I’m currently reading this and as someone who had his formidable years in the 90’s, it’s a fun read. Some interesting things so far which really resonated with me:
-This was probably the last decade where we controlled technology rather than it controlling us.
-It’s the last time rock music was the center of society. The author makes the point that “Nevermind” by Nirvana was the last album which had such an impact.
Still have a lot to read, but I’m enjoying it thus far.
Totally overrated band in my humble opinion.
Totally overrated band in my humble opinion.
You can hate on that band all you like, but if you were around during that time, there is no way that you can deny the impact they had. And yes, I do agree, the last rock band to have that impact was Nirvana. After them, the Pop Tarts and Rappers pretty much started dominating the scene, and its been that way ever since.
Disagree with Jints about Nirvana being overrated. Their music, videos, dress, and mood epitomized the start of the grunge era and the death of hair metal glam rock.
Think he overstates that Nirvana point. It may have been the last high point, and rock's influence and
relevance began receding afterwards, but it still was a cultural force through the end of the century. We have a thread talking about Woodstock '99 - that was a massive mainstream music festival almost entirely populated with rock bands. You don't see lineups like that at festivals today.
I think that it was a few years into the 00s before rock finally fell to where it is now.
Totally overrated band in my humble opinion.
Totally agree. They get the glory because they had the first (pop) hit…but that grunge/alternative movement was happening with or without them. The other bands - Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, Soundgarten, and Mother Love Bone before them - were all signed to major record labels and being pushed before any fan ever heard Smells Like Teen Spirit. But Nivana does have a big place in the scene overall. Just not at the top of my list.
But Nirvana had cool tshirt with a yellow smiley face on it that’s marketed to hell - so there’s your face of grunge lol.
Nirvana is much more in the vain of the Melvins, the Germs, the Wipers, and the Pixies etc.
Nirvana's mainstream cultural success is really the last huge rock moment. I was never a huge fan, but with the benefit of time, I'm deeply impressed by their records.
Unfortunately we are in a lull of mainstream, good rock music but who knows when the next resurgence is coming...and no rock did not die after the mid 90's. There have been some very good and very popular rock bands since.
Who first came to prominance after 2000? Who? Niche acts, maybe, no one with mass appeal.
Quote:
There have been some very good and very popular rock bands since.
Who first came to prominance after 2000? Who? Niche acts, maybe, no one with mass appeal.
Coldplay is one that comes to mind. Of course's there's the mega popular country artists who, in some respects, have replaced the traditional mainstream rock artists.
Totally overrated band in my humble opinion.
Nirvana has IMO received more nostalgic appreciation than even in their heyday. I think people romanticize the drama surrounding Kurt and his addictions and eventual death and pair that with the fact Nirvana epitomized the rock culture (grunge) in the early 90's. I always have appreciated them as a band for changing where mainstream music was at the time and being pioneers in that way. Calling them bullshit though, with those contributions is short-sighted.
Quote:
There have been some very good and very popular rock bands since.
Who first came to prominance after 2000? Who? Niche acts, maybe, no one with mass appeal.
I wonder if the overall decline of MTV -- or just the shift of access to music videos from MTV to on-demand sources like Youtube -- has anything to do with this.
It's impossible to know, but I think a band like The National would be much bigger if the current environment were similar to the 80s through mid-90s, where so many people would watch MTV regularly (or at least a particular scheduled program on MTV). Without that sort of mechanism in place I think it's hard for a rock band to reach that sort of mass popularity.
they're not my cup of tea but they're one of the few "rock" bands that can do stadium shows that's not a pure nostaglia act. Foo Fighters sorta got there. They were obviously rooted in 90s post grunge - but it's not like they're 100% reliant on songs from that era. They have plenty of big songs from this century.
Think he overstates that Nirvana point. It may have been the last high point, and rock's influence and
relevance began receding afterwards, but it still was a cultural force through the end of the century. We have a thread talking about Woodstock '99 - that was a massive mainstream music festival almost entirely populated with rock bands. You don't see lineups like that at festivals today.
I think that it was a few years into the 00s before rock finally fell to where it is now.
I am glad you brought up the Woodstock 99 thread. I always thought it was weird how in the late 90s MTV completely switched to the Mickey Mouse Club acts (Britney, Christina Aguilera, N'Sync etc.) or hip hop.
