Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
10 Best bands of the 90's ?
29 Answers
Manic Street Preachers, Counting Crows, Beautiful South, Blameless, James, Ocean Colour Scene, Radiohead, REM, The Charlatans, Toad The Wet Sprocket.......how about you ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by donniedarko. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I was in no way suggesting that you do not have the right to enjoy whatever music you like, merely that in my opinion your apparent taste in music is poor. I aggree that the acts you mention have made a greater impact on the charts than some of those I mentioned, but since when have the charts been a barometer of good music (I would however be interested to see a comparison of the number of weeks spent in the album charts during the nineties by U2, REM, Oasis, Blur and Radiohead against Britney, Steps, Shania, Take that and Robbie). I do not mention obscure bands in an attempt to be cool (no more than you mention obviously trite bands in an attempt at humour), in fact I personally think my music taste are a bit middle of the road... apart from perhaps Gorkys who I suspect are far from "cool" to follow (If you want obscure check out Murray the Hump... Damon Albarn rates them apparently!) I would also challange whether Steps and Britney will out live U2 and REM or Radiohead for that matter, but hey there's always a mug somewhere that will buy their rubbish... ;o)
I'm intrigued Obo, what do you define as rubbish, and lets not just mention names here (that would be too easy), a reason as to why you deem these acts to be of poor musical quality. I wonder if you will or indeed can without divulging too much into the extent of your musical knowledge. Let's not get too excited now.....deep breath before you attempt to answer.
Ah we meet again icecoldin! Rubbish... "waste or rejected matter; anything worthless; valueless stuff or trash". But I do agree with you one man's rubbish is another man's gold... so everyone should feel free to listen to what they like. Steps were (thankfully in the past tense!) manufactured pop at its worst... couldn't sing, couldn't dance, looked appaling (again, in my opinion) and perhaps worst of all appeared not only unable to write their own songs, but couldn't even get someone to write songs for them and so resorted to banal covers. Britney is an improvement on this appears able to sing and dance, looks amazing is even credited with some song writing ability so she scores a lot of points, until you compare her with U2 and REM or even Madonna, then she suddenly looks like what she is... a pumped up, jumped up school kid, most probably being used by the music industry to make a fast buck or two before she is dumped when her looks and teen appeal fail.... I could go on. This matter has been discussed elsewhere on this site and I believe that these acts (and the charts today) are no worse than they were 10/20/30 years ago, there have always been similar acts... some of whom have gone on to achieve greatness (as with the previously mentioned Abba, who incidently had the decency to write their own songs) others have mercifully disappeared.... anyone got a copy of Sinetta!? What it boils down to is that I like music where the band/artist has something to say and finds a way to write the music and lyrics to say it, music that moves you and makes you listen. So go put on a copy of Steps' greatest hits and boogie away, but when you want to listen to good music maybe try some of the other excellent suggestions posted for this question... and that's just the nineties!
Yeah, Obo, generally I'd agree with you, although for a "band/artist has something to say and finds a way to write the music and lyrics to say it", how could you possibly overlook Manic Street Preachers. I think your statement sums them up perfectly. BTW...as I'm writing this, Radio One is playing an excrutiating 'danced-up' cover of Bryan Adams classic 'Heaven'......god help us all !
I am a big Manics fan Donnie (being a fellow Welshman!) and agree, they probably were one of the bands of the nineties, in fact I'm saddened to read that it looks as if they may be splitting. I listened to the Radio 2 Oasis story last night (recorded it as was out at a Motorhead gig when it was on... not my choice but ticket was going free!) and anyone who says they were not one of the bands of the nineties is insane, whether you like their music or not. Mad fer it!
Obo, I do like our little get togethers :-) That was quite an answer (I did actually change the word answer a few times). Not an altogether convincing one, as you still didn't quite explain what constitutes poor music. To be fair to you however, this isn't (in my opinion) really a question that can be answered convicingly by anyone. Words that are formed in a clever thought provoking manner to a melody? Bands / artists that influence generations?...in what way?....I don't think (in my opinion) that a song has to necessarilly say anything (fine if it does of course). Music can be anything and everything to whoever wants to listen to it. It doesn't have to be carved into a wall to distinguish the good from the bad. We all have our own ideas as to what music means to us, whether that need is to boggie, or to stimulate in any other way shape or form it has to take for that particular individual. One of the most surprising things that I ever heard from a DJ ( I won't name names, it's irrelevant). He said once "Music should be uplifting". Nonsense...music should not be just one thing. Sure it can be uplifting, it can also be so many other things. I think it is slightly unfair to compare musical genres, it bears no relation in attempting (an albeit futile attempt) to separate the good, the bad or the ugly whatever they may be. To label a piece of music or taste in music poor is meaningless (in my opinion). I hope we're still buddies Obo :-))
