|   What the heck were people listening to in late 80's/early 90 | KevB
May 10, 2001 2:56 PM | | Prior to "grunge" or alternative becoming mainstream in 1992, what was popular between 1985 and 1992?
I was thinking about my concert-going and it seems that period of time I went to the fewest amount of concerts, which is strange because I was in my mid to late 20's.
I know Genesis was huge with Invisible Touch in 1986-87, but my remembrances of that time seems to be it was dominated by big hair irritating cheese or crooners like Micheal Bolton.
It was after New Wave had made its impact. I guess Sting was huge. Neil Young had anticipated grunge with Freedom and Ragged Glory in 89-90, but before that he was relatively quiet.
It just seems like that period of time is relatively formless.
Michael Bolton, Michael Jackson and big hair bands? |
| WHAT???? | Stone
May 10, 2001 3:16 PM | | You mean mainstream? There certainly were some great artists around in that time period, but weren't "mainstream".
I know your opinion on punk so I won't even go into that, but have you heard of the following??
The Pixies
The Replacements
Jane's Addiction
New Order
Fugazi
Hoodoo Gurus
The Smiths
The Pogues
I could go on for pages...
Stone |
| No need for shouting | KevB
May 10, 2001 4:28 PM | | My post was more of a query than a statement, and it was probably inartfully drafted, but was meant to be what was that time period characterized by. New Wave characterized the early 80's, grunge/alternative and the mainstream rise of hip hop characterized 1992 and the mid 90s. Obviously these are generalizations. In trying to think back why I didn't go see as many live shows in that time period, I was trying to remember what I skipped/missed out on. I forgot about U2/REM as stated below.
My opinion on punk has nothing to do with my post, nor did I make any statement that there were not great artists around in that time period. The artists you cited were not dominant or characteristic of the time period.
Your knee jerk reaction to my post was a tad swift. |
| And I guess a better way of putting it might be... | KevB
May 10, 2001 4:39 PM | | What was the rise of alternative the alternative to? What was Nirvana Pearl Jam etc the alternative to?
Usually movements like that are a counter reaction to what was popular at the time on the radio. So if it was Bolton Madonna M Jackson and big hair, its understandable what alternative music was reacting against. |
| when alternative becomes the mainstream........ | unleasHell
May 10, 2001 5:32 PM | | then a new alternative must be found.. Stereolab, Yo Lo Tengo, etc.
I think there are quite a few people here who like myself are always looking for the band whose style pushes the envelope (Godspeed).. Not a bad question, just one that you will get a different answer from each person and most will be RIGHT! |
| and Peter Murphy!!!!! | unleasHell
May 10, 2001 5:35 PM | | nht |
| So 'classic' rock radio is the culprit again | KevB
May 11, 2001 9:23 AM | | Classic and progressive rock led to the reactionary rise of punk in the 70's AND the same stuff was to lead to the rise of alternative in the early 90's?
As has been pointed out in this thread, bands like REM and U2 were big in the late 80's, as well as albums by people like Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon (Graceland), who I would certainly consider to be "classic rock". Was the popularity of alternative and grunge a reaction to these artists being played a lot, or are you still pinning the blame on the same mid 70's music that you hate so much? That's what I am interested in getting opinions on, what was "alternative" the alternative to?, U2 and REM, Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon, Madonna and Michael Jackson? big hair metal? or in your case, the answer is that same 70's classic rock. I guess for you, that era of rock is accountable for a lot of damage. |
| That's kind of condescending Kev | maf
May 11, 2001 10:04 AM | | When you use phrases like: "classic rock radio is the culprit" and "still pinning the blame" it seems like someone should apologize for '80s and 90's music, as if there is something inherintly wrong or inferior with music put out by artists in those decades vis-a-vis the '60s and '70s. I'm sure you didn't intend to imply that there is, but your choice of words, and tone could be interpreted that way.
Mark |
| Actually, its just the opposite | KevB
May 11, 2001 12:04 PM | | I find I have to defend great classic music that is timeless and popular from the 60's and 70's from condescending attacks on it. |
| When? | maf
May 11, 2001 1:57 PM | | Any "attacks" in this thread have been against formula, classic rock RADIO and narrowminded, non-inclusive programming of same. It's true I have seen other threads where individual "classic" rock bands have been criticized (ie. The Doors). But that's much different from condemning an entire rock music sub-genre, as you are inclined to do (rap & punk). |
| Corporate rock? | KevB
May 11, 2001 2:16 PM | | So ANY music that is played a lot on the radio is corporate rock, and then becomes evil?
