Was there a more abysmal period for music than the early 2000s?

>>71714280
The late 2000s

Nu metal seriously wasn't even that bad.

>>71714326

Well you had this, post-grunge, and the commercial R&B traces from the 90s

>>71714326
no anon, besides deftones it really was that bad.
>>71714411
all this shit sucked too.

The early 00s was like the post-rock renaissance

>>71714326
It was that bad. You only liked it because you were an edgy teen back then.

>>71714514
My
Fucking
Dude

>>71714472
The Sickness was a fun album. Toxicity was a fun album. Fundamental Elements of Southtown was a fun album. If you were actually a teenager in the late 90s and early 2000s and aren't a jumped up little pretentious prick nutriding on /mu/core (which was an oldfag inside joke, btw), it's easy to appreciate nu-metal in its time and place. But please, continue what you were saying. You're so much more sophisticated and cerebral than the dumbfucks in every single generation before you. DISCO SUCKS.

>Was there a more abysmal period for music than the early 2000s?
Right now.

>>71714531
>>71714508
And then you grew up and realized how awful and cringe-inducing that music was.

>>71714326
Nu metal was mainly shit besides Deftonesand SOAD. But there were some great singles.

The millennium was a cool time to grow up. You had Girl Groups and Boy Bands, very sugary pop. On the other side was pop-punk and nu-metal, and then hardcore rap became mainstream. The top40 was a cool place back then compared to now. A LOT more variety.

>>71714531
So I'm guessing you never had that "aha" moment when listening to those albums and thinking, "wow, this music is actually pretty bad".
I definitely get nostalgia for certain records of the era, but it's still shitty music.

The mid-2000s

>>71714615
Because Green Day.

>>71714627
Yes.

>>71714606
>The millennium was a cool time to grow up. You had Girl Groups and Boy Bands, very sugary pop. On the other side was pop-punk and nu-metal, and then hardcore rap became mainstream

Old 80s veterans like Madonna and RHCP still plugging along and producing hits as well.

>>71714558
>>71714608
You're actually just in an equally immature phase of life where you think everything you used to like was shit before you "grew up" and got so wise and learned. It's like when a kid grows out of Saturday morning cartoons and then shames their younger siblings for watching them. When you get over your "OMG that was so embarrassing" phase, you'll look back and realize that hundreds of millions of people didn't spend 10-20 bucks a pop on those albums because they had no redeeming characteristics.

>>71714713
Yup. Also forgot post-grunge being really popular. Indie bands also started to get mainstream traction. I remember I listened to basically only top40 radio back then because well, I was a kid. And you'd hear N'Sync, Evanesence, Nickelback, Santana, The Strokes, and Eminem all on the same format.

You can say "but anon all that is pure shit" well maybe it is, but the top40 has always been mostly shit, at least it used to have more genres covered. Go to billboard today and see what I mean.

>>71714719
Most SMC cartoons were legitimately awful shit though.

Is it possible that the only thing wrong with music in that era was that it was when heavy commercialisation inebriated the up and coming generations (Gen Y/Z, Millenials) and in doing so took a more hefty portions of the market, leading to supression of more alternative sounds and the shallow roots of what we would consider "the abysmal" pop culture we live with today..?

>>71714280
The 2000s were a pretty shit time to be a kid. It was all 911 and ringtones. And uninspired, flavourless rock

because we're in such a better age for music right? mumble rap, vaporwave, whatever type of metal suicide silence is considered... this will all be looked back on with the same contempt

>>71714326
it was hit and miss, but it definitely gets more flak than it deserves

OOO AH AH AH AH

>>71714792
And everything was in shades of beige and orange.

>>71714280
now

>>71714280
I never did figure out what was going on on that album cover.

Right now.

Underground music was still alive in the early 2000s. You can't say the same for the last 6-7 years.

>>71714608
well, i did have an "aha" moment and it made me realize "cringe" is socially constructed and doesn't mean "bad". different sorts of music are to be taken different shades of seriously, and deep down it's all just putting on a show, yfm?