Well, after reading about how MTV literally fled Woodstock 99 because they were afraid for their own safety, I think they decided to move on from (or, completely cut off) the post grunge, "nu metal" acts. Just a thought.
Why would anyone?
Could be. Early on TRL had pretty much any kind of music. After a while it became almost exclusively top 40 pop/dance stuff. And then music, even that pop crap, started becoming an afterthought on MTV anyway.
Quote:
There have been some very good and very popular rock bands since.
Who first came to prominance after 2000? Who? Niche acts, maybe, no one with mass appeal.
I can think of a few, although I acknowledge that my view of "mass appeal" (and probably yours, too) is somewhat at conflict with what I actually enjoy, musically. So there are probably some groups that have mass appeal but I have no idea who they are because, between Spotify and Sirius, most of the music that I hear is essentially self-selected to be that with which I'm already familiar, or possess a similar sound.
Anyway, here are some that I thought of:
The Black Keys
The White Stripes (and the rest of Jack White's projects)
The Killers
The Strokes
Vampire Weekend
I know this is slightly off topic but wanted to throw it in there. The early 90s were great for music but objectively today may even be better.
There have been subsequent waves of rock, be it pop punk, nu metal, the garage rock revival, blue grass/Americana revival -- that have registered in the public consciousness.
But the lead acts and stories from the mid 90s onward have been hip hop and pop. The two possible exceptions are that awful Santana revival and that dreadful Linkin Park record.
In regard to Nirvana, does he mention that the '90s is the last point when you have a small group of powerful people shaping the music landscape?
Doesn't happen anymore. Much more organic.
Quote:
In comment 15776536 Jimmy the Saint said:
Quote:
There have been some very good and very popular rock bands since.
Who first came to prominance after 2000? Who? Niche acts, maybe, no one with mass appeal.
I can think of a few, although I acknowledge that my view of "mass appeal" (and probably yours, too) is somewhat at conflict with what I actually enjoy, musically. So there are probably some groups that have mass appeal but I have no idea who they are because, between Spotify and Sirius, most of the music that I hear is essentially self-selected to be that with which I'm already familiar, or possess a similar sound.
Anyway, here are some that I thought of:
The Black Keys
The White Stripes (and the rest of Jack White's projects)
The Killers
The Strokes
Vampire Weekend
Killers are probably the best example of that group in terms of mass appea. They're doing an arena tour right now and sold out two shows at MSG.
Coldplay
Incubus
Linkin Park
Weezer
And then the many pop punk bands of the mid 2000s in New Found Glory, Blink 182, Fall Out Boy, etc.
I think the issue is more access to music. With Sirius having more themed stations we all tend to listen to the genre we already like. And then throw on top streaming, people don't just listen to the radio and hear new stuff while in the car, etc.
Um, this is a weird take. They were not a minor blip in the 90s, and who knows what would have happened if Cobain hadn't died in 1994.
Thanks to the OP for this thread, I've been thinking about getting this book and glad to see it mentioned here.
What I do like about Klosterman is though I don't necessarily share his obsessions/interests (KISS, The Real World, Oasis), he still makes salient points or gives facts I didn't know previously. I give this book a strong thumbs up, and hopefully not millering this thread too hard, highly recommend a book I'm currently reading called "St. Marks is Dead" by Ada Calhoun.
I wasn't even a hard rock/metal head and I enjoyed that book a lot. I had trouble getting through "Raised in captivity" his short stories with a science bent and I didn't care for "Killing Yourself to Live" as it was rambling and about his relationship with his gf for far too much of the book but as I said, I enjoy most of his stuff.
No one cares about your shitty hippie bands
He wasn't rock, but the mainstream music scene 2000-2002 belonged to Eminem.
Looking back @ it, the '90s was a bridge decade from the Cold War to the War on Terror age we're still living in in 2022. & yes, I know the USSR fell in '91, but the Cold War was pretty much over by then.
Quote:
The Dead and Phish are still going strong. Nirvana, in contrast, was a minor blip.
No one cares about your shitty hippie bands
I used to work with one of those Dead head /Phish guys two years ago. Total weirdo but nice guy. He told me he would follow around Phish to every single one of their shows and sell soft drinks or something.