What about The Beatles in the 60's. At one point had the top 5 songs in the charts at the same time. All over the radio. Did the Beatles become "corporate rock"? Or is that a term you reserve for the particular kind of music you don't like?
And as far as lumping Asia with bands like Loverboy, I'm not even going to bother giving that point any credence. |
| "My mistake. Loverboy was better" | maf
May 11, 2001 3:14 PM | | Now that is FUNNY. And probably true.
Turn me Loose Baby! |
| If any genre of music was ignored, it was prog | KevB
May 11, 2001 4:27 PM | | All this hemming and hawing about lack of radio play for punk and alternative leaves me saying 1) you're vastly overstating the case and 2) who cares?
Other than a few songs like Roundabout by Yes, Lucky Man by ELP or Money and Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd, progressive rock never got much of a fair shake on the radio. Groups like Genesis, Camel Renaissance etc built up huge fan bases and sold a lot of records without a lot of radio 'hits'. Genesis was rarely played on the radio until the early 80's, and it wasn't the prog stuff that was played. Despite a complete lack of radio exposure, prog bands like Spocks Beard, Marillion, Flower Kings have thrived.
I will agree that rock radio became much more formulaic in the 80's and 90's but my remembrances of FM in the 70's was that it was very musically diverse and wide ranging. You were much more likely to hear a nonhit album cut back then then you are now, and the playlist was not limited to one genre of music.
The FM stations that are the most popular now do not play "classic rock" from the 70's. So the "same songs for 25 years" is a little overstated.
And that Loverboy comment really cut deep. |
| Early 70s free-form FM rock radio ignored prog? | KevB
May 12, 2001 12:24 PM | | "My remembrances of FM in the 70's was that it was very diverse and wide-ranging." I think I said that. J, in your desire to nit pick everything I say, you sometimes don't read what I did say. And yes, some prog got some exposure on FM radio back then because FM radio was not regimented to the same songs in the 70's as you have portrayed in past posts. That's exactly why I have argued in the past that the 70's was the most wide open and musically diverse decade, and a far cry from what you hear now on the radio.
But you always seem to want to pin it all on 'classic rock', whereas I would argue that the stuff that was keeping "alternative music" off the radio was stuff like Madonna, Michael Jackson, Micheal Bolton and big hair metal, combined with the fact that, let's face it, a lot of alternative was unmelodic and there simply was not enough interest in that music to be played to the masses.
REM was an underground 'indie' band that was popular on college radio stations, and they broke through because their talent and ability to write melodies enabled enough people to demand that music be played on the radio. Sometimes the law of supply and demand is a reason why some stuff succeeds where others do not.
So while I agree that formula FM radio is responsible for stifling creativity and keeping better stuff off the radio to some extent (and the 3-4 minute format effectively precludes almost all good prog, which is why I said FM ignored prog for the most part), I think your tendency to pin all of this on classic rock radio is overbroad and ignores the other factors I have pointed out. |
| If you are gonna start belching.... | KevB
May 14, 2001 2:13 PM | | I'd say this thing has run its course. J, you wear me out...you win. |
| good point about top 40 | rufus
May 12, 2001 3:49 PM | | i don't listen to it much, but did at work for awhile a couple of years ago. top 40, while predominantly the spice girls and britney, et al at the time, would also throw in cuts by the mighty mighty bosstones and other harder rocking stuff i can't recall at the moment. but the bosstones are perfect for rock radio, but they wouldn't play them, top 40 had to. meanwhile, if i haver to hear clapton's piece of crap "superman inside" one more time..... |
| what was "alternative" the alternative to? | maf
May 11, 2001 2:45 PM | | OK, I'm going to answer your question directly.
Alternative was the alternative to: Madonna, Boy George, Huey Lewis, Bryan Adams, Tina Turner, Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Michael Bolton, Janet Jackson, Boyz II Men, Loverboy, Foreigner, Hall & Oates.
Got it?
Mark |
| Now that wasn't so difficult was it (nt) | KevB
May 11, 2001 3:29 PM | | -- |
| No, but.... | maf
May 12, 2001 9:14 AM | | ...was that really the point of starting this thread? To get someone to recite the playlist of top 40 in 1989? Hell you answered your own question with the last sentence of your original post.
So what was the point? And spare me with this "what was 'alternative' the alternative to"? What was disco the alternative to? What was ska the alternative to? It's a rediculous question. As Masonjar said, what band sets out to NOT sound like someone or something? OK, besides the Sex pistols? I was in a band during those years, after coming up with a new song we never once exclaimed..."Alright! That definitely did NOT sound like Michael Bolton!!! We did it! We are '"ALTERNATIVE'".