>>71714834
The internet was a mistake

NEVER MADE IT AS A WISE MAN

>>71714834
The underground still exists, it's just oversaturated at this point. Which kind of means those talented musicians buried in there are more underground than before

>>71714879
It still exists, but is it going anywhere? Is it worth listening to? Will it hold up? With the likes of James Ferraro, Ariel Pink, Grimes, Dean Blunt, Angel Olson, Car Seat Headrest, etc at the forefront, my guess is no.

>>71714719
I don't think everything I used to like is shit, but nu metal (more so than not) is full of repetitive garbage and bad musical experiments, aside from deftones, soad and those early korn albums.
I'm not embarrassed for liking those bands, I just can look back and see how awful it truly was.

>>71714948
Also did I mention the horrible use of brickwalling in the late 90s-early 2000s?

Yeah the vast majority of nu metal was contrived bullshit of the highest order but if you don't know why Korn's first album is god tier you don't know a fucking thing about rock music

COULDN'T CUT AS A POOR MAN STEALIN'

>>71714940
>is it going anywhere?
idk i just think this neomania, this whole mentality that only novel artists and trends are worth caring about and that there better be a new musical revolution every 5 years, it just needs to die down a bit so people can actually enjoy music again
>>71714948
Incubus second album perfected AND predated SOAD's kinda sound, you forgot that

>>71714974
Early Korn was way back in the mid-90s. The period we're discussing here was after nu metal had become formulaic dreck.

>>71714974
all art's contrived on some level but yeah korn was something special

By the early 2000s, Korn were putting out shit like Take a Look in the Mirror that consisted of cliches.

I was unironically listening to Voices just a minute before I ran into this garbage thread.

>>71715066
Untouchables was the first album where that started happening.

>>71715066
Popular album but it was critically panned and the band themselves disowned it.

>>71715042
Agree. Korn was sooooo fucking different.

>>71714532
Music is awesome right now especially with rap songs having insanely sick distorted bass lines that make gabber seem tame

>>71714974
Korn sucks how can anyone think some WASPy little fuck whining is cool

>>71715225
why do people think how interesting a band is depends on how "cool" their lead singer is

>>71714514
Masterpiece

Deftones are like the Elliot Smith of sad music to nu metal

problem is you had a lot of people who were popular doing it but did the edgelord approach, which kind of degraded the genre, at least in my eyes.

>>71715245

desu probably because music is really superficial at first glance in our generation

>>71715225
What are you, 17?

Nu metal and post grunge were mostly bland, awful shit that just happened to fit with the zeitgeist back then.

>>71714280
hip hop and r&b were crazy good in the early 2000s. you faggot white boys chose to listen to pop punk and rap metal instead

Destiny's Child were kind of like the last fling of oldskool R&B, a genre that's dead now (modern R&B is just shitty rapping over synths).

File: Get_Rich_Or_Die_Tryin'.jpg (49KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x300px

>>71715602
jokes on you the first CD I ever bought was pic related

The mid 70s.

>a shit ton of derivative, boring blues rock
>anglo-prog on its deathbed
>thriftstorecore galore
>"in the style of" records/comps
>watered down post-hippie "psych"

Thank goodness punk came along and blessed the charts with a swathe of great new wave bands in the late 70s and early 80s.

Not to overlook all the good stuff that happened in the mid 70s, of course, but you get the picture.

>>71715701
No chance the mid 70s was worse than the mid 10s. Not even a fucking chance.

>>71715701
I really do have to agree with you. Like, it's the birth of both punk and post-punk but that's after, not during it's time period. There's a lot of good Brazilian and German music in the mid 70s but those are most of the absolute highlights and the mid 70s have nothing on the seminal years of 71 and 79.

>>71715732
1970s power ranking from best to worst year:

1971
1978
1976
1979
1970
1975
1973
1977
1972
1974

>>71715779
78 shouldn't be that high because disco.

