankruptcy and so on and so on. and ok you can say that "that's not the reason to hate the 90's!" and you'd be right. but still, it did affect everything very heavily. and it meant that if there was anything interesting at all during those times, it came from abroad. and what was being imported from abroad? oh, brit pop and all that nonsense. so...
OK, so what are your local 2000's bands that might be interesting for a foreigner to know?
PS: That national economic crisis of yours didn't seem to affect the folk/ethnic/world side of music... The 90's were the BOOM DECADE for all things folk in your land!
Quote from: revolt on September 03, 2008, 18:25:11
OK, so what are your local 2000's bands that might be interesting for a foreigner to know?
well, for instance bands like
magenta skycode
von hertzen brothers
rubik
regina
lapko
disco ensemble
sister flo
to name a few. all very much post-2000 phenomenons. it has been (and is, all the time) really delightful to see these bands emerge (and new ones emerging all the time).
thinking back something like 10-15 years ago, i really don't remember going out to see local bands much at all. at least for me that has totally changed today. especially from the point of view of live music, i'm very happy to live in the 2000's and not in the 90's. like said, the 90's very simply dead and hopeless compared to the scene today.
also, what i already said about comebacks, some "older" artists that i really used to like in the 80's but who turned more or less dull (if not entirely bad then at least somehow pointless, when compared to their earlier output) have re-emerged with much more interesting ideas and/or have managed to re-invent themselves:
for instance ismo alanko and 22-pistepirkko.
and even though i pretty much dislike the likes of HIM, nightwish, apocalyptica... that kind of stuff, even then i have to give these bands credit for accomplishing something good for the whole music industry with their success. there are a lot more possibilities for many sort of groups now, there's more interest and more genuine respect towards (all kinds of) local music because of the success of these groups.
all that happened post-2000, the 90's very more or less completely dead period in this respect.
i'm not a very active metal-fan these days so it would take some time to name the most interesting groups (i mean more or less alternative metal, not the abovementioned HIM & co. kind of "softie metal"). strangely, i seem to read a lot more about a lot of metal groups than i get to listen to them/see them live. that's kind of weird i guess. or i hear them on the radio but really can't remember which one is which now, without sitting down and checking out. but you just have a limited amount of time and you can't be checking out new music 24/7, even if you wanted to.
(and sorry i don't really follow the folk music scene at all so i genuinely don't know that much about that, past or present.)
perhaps the 90's did beat the hell out of the 2000's out there someplace else - or did it? let's have more "local surveys" then, please! :-D
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 03, 2008, 20:47:40
Quote from: revolt on September 03, 2008, 18:25:11
OK, so what are your local 2000's bands that might be interesting for a foreigner to know?
well, for instance bands like
magenta skycode
von hertzen brothers
rubik
regina
lapko
disco ensemble
sister flo
OK, now we're talking. I admit my total ignorance regarding all of those bands, but I will find some time to check them in the near future. Hope there are some You Tube links for that purpose...
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 03, 2008, 20:47:40
i'm not a very active metal-fan these days so it would take some time to name the most interesting groups (i mean more or less alternative metal, not the abovementioned HIM & co. kind of "softie metal"). strangely, i seem to read a lot more about a lot of metal groups than i get to listen to them/see them live. that's kind of weird i guess. or i hear them on the radio but really can't remember which one is which now, without sitting down and checking out. but you just have a limited amount of time and you can't be checking out new music 24/7, even if you wanted to.
Ha, perhaps I can help you there... ;)
Shape of Despair (funeral doom)
"Fragile Emptiness", from album "Illusion's Play" (2004):
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=8CcZX5O-cQ4&feature=related
Hail (black)
"Barbarian (Finland", from their only album "Inheritance of Evilness" (2003):
(please check audio file at "Releases" in http://www.barbarianwrath.org/
(album reference WRATH666-o28: HAIL "Inheritance Of Evilness")
Skepticism (funeral doom)
Still alive and kicking today, but I could only find full links to 90's songs:
"Aether" from EP "Ethere" and album "Lead and Aether" (1997):
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=BkCfFTueOuA
Horna (black)
"Vihan Tie", from album "Envaatnags Eflos Solf Esgantaavne" (2005)
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=TvEzDbBhoA0
Please notice that for all these bands there would possibly be (even) better songs to check, but these were about the best I could find (except for Horna: that song is really as good as they can get).
By the way, Japanesebaby, I said I would check your local reccommendations and I will, but even before I do so I will risk saying that the best musician alive in Finland today is this one:
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw89so4gEZs#18
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 03, 2008, 20:47:40
Quote from: revolt on September 03, 2008, 18:25:11
OK, so what are your local 2000's bands that might be interesting for a foreigner to know?
well, for instance bands like
magenta skycode
von hertzen brothers
rubik
regina
lapko
disco ensemble
sister flo
to name a few. all very much post-2000 phenomenons.