I worked a Phish show in Atlantic City 2012 and what a bunch of pigs those fans are lol garbage everywhere. I've seen some messes before after a concert but this was bad
I think the point the author is making, is Nirvana was the last rock band that was at the center of understanding society at that point.
In the same way Elvis was to the 50s, the Beatles were to the 60s, the Woodstock acts were to late 60s/70s -- you can't fully understand the time and place of society without considering what those bands meant or represented.
Hip hop and pop fill the vacuum right now, and have the last 3 decades. Similarly to the 80s.
As much as some hate it -- understanding society right now as it relates to music, takes some combination of understanding the Kardashians, Soundcloud hip hop, Kanye, Travis Scott, and Taylor Swift.
I don't think there's a single important rock band on the planet right now.
Seems as if that Cardi B rap is EVERYWHERE. Female rappers are very mainstream (every other commercial or ad on YouTube, some neighbor blasting it at all hours of the day, plays on display products when you walk around Costco and in NHL video games) as of late.
I've never been more proud of myself when some 22 year old kid got mad at me for not knowing Kim Kardashian was with that unfunny weird dude from SNL.
Just something I had noticed.
Because it was catchy, alternative rock for the mainstream listener and they were presented all over radio and MTV. I agree with you that it was no good but for people who weren’t as much into finding better music on their own it served its purpose. It was more like a cleaned up, mature version of Limp Bizkit.
for me it was Shinoda. He sounded like a parody of what an actual rap artist should sound like. If the band was just Chester on vocals they would have been far more tolerable.
You may be right but when it comes to what's worst about Linkin Park, the competition is tight and tough.
The singer may actually give the rapper a run for his money, but the lyrics and terrible over-processed crunch guitar tones are right up there with them.
Linkin Park parody - ( New Window )
Oasis' rise and decline occurred during my early 20's and it's funny: they're generally disregarded and reviled in retrospect. If you scrutinize their songs even their most popular ones are revealed to be paper-thin with lyrics that make no sense at all and tell no story, but that scrutiny itself probably wouldn't happen if it weren't for their image and reputation. I wonder if a song like Don't Look Back In Anger would be remembered much more fondly today if it were released by anyone else. I think it would because it's honestly a pretty solid song: the singing doesn't suck, the chorus has a great hook, and while the lyrics are nonsense at least they aren't cringey.
I never wonder that about, say, a Linkin Park song.
And 20+ years later, no serious music critic or fan would consider that a culturally significant or important rock album.
The obvious difference being Nirvana was an outstanding band and Kurt Cobain was an excellent song writer and lyricist. And Oasis and Gallaghers looked like and resembled a great band, but upon further inspection they had one or two good songs.
Quote:
but again with the Nirvana BS.
Totally overrated band in my humble opinion.
You can hate on that band all you like, but if you were around during that time, there is no way that you can deny the impact they had. And yes, I do agree, the last rock band to have that impact was Nirvana. After them, the Pop Tarts and Rappers pretty much started dominating the scene, and its been that way ever since.
I agree with this and I'm not even a fan...They did have a huge music impact in the ninety's. Sounds like a pretty good read...I'll have to pick it up...just in time for next weeks vacation.
Nirvana did change musically as a kid. It was Guns'n Roses and a bunch of heavy metal bands. Within a few years those CDs were gathering dust and I wasn't a huge Nirvana fan but definitely listened to "Alternative" music. It even changed the way you dressed although most didn't wear dresses like they did. It changed the shoes you wore from ridiculously priced Nike high tops to things that look like bowling shoes.
And 20+ years later, no serious music critic or fan would consider that a culturally significant or important rock album.
What on earth would be considered a serious rock critic? And what age are you asking here? The people who write edgy reviews in rock magazines? Speaking of which, the updated top 100 songs and albums for Rolling Stone have differed over the years and are laughable. It's just some guy (or gal's) opinion.
I'm not Linkin Park's biggest fan but they do have a strong following among my age group. That first album you did mention was huge and is still talked about to this day by people who were in high school in the late 90s/early 00s.
LP's albums did get worse and worse though as time went along. I do remember liking Hybrid Theory but their second album was just bad.
They were but holy fuck were they popular. I saw them two or threee times and they had no issues filling up stadiums or arenas. Yikes.