>>71714792
At least it was saved by some GOAT cartoons

File: 11864247899.png (227KB, 515x419px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 515x419px

>>71715818
>he fell for the disco sucks meme

>>71715855
Genuinely curious, what are the best disco albums ever, or is it not an album type of genre?

>>71715818
underground disco was good, mainstream disco was shit.

same thing that happened with uk dubstep and american popular "dubstep"

>>71715701
>>71715732
>>71715779

*puts on nerd glasses* Punk rock was officially birthed in 1976 and that's mathematically mid 70s right? So, give the mid 70s a little credit.

>>71715779
We can all agree that 1971 was a glorious year for rock-and-roll with some of the most seminal rock records of all time appearing that year. '77 was the year of punk, but that aside, the mainstream rock scene was very weak and there are few memorable albums from that year.

1978 was a super-important year because that was when the 80s was effectively born with the rise of New Wave groups, Van Halen S/T, Overkill, and Stained Class.

1970 wasn't quite as good as 71 although certainly Black Sabbath and the Stooges were highlights of that year.

1972 and 74 were very weak years lacking in any memorable albums, with 73 being a little better. 1975 was still meh, although a bit better, and 76 was the strongest year in a while, a lot of good albums out then.

1979 didn't add a lot of new sounds, more a refinement of the developments that happened in 78.

>>71715818
Disco is the SHIT you moron
The Disco Sucks meme is straight racism

>>71715911
There was a certain album released in 79 that had Banana Album Level impact.

>>71715911
>1972 and 74 were very weak years lacking in any memorable albums

1974 had Kiss S/T and Get Your Wings

File: OOJH.png (196KB, 241x413px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 241x413px

>>71715838
2000-2006 cartoons were indeed goat

But 2006-2009 cartoons were shit. SHIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

>>71715934
I'VE GOT THE SPIRIT

>>71715944
Kiss is garbage, although ok, I guess Aerosmith are alright. Still, their magnum opus was their 1976 release.

>>71715911
>'77 was the year of punk, but that aside, the mainstream rock scene was very weak and there are few memorable albums from that year.

Remind me again of what albums were out in 1977?

>>71715991
Trans Europe Express
Before and After Science
Suicide s/t
Heart of the Congos
A fucking amazing album called Alien Soundtracks from Chrome

>>71715174
Can I have an example? That actually sounds cool.

>>71715991
Mostly bland buttrock albums like Love Gun and The Grand Illusion. Hardly anything good was out in 77 which can explain the sudden explosion of punk. I guess if you had to pick a decent mainstream rock album from that year, Animals might be your best bet. Hotel California came out in late 76, so it doesn't count as a 1977 album despite ruling the charts for almost two years straight.

Aerosmith were starting to go down the drain and Draw The Line was mostly shit. Judas Priest were still in diapers and Sin After Sin is a very spotty album that's not as good or substantial as the two surrounding it. The Rolling Stones and The Who didn't have any albums out this year. Rumours is gruesomely overrated.

>>71716081
Hotel California is bland buttrock too.

>>71716081
>Rumours is gruesomely overrated.
You had me till that.
Apologize.

>>71715956
Looks like we've entered another cartoon darkage ;_;

>>71716100
Nah, you can hate the Eagles but that album captured the zeitgeist of that era perfectly.

>>71714865
THE GIRLS COME EASY AND THE DRUGS COME CHEAP

>>71715911
>and 76 was the strongest year in a while, a lot of good albums out then

Rocks, Sad Wings of Destiny, Hotel California, Fly Like An Eagle, Destroyer, 2112, Ramones S/T. Not a bad crop of albums, although Desire was pretty weak coming after Dylan's artistic triumphs in 74-75.

>>71716316
Rush - 2112
Stevie Wonder - Songs Key of Life
Heart - Dreamboat Annie
Boston - s/t
Bowie - Station to Station

>>71714280
Let me guess.