Look, I like some artists you don't and you like some I don't. So what? We also happen to both like quite a few of the same artists (Dylan, Springsteen, Steve Earle etc.) Again, so what. But I don't get this pre-occupation of yours with punk/new wave/alternative. The ever peresent probing and inquiring about the attraction of this music to people on this board. Who cares. It's just music man. And if it's not for you, fine. Why not just leave it at that.
So Come on Kev, come clean. What was the real point of your original post?
Mark |
| No hidden agenda, no hidden point | KevB
May 12, 2001 12:38 PM | | Just the idle curiosity of someone interested in music history. had just seen part of a VH1 show on 1992, where they talked about how alternative finally hit the mainstream that year. Also been listening to J's punk/alternative comp so my mind was on it. Certainly not obsessed, and the fact that you think there's more to it is strange.
If you thought it was a stupid discussion I guess you could have sat it out. I never thought it would generate this much interest, nor some of the testy responses by those reading into it far more than is there.
That's the truth, but I suppose that will not be acceptable to those that want to try to mischaracterize or read into things that aren't there. And no, while my query was simple, I did not just want a recitation of the top 40 playlist. I thought it was a topic worthy of discussion, as there have been tv shows, books, and series done on it.
If that was not of interest to some, I guess this board gives you the freedom of not responding or reading. |
| no | rufus
May 12, 2001 3:43 PM | | what is the culprit is the narrow formats and limited playlists of radio in general, whether it be classic rock, alternative, hit radio, country, or whatever. as an example, the only van morrison song my local classic rock station ever plays is "brown eyed girl". now, in a 30+ year career, this is the only song they can find to fit their format?
even with new stuff, all they do is play the single to death and then forget about the artist. even in the alternative format, it's driven by singles, bands are beaten to death and then cast aside, on to the next big thing. no one is allowed to build a long-term career anymore, let alone take risks with their music. |
| beg to differ... | Masonjar
May 10, 2001 6:16 PM | | <b>
The Pixies
The Replacements
Jane's Addiction
New Order
Fugazi
Hoodoo Gurus
The Smiths
The Pogues
</b>
<i>The artists you cited were not dominant or characteristic of the time period. </i>
I seriously beg to differ. The Pixies, Replacements, and Janes Addction (along with Husker Du) alone could be said to be responsible for pretty much igniting the entire alternative movement in the 90's. Without them there would have been no Nirvana to kill off all those lousy hair metal bands.
-Mason |
| By dominant and characteristic I mean | KevB
May 11, 2001 9:28 AM | | popular, in the mainstream, on the radio. I agree alternative grew out of these bands, but alternative was the alternative to what? What was alternative a backlash against? Those bands were not characteristic in the sense I mean because they were not by and large on the radio. |
| Alternative to what? | maf
May 11, 2001 9:55 AM | | As I said below, it was not an alternative to anything, it was somewhat more mainstream music that was influenced by what the band members were listening to in their formative years. And what they were listening to was the '80s "alternative" bands like Husker Du, The Pixies and The Replacements. The more appropriate question is: "What was '80s alternative music an alternative to?" The answer to that question is; Top 40 and classic rock radio.
Mark |
| It helps to read the post | KevB
May 11, 2001 11:22 AM | | J, read the first line of my ORIGINAL post--"what was popular between 1985-1992?"
I don't think I could have stated it more clearly.
And again, the purpose of my post was to elicit opinions on what alternative music as it grew in the late 80's and early 90's was a reaction against.
There is no right or wrong answer.
This is not a test.
However, I would say you diehard defenders of punk and "alternative" are definitely the most 'testy' on this board.
Relax, down a brew, listen to your Husker Du, and quit blaming all of society's ills on classic rock. |
| Only going to say this once | Jim Clark
May 11, 2001 12:50 PM | | and hope it is received as it was intended. Do you feel that you could be contributing to the 'testy' responses you get. I ask this because it has been suggested, more than once, that you take swipes at punk rock and the folks that enjoy it, for no apparent reason.
As a recent example, you started a thread about your experience at a Knopfler show. You said: "Punk fans proably hate this guy- he's technically brillant..." What on earth could Punk Rock have to do with a Mark Knopfler concert? It looks to me like you are suggesting that anybody who likes punk rock couldn't ever appreciate this musician because he actually knows how to play a guitar. If this isn't what was intended, it certainly is what you conveyed. Like I said, it seems to me that you have a tendency to do this, intentional or not. Furthermore, if anyone replies and calls you on it, they are picking a fight with you. Looks the other way around to me which of course is only one opinion and I've been wrong many times before.
