Which decade was better in terms of music. The 90's or the 00's.

What are you using as a base for this? Grunge was better in the 90s, but I'd argue that black metal is better today (you can't argue with the classics, but the atmospheric BM scene has really picked up in recent years).



Diversify the genres you listen to. I listened to an album that was released a week or two ago, ****ing loved it. Of course, it helped massively that the album was written by a dude who used to play in a kickass band back in the 90s, but that's by the by; point is, if you think that the music being released these days is ****, the problem is the genre of music you're listening to instead of the music itself.

I'll give you an example: pop music? That's been going downhill since the 90s, and it's likely that the only reason I think it was better back then than it is now is because of nostalgia. But stoner rock? **** man, that's been on the up and up for the past few years.

So diversify. Throw yourself out there and listen to some new ****.

Absolute rubbish.

If you bother to make more effort than casually tossing on Radio 1 there is a tonne of brilliant new music to be heard and what with the internet it is so easy to listen to.

Such as?

Black metal isn't exactly a huge part of the music scene so if it's doing good or bad is like me saying the local corner shop in some place in Syria is still selling more bread than ever, all is good in the economy!

That's not the issue for me tho, whenever I come across new stuff I love I'll look at the date and it'll be quite old, check up their latest work and it's boring…

The problem isnt me, I listen to a ton of new music you think I want to dislike it.

You've misunderstood. My point was that you can't look at something as a whole and try to evaluate how good it is when the whole has many different parts that all operate on a different wave-length to each other.

It's like saying "Are films better now than they were back then?"; it makes no sense because there's so much to take into account when trying to formulate a reply (cinematography, SFX, score, content, etc), let alone trying to pin down what criteria you're actually basing the opinion on when the question is asked so generally.

You've misunderstood. My point was that you can't look at something as a whole and try to evaluate how good it is when the whole has many different parts that all operate on a different wave-length to each other. It's like saying "Are films better now than they were back then?"; it makes no sense because there's so much to take into account when trying to formulate a reply (cinematography, SFX, score, content, etc), let alone trying to pin down what criteria you're actually basing the opinion on when the question is asked so generally.

Off the top of my head and I know that it may not be for everyone, Animals as Leaders continue to pult out incredible songs that are thought provoking, intense and represent a level of musicianship and technical ability that is rare in any genre.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lfKrjZWG09c[/video]

To me, there's nothing wrong with using the charts as an indicator of a good music era. Imo if there are solid artists in the charts, then that's a good era. Yeah there might be underground subcultures at present that produce good music, but are they era definining?

Think of when the likes of the Rolling Stones, Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Prince etc were in the charts. Even in the 90s with the Verve and Oasis.

What have we got to define our era? Sam Smith? Bastille? Nicki Minaj?

I suppose the issue is that alternative music/ rock simply doesn't dominate the charts anymore. Yeah it may be uncool to think that, but I love it when rock feeds into pop culture.

Manic Street Preachers, Smashing Pumpkins, Blur, Radiohead, REM, Stone Roses...

Yeah I think I'll go with the 90s.

To me, there's nothing wrong with using the charts as an indicator of a good music era. Imo if there are solid artists in the charts, then that's a good era. Yeah there might be underground subcultures at present that produce good music, but are they era definining?

Think of when the likes of the Rolling Stones, Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Prince etc were in the charts. Even in the 90s with the Verve and Oasis.

I'm going to be controversial (or probably not seeing the poll results) and say the 00s were way better for music than the 90s, which have a way higher reputation in most people's minds than they really deserve, in part I guess due to nostalgia.

I like a lot of 90s music, Nirvana, Radiohead, Blur, some Rap Music, Pavement etc but I think most Britpop was only kinda ok (Oasis being the prime example of a band getting way too big for one good album and a bunch of derivative singles), and it saw the birth of the kind of bland produced-pop boy bands like NSYNC that would come to predominate in the very early 2000s that just sucked entirely.

Meanwhile, the 2000s had some of my favorite artists come into their own, like The Strokes (Is This It is my favorite album), Arcade Fire (Funeral, Neon Bible in that decade, Arctic Monkeys, Kanye West, White Stripes, some great Radiohead albums (In Rainbows, Kid A, Amnesiac), and some stellar albums by Outkast and MF Doom. In total, I think pop was definitely pretty lackluster imo in the early 2000s and I think the 2010s will definitely be seen as the decade when pop became good (Drake, Beyonce, even Bieber releasing pretty good albums) but apart from that, where rock is concerned, the 2000s were a high point.