You judge the 2000's from the perspective of kid/teen you, only focusing on the most played radio hits and things you'd generally listen to from that time period.

You judge today's music on all the underground and obscure shit you listen to now that you wouldn't even begin to think to look for in that period.

As has been pointed out, airplay-wise it was probably a much better time than now. The amount of variety in the top 40 compared to "Slow melancholy song about aging, etc." or "RNB song about clubbing etc." or "Light poprock song about that girl" repeated 13 times isn't exactly the pinnacle of music.

>>71714713
Even Metallica to an extent since that was the last time when they made a pretense of being a contemporary music act.

>>71716316
Oops you already had 2112

>>71716342
Heart and Boston are shit though.

>>71716316
Still a lot of buttrock like Styx and Kansas, but the good albums that year were enough to overshadow them which was not the case in 77.

>>71715911
>1978 was a super-important year because that was when the 80s was effectively born with the rise of New Wave groups, Van Halen S/T, Overkill, and Stained Class

Journey and REO Speedwagon also made their mainstream breakouts that year. Not that that's a good thing, but they were definitely important in shaping 80s music.

>>71716081
>>71716035
Marquee Moon?

>>71716386
Those albums go in the trash.

As for 1979, it's as I said--mostly the class of '78 refining their sound. Several groups who had mammoth hit albums in 77-78 (namely the Bee Gees, Eagles, and Fleetwood Mac) came out with disappointing followups, while Kiss and Aerosmith, the two mid-decade titans, continued their downward spiral. The first appearance of post-punk also happened in 79.

>>71714831
It's apparently an angry midget wrapped in a sweater.

>>71714280
>Good Charlotte
>Blink 182 finally being good
>Sum 41
>The Strokes
>Fiddy
>Slipknot
>The BEST marylin manson album
>SOAD stopped sounding like shit
>any of this is bad

wew lad

>>71715084
>90s band goes to shit as soon as the 90s are over
Duh?

When people say "early 2000s", do they mean the entire 00s decade(2000-2009) or do they just mean the early part(2000-2003) of the 00s decade?

I'm asking because people usually use "early 1900s" to refer to 1900-1909

>>71716508
Korn stopped being any good after Issues, but they remained hugely popular until about 2005 thanks to enough momentum and the music styles they'd spawned dominating the charts.

Marilyn Manson also lost it after Holy Wood, another 90s guy who couldn't survive the transition into the 2000s.

>>71716526
Just what it means--2000 to 2003.

File: tpaste.gif (220KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 500x500px

wa ah ah ah!

>>71714558
The older I get, the stronger my hatred for the Internet's hatred of "edginess" and "teen music" keeps growing.

Buy yourselves a rope, pretentious fucks.

>>71716540
Pantera and RATM thankfully broke up in 2001 rather than drag on past their time.

>>71716540
>>71716560
Protip: Hard rock/metal groups usually last about 3-4 albums before the format becomes stale and they devolve into self-parody. In Korn's case, TALITM was the point where they reached it.

>>71716505
>Good Charlotte
lol, no
>Blink 182 finally being good
this is when blink started sounding like shit, dude ranch is the last decent album until s/t.
>Sum 41
half Hour of Power is decent pop punk, everything else is real bad
>The Strokes
They're okay
>Fiddy
Aw ye
>Slipknot
aw no
>The BEST marylin manson album
was released in the 90's
>SOAD stopped sounding like shit
the best album was the first one
>any of this is bad
most of it is pretty bad.

>>71716505
You think any of that is good?

>>71716560
The overall crappiness of their 2000 releases no doubt motivated that decision.

>>71716577
I guess he means Take Off Your Pants and Jacket. That album was also shit since like many other 90s groups, the 2000s threw them for a loop, although again Blink had enough momentum to survive until mid-decade.

>>71716577
>>Slipknot
>aw no
c'mon they had moments when they were really great, overall they're definitely the most abraisive and also experimental band of the mainstream of that decade

>>71716577
>was released in the 90's
which? Anti-Christ?