Vive Le Rock
Jim Clark |
| It helps to read the post | KevB
May 11, 2001 2:00 PM | | I had to say it twice. |
| Sorry, but.... | Stone
May 11, 2001 6:27 AM | | I take offense to your comment "It just seems like that period of time is relatively formless." I've listed just a few, and others have listed many more, great artists from the time period you mentioned. I've stayed out of these "discussions" you start, because I think you just want a reaction out of people, but this one I couldn't let go.
Here's a quote from Kurt Cobain:
"I was trying to write the ultimate pop song. I was basically trying to rip off the Pixies. I have to admit it [smiles]. When I heard the Pixies for the first time, I connected with that band so heavily I should have been in that band - or at least in a Pixies cover band. We used their sense of dynamics, being soft and quiet and then loud and hard." (Kurt Cobain about how he wrote "Smells Like Teen Spirit", from a Rolling Stone interview by David Fricke, 01-27-94, reported by James R. Butcher)
Maybe that will give you an idea of where "grunge" came from.
I made the punk comment because I could list punk bands who also put out great music in this time period, but like I said before, I'll leave that alone.
I don't think anymore needs to be said by me. Many others have given you numerous examples of great artists in that time period and Mason and J have made some great comments. I rest. :)
Stone |
| This is a music discussion board | KevB
May 11, 2001 9:36 AM | | I posted a query discussing music, which would elicit opinions. You seem to want to pick a fight. You're also taking this stuff far too seriously. By "formless" I meant the period is not defined by any particular genre as, say, the early 90's after 1992 was defined by grunge or alternative being accepted by the mainstream. It's not necessarily a value judgment.
And again, never said there weren't great (subjective) artists in that time period. You are reading into my query far more than what is stated. |
| What you don't seem to get... | maf
May 11, 2001 8:56 AM | | ...is that alternative, as it was called when Nirvana released Nevermind, was not an alternative to anything. It was really just an acceptance by MTV and top 40 of a band or two, Nirvana and Pearl Jam, that were playing the same kind of music that had been played by the bands that have been named all over this thread for well over a decade. Nirvana was nothing new or different - the fact that they sold millions of records, now that was new. Hell, my friends and I were listening to alternative bands, and calling the music we lisetened to "alternative", long before Nirvana came along. Radio programmers finally caught on to the term and started programming towards it after Nevermind.
If you like Nirvana, and I'm not sure that you do, you should try investigating the bands that influenced them, all the way from The Velvets right up to the Pixies, and literally dozens of bands in between that you've probably never heard.
Mark
Mark |
| And what you don't seem to get... | KevB
May 11, 2001 10:01 AM | | is I'm not quite as stupid as you think. I love it when people tell me how dumb I am in not so subtle ways. You, like Stone, seem to think I am trying to engage in some pissing match about the value of punk again or something. You are reading far more into the post than is there.
I know a lot more than you think. I also have a wider variety of music than you think, including some Nirvana, Ramones, Iggy Pop, MC5, Talking Heads etc.
Alternative was called alternative because it was an alternative to what was popular before that (ie pre 1992). So my query was, what was popular (in different people's opinions) during that time? What was alternative a reaction AGAINST? Obviously, if the Pixies influenced Nirvana, alternative was not a reaction against the Pixies, and the Pixies were not popular or on the radio at that time. So again, maybe you read too much into the query, or maybe I didn't clarify enough the question. |
| Didn't mean to imply... | maf
May 11, 2001 10:17 AM | | that you are anything less than intelligent and thoughtful. Sorry if I implied otherwise. But I do think you are hung up on this "alternative" label as if it was coined in 1992 and never heard before. As I said in an earlier post, I was listening to alternative music and hearing the term "alternative" from friends, DJs, record store owners, independent record labels, a decade earlier. Just because record company marketing execs and mainstream radio programmers start using the term doesn't mean we now have to start trying to find the deep meaning in the term. It's too late in 1992 to ask the question; "what is alternative music an alternative to?, because the answer is back in the late '70s early '80s.
Mark |
| You got that right. | Jim Clark
May 11, 2001 10:41 AM | | It seems the whole premise is wrong. Alternative was used, especially around college campuses, to describe music that was different from the mainstream as early as 1982, my first year in college, maybe even earlier. It was indeed an alternative to the Micheal Jackson, Madonna, Debbie Gibson, Milli Vanilli, disco pop schlock as well as classic rock, heavy metal, and probably even country. It was an alternative to everything.