Hi there. Well, I've already checked all these bands (just 2 or 3 songs from each, and well, I confess I didn´t listen to them in their entirety - I just wanted to get a general feel). I'm sorry to say that I'm not impressed by any of them. Maybe I didn't listen to their best songs (some clues from you might eventually lead me to the best choices...).
Not one of them seems to have anything that might lead me to say they have something different than dozens of other more or less indie pop/rock bands of recent years...
Well, maybe Regina could be an exception, since I seem to detect a slight finnish folk influence there that makes their brand of electro-indie-pop a little different than the usual (also, unlike almost all other bands you mention, I like their vocalist - she has a soft voice and a way of singing that sounds good to me, maybe it's here that I detect the folk influence as well as something that could be called more particularly "Finnish"... (but although this is not any kind of contest, I would argue that almost any Finnish folk group has a better singer or singers than her... not surprising, since Finland probably has the best singers in all Europe - it's quite shocking that this has no reflection in the rock world).
Other than that, Lapko has some falsetto vocals that totally ruin the music... Rubik's vocals might be better but I still don't like them - there were however some good riffs/parts in at least one of the songs I've checked (sorry I didn't register the title). Disco ensemble has probably the most tolerable male vocalist of all these, but unfortunately their rock sounds too generic to my ears. Ah, Von Herzen Brothers seem to have a sort of soft progressive rock thing going there, but it sounds nowhere near as good as, say, Opeth have done in their "Damnation" album.
So, again, sorry if I sound too negative, but this ride into Finnish contemporary pop/rock was really disappointing...
Do you know these guys? This seems to be a sort of world-music influenced progressive rock. It's all instrumental and it actually sounds much better to my ears than those rockers you reccommended...
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=1sm_cuGbNTI
ok well, indeed i must have gotten this all wrong. i didn't realize this thread was about you asking for personal recommendations, asking people to come up with things that you would like. i thought it was a discussion thread for everyone to explain their view, what makes 2000's worth it for you (personally). therefore i wrote what i wrote.
for all these "bad recommendations" i listed: i was comparing that scene (that of today) to that of the previous decade around here. perhaps i cannot impress you (with anything) but should you be able to do the same as i and compare that scene to that of the 90's, then you might get an idea what i was talking about. my view was a local one - because for me that local scene indeed has a lot to do with the question "what makes the 2000's worth it?". i simply would not want to live in the 90's again, no thank you.
therefore all i can say is that i don't agree that my answer is a "wrong" one. for you, obviously, it is - but it was my answer. and at no point was i even expecting you (or anyone else) to agree with me. everyone has their own story, due to their location and their likes. for me music is not just a list of albums and artists but it's greatly defined by the current live scene, live concerts, live events etc.
this is how i see it. and therefore i do find it pretty impossible to recommend anyone anything. i can mention things i know about and perhaps someone out there can sometimes pick some of them up and get interested in it. i've picked up a bunch of bands like this, just reading through threads like "currently listening" and so on. but it's a whole different thing than to try to recommend something specifically to one person (even if you knew the other person).
so now that i know what your question was about, i suppose that's what makes it impossible for me to answer your question. you would have to tell me what to recommend to you for me to be able to recommend you something - and why would i recommend you something you already knew about? so...
What's gone and what's past help
Should be past grief.
(exit jb - pursued by a bear)
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 12, 2008, 14:25:16
ok well, indeed i must have gotten this all wrong. i didn't realize this thread was about you asking for personal recommendations, asking people to come up with things that you would like. i thought it was a discussion thread for everyone to explain their view, what makes 2000's worth it for you (personally). therefore i wrote what i wrote.
for all these "bad recommendations" i listed: i was comparing that scene (that of today) to that of the previous decade around here. perhaps i cannot impress you (with anything) but should you be able to do the same as i and compare that scene to that of the 90's, then you might get an idea what i was talking about. my view was a local one - because for me that local scene indeed has a lot to do with the question "what makes the 2000's worth it?". i simply would not want to live in the 90's again, no thank you.
therefore all i can say is that i don't agree that my answer is a "wrong" one. for you, obviously, it is - but it was my answer. and at no point was i even expecting you (or anyone else) to agree with me. everyone has their own story, due to their location and their likes. for me music is not just a list of albums and artists but it's greatly defined by the current live scene, live concerts, live events etc.
this is how i see it. and therefore i do find it pretty impossible to recommend anyone anything. i can mention things i know about and perhaps someone out there can sometimes pick some of them up and get interested in it. i've picked up a bunch of bands like this, just reading through threads like "currently listening" and so on. but it's a whole different thing than to try to recommend something specifically to one person (even if you knew the other person).
so now that i know what your question was about, i suppose that's what makes it impossible for me to answer your question. you would have to tell me what to recommend to you for me to be able to recommend you something - and why would i recommend you something you already knew about? so...
What's gone and what's past help
Should be past grief.
(exit jb - pursued by a bear)
The bear is tired. Really tired.
just a bear, not the bear. so there's a difference. 8)
and i think this "a bear" is supposed to be an unspecified agent for slightly humorous exits, not an opponent. just something that chases people off the stage when needed....