>>71716596
I meant Enema but forgot that was 1999

>>71714755
good point

>>71716577
>the best album was the first one
I love this meme.

>>71716362
Boston is shit until you realize that album was made by one man in his basement for like a thousand dollars. Then it becomes one of the greatest musical achievements ever.

>>71716596
Blink's good-time fun music was too rooted in the laid-back, sunny Clinton years to survive the dark post-9/11 world.

>>71715717
I think we are kinda in a similar situation to what was going on in the mid 70s though. A lot of genres seem really tired at this point and it seems like prime time for something new to come along and change things in a big way

>>71716637
Pop Punk thrived post-9/11, what are you on about? We were just kids we didn't know any better. Fuck, American Idiot came out in 04 and ended up being one of the best selling records ever

You know it was bad when the best mainstream thing was Coldplay

>>71716671
>the best mainstream thing was Coldplay
but that's not true

>>71716663
>American Idiot
>Pop Punk
Besides that, pop punk wasn't alive like it was during the 90's, the cool thing was definitely switching from that to garage rock/post punk revival and metalcore/posthardcore.

>>71716659
Agree. I've always had this theory though that eventually all the worthwhile music will have been explored. I estimated it would take 100 years or so. I feel there are only so many ways to make a song and so many sounds to explore that eventually the collective well would run dry and perhaps a new artform, from new technology, would replace it.

Maybe I'm way off on this but It's something I've thought about my whole life

>>71716663
Pop punk was already dead, but the corpse of it got propped up for a while by manufactured bands like Simple Plan and also Green Day were always political unlike Blink or Sugar Ray.

File: pop punk.jpg (37KB, 291x472px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 291x472px

>>71716687
American Idiot was definitely pop-punk bro. It just had a little more emo crossover than some others had.
>>71716698
Yeah pop-punk was morphing into emo and hardcore by this point but my point stands. Saying something like "9/11 killed pop punk" is just retarded.

Pop punk is a very elastic term anyway since in fact you could argue that it goes back to the British Invasion bands. The Ramones were also kind of proto-pop punk.

>>71716734
Sure. Can say the Buzzcocks and Clash are pop-punk too.

>>71716708
ouch you really got me with that wikipedia screen grab, it's a rock album.
the last thing they did remotely pop punk was nimrod.

>>71716752
LOL this damage control. American Idiot was and remains pop punk. By the way pop punk is a subgenre of rock music :) And sometimes music can have more than one genre :) Hold this L.

>>71716752
Early Who were definitely proto-pop punk, although most of the 90s-2000s stuff descended from 80s groups like Bad Religion since that's what those guys grew up listening to.

>>71716763
>LOL this damage control.
>By the way pop punk is a subgenre of rock music
now you just look silly.

>>71716774
Are you high?

>>71714586
>>71714472
the deftones really stood out to me during that time, they were easily my favorite group. how was it that they were, and still are, so much better than other mainstream bands?

>this thread was a cool groovy 70s discussion
>it's turned into a pop punk shitflinging contest
Damn it's almost like pop punk fans ruin everything

>>71716772
>Early Who were definitely proto-pop punk
As were Aftermath-era Stones, until both groups turned into stadium buttrock during the 70s.

>>71716831
Was there a 60s act that got better in the 70s? And it doesn't count as 60s act if they had like one album in 68 or 69

>>71716831
The Rolling Stones starting with Sticky Fingers definitely turned into lighter-waving stadium rock. The Who to a lesser extent because they weren't as commercial/singles oriented.

>>71716763
Are all these labels really important though? They seem so unnecessary in these cases.

>>71716978
Genre labels only matter for radio formats and for music store displays. I was simply correcting someone.

>>71716559
You like edginess?

>>71714280
Yes

[spoiler]it's now[/spoiler]

>>71716559
so you listen to strictly edgeless music?
how's shit like michael bolton treating you?