The early nineties saw alternative move closer to the mainstream as more radio stations outside of college towns, changed the programming to capitalize on the trend. Naturally, the music was watered down as is generally the case by the time big companies get a hold of it and offer it to the masses. I suspect that everyone who was around at the time was a little different take on the time line as things reach different parts of the country at different times. Here in the Midwest, for example, I'm sure that 'alternative' music took longer to take hold. To this day, there is no 'alternative' music station around and it's been like that for at least 3 years.
If you want to know what was popular in 1990, all it takes is to go to Billboard music and look up the past charts. I'm sure it's out there somewhere.
Vive Le Rock
Jim Clark |
| The word alternative | KevB
May 11, 2001 10:50 AM | | is the word used, for better or worse, to describe this particular genre of music. I'm not hung up on it, it just is the word that has been coined for this music, just as "psychedelic" is used to sometimes inaccurately describe a whole genre of music in the late 60's.
And in the sense that this music wasn't by and large, played on the radio in large doses until 1992, it thus became an alternative to what was on the playlists before 1992, wouldn't you agree? That's all I mean by the term. |
| No, I wouldn't agree at all. | Jim Clark
May 11, 2001 12:17 PM | | Did you know that Billboard actually charges to get access to the chart information? I didn't, do now. 14.95 per month seems pretty steep to answer your question so I'll just stick by what I said earlier. I was able to get the charts from May 11, 1991 and what was 'popular' then is really frightening. Wilson Phillips, Rick Astley, Madonna, MC Hammer, queensryche, Garth Brooks, Rod Stewart, Whitney Houston, Amy Grant, Mariah Carey...
You're explanation of where you were at the time is very plausible to me. I am in KC, which is probably just as bad, if not worse than St. Louis in terms of catching up to the modern world. But, like I said, we were talking about the label 'alternative' in 1982 in Lawrence, KS. so I wouldn't say that it just came up in the ninties as an alternative to the dance/pop/country/metal/classic stuff. It was there before, it just wasn't popular until then which I guess is why it was called "alternative" as opposed to "mainstream" or "popular". This will really give you a headache: I'd suggest that once it became mainstream it was no longer 'Alternative'. Something like New and Improved Tide detergent really isn't new and improved after a year, it's just plain old Tide.
Vive Le Rock
Jim Clark |
| Jar's thesis on the term "alternative" | Masonjar
May 11, 2001 8:47 PM | | <i>And in the sense that this music wasn't by and large, played on the radio in large doses until 1992, it thus became an alternative to what was on the playlists before 1992, wouldn't you agree? That's all I mean by the term. </i>
Ok in that sense, I guess it would have been stuff like Winger and Skid Row. To be honest, I wasn't paying attention to Top 40 at the time. I think the whole notion of using the word "alternative" is silly. It doesn't describe the actual *music* - it just sort of describes how the music is viewed. Hell, when I started college in 1988, the term "progressive" was being used to describe music like Smiths, New Order, and the Cure! I suppose this was because those bands were more forward-reaching than, say, INXS or The Bangles.
I agree though that you really have to go back to the 70's when Punk and Glam rebelled against Disco and Prog rock. Everything under the "alternative" banner since then as been an evolution of those original seeds (MC5, Stooges, T. Rex, Ramones, VU etc), and not a reaction to anything that was going on in the mid-to-late 80's (though Grunge bands like Soundgarden and Pearl Jam sort of reacted against heavy metal by abandoning the cliches of their hair metal contemporaries while retaining the heavy 70's rock sound). My Bloody Valentine, for example, weren't thinking about trying to be different than Madonna, they were trying to perfect their own thing, which was started long ago by the Velvets and continued by Sonic Youth and the Jesus & Mary Chain.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that I think any term you use to describe music should say something about the intention of the artist. "Alternative" might say a lot about what the Sex Pistols were up to, but it doesn't say squat about what Kurt Cobain was doing.
-Mason |
| Thank you for that! | Jim Clark
May 11, 2001 11:51 PM | | I really thought I was going crazy. Around that time period, around here it started around 84-85, the term progessive was used and it certainly wasn't the prog stuff folks around here talk about. I just figured it was limited to us Kansas hicks who didn't know what we were talking about. I went so far as to replace the term 'progressive' that I was used to using with 'alternative' on my CