Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

  • View Poll Results: Which decade was better in terms of music. The 90's or the 00's
    90's
    38.10%
    00's
    61.90%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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.
    I have, I have listened to the charts to random playlists to the radio and to "hipster indie" music very few is even close to being good
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I prefer the 90s, but I think this song is pretty amazing and bumped up the 00s.

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    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 ****.
    The problem isnt me, I listen to a ton of new music you think I want to dislike it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Manic Street Preachers, Smashing Pumpkins, Blur, Radiohead, REM, Stone Roses...

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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Such as?
    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.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lfKrjZWG09c
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    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…
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    The problem isnt me, I listen to a ton of new music you think I want to dislike it.
    Define "new music". New music as in, recently released? Or new music as in, a genre you've never listened to before because you thought it wouldn't appeal to you based on what little you've heard of it?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    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.
    I see what you mean, for one the sales are a strong indication and it's always gonna be a matter of opinion. But you could look at the qualities music had, what the songs were about (today most songs are just filled with utter crap), their influence and their performance but I guess it's always going to come down to someone's judgment
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    2000s bcos they gave us Kanye and Taylor
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    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.


    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.


    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lfKrjZWG09c
    I haven't my earphones with me so il listen to it tomorrow
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    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.
    Charts indicate how popular something is, not how good it is. And how good something is (in this case, music) is largely subjective, so there's no real metric with which to measure it by; I couldn't care less how many awards Adele wins for her music, I've listened to enough of it to realise that it's not for me, and I'm not going to listen to any more of it just because it's popular.

    That being said, you raise a good point about something being era defining; there is nothing, I would say, that has defined the 00s in terms of the relationship that music has had with culture.
    To take an obvious example, in the 60s you had the counter-culture, and the music that went along with it embodied the spirit of the culture. But these days? I dunno.
    You've got pop stars (the current trend which is dominating the charts, though I say that with some apprehension because the literal term "pop" merely translates to "popular", at which point you could argue that Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones were the pop music of the day, so we'll assume that by "pop" I mean the mainstream genre of predictable instrumentation and lacklustre lyrics) that are hanging on to the glory days of the 90s by dressing in ways similar to how the Spice Girls were and really aren't putting out anything new in terms of lyrical content.

    Hip-hop has always had a strange relationship with the charts insomuch as nothing too decent (this is by my standards; I'm sure other people would disagree with this assessment) ever enters it, but instead you get pop/hip-hop crossovers that linger mid-top 40 for a while before disappearing.
    No decent metal has entered the charts for years, the only rock that finds its' way anywhere near the charts is as beige as my wallpaper, you'd be mistaken for thinking that reggae and ska don't exist any more as far as the charts are concerned, not sure so much about classical or jazz seeing as I endeavour to distance myself as far away from any chart music as possible plus I'm not really into either of those enough to warrant looking, and as a result we're left with... what? Sam Smith? Hoo-****ing-ray.

    Yeah, 90s had Britpop and Madchester, but then you've also got the grunge scene in America, and let's not forget that burning down churches suddenly became a favoured hobby in Scandinavia (I mean, a guy's gotta keep warm somehow right?).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Manic Street Preachers, Smashing Pumpkins, Blur, Radiohead, REM, Stone Roses...

    Yeah I think I'll go with the 90s.
    You forgot Oasis
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    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.
    Fortunately pop music doesn't serve as the cut-out indicator of a good music era not even anywhere near close to the extent two decades ago. This is mostly because of the large volume of music pumped out beyond radio, beyond pop culture. Success is found in completely different ways now - back then people were more restricted in their listening options, the way media marketed these outfits making music that tie into pop culture virtually unavoidable. Now, it's insanely easy to censor a lot of music out, including pop.

    That's why pop music back then is far more "era-defining" than it is now. It was much more difficult to avoid and the options were pretty scarce compared to today. That's what I think anyway.

    In terms of the question, I'm going to go with 00's, but I really loved popular hip-hop in the 90s'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The 1990's were the best decade in the entirety of human history in every possible regard.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The 90s was the golden decade for Hip Hop so that tips the scale way in their favour over the 00s.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm more of a '00s music person but '90s music is undoubtedly more artistic in general.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Percypig17)
    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.
    Outkast's best stuff came out in the 90s but I agree with pretty much all of that especially with your points on pop music and Oasis. Horrible hand, disgustingly overrated.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 11, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    TSR wiki music section

    Quick link:

    Unanswered music threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.