>>71717573
that's not what he said, read it again

>>71717563
2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016 were great

>>71714794
>vaporwave
You've never heard an actual vaporwave album besides Floral Shoppe, have you?

>>71714280
What's this cover supposed to be?
Is he being birthed or is he just annoyed about having to wear an oversized jumper?

>>71714280
1998 was the worst year for music (excluding electronic) prove me wrong oh yeah...................................................................................................................................................you won't

>>71718116
Ths

>>71714326
It was pretty trash dude. go back and listen.

>>71714531
Anon. You have to understand something. Simply because you like something doesn't make it good. You can like bad things. You just have to accept that objectively they are bad. It's called a guilty pleasure.

>>71716693
I doubt that seriously. Music has been an integral part of human since the dawn of man, and it only got more complex over time and we still haven't run out of it. there will always be the next new thing. and some of it will probably be good and a lot of it shit

>>71718888
anon. you have to stop. typing like this is annoying. also you're spooked as fuck if you believe there's such a thing as "objectively bad" by what "objective" criteria would you go about judging such a thing and what makes those criteria valid?
nice quads tho so i guess you're right

>>71714719
I don't usually like shitposting but this is literally "I'm delusional - the post"

>>71718950
nah it's true enough

>>71718947

Is the music formulaic and played out? Essentially a rehash of whats been done a hundred times by others. Does the person making the music even give a shit about the music? Was this made for money or because the artist wanted to make a piece. If any, how personal are the lyrics? Is the artist trying to convey his emotions/ opinions/ beliefs?

Essentially bad music is like bad art, sure "art, can't be bad" but you know it is. especially if it's unimaginative, ill preformed calls for the spotlight.

Think boy bands of the late 90s, they're bad. That being said, I quite like boy bands of the late 90s.

Anyone remember Eve 6?

File: 1331640475830.png (8KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 493x402px

>>71714280
Surprise, surprise

OP has no taste.

>>71719031
>Think boy bands of the late 90s, they're bad. That being said, I quite like boy bands of the late 90s.
Well, I just hope you don't like Justin Bieber. If yes, then you're beyond saving.

>you now remember Spineshank, Mushroomhead, Taproot and American Head Charge

who /kerrangtvintheearly00s/ here?

>>71719031
you're ignoring the second part of my question, how do you justify those criteria?
>Does the person making the music even give a shit about the music? Was this made for money or because the artist wanted to make a piece. If any, how personal are the lyrics? Is the artist trying to convey his emotions/ opinions/ beliefs?
all of this could be countered with death of the author, for example

>Is the music formulaic and played out?
anon listed The Sickness and Toxicity specifically and i would agree that they're far from played out (as opposed to anything else Disturbed made)
even generally, nu-metal in its beginnings was a genre about genre-mashing, so it was plenty creative and novel. sure it BECAME played out but you always have to consider the time of release when you're gonna make a statement about that, obviously
also who says a formula is a bad thing? in fact novelty only really has an impact by adhering to previously established norms, you can't make something totally out of the blue, that will just turn everyone off

>>71718888
do you think there could possibly be an "objectively good" album that literally no one likes?

>>71719359
it's total bollocks anyway, /mu/tants love bringing up 'objective quality' when it suits them but it's generally some tit with shit like anco and death grips in his top 10 artists anyway so it's just laughable

if you listen exclusively to classical, jazz and maybe some select progressive/ experimental rock then maybe you can afford to get genuinely snobby about objective metrics of musical quality (although everyone will still think you're an autistic cunt) but the thought of Modest Mouse and Kendrick Lamar fans swarming to denounce System of a Down as "lesser art" is frankly hilarious

>>71714792
The music sucked but 00s kid shows were the shit.

>>71714543
WOOP
WOOPWOOP

File: Liftyrskinnyfists[1].jpg (151KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 500x500px

>abysmal
Well that's a bit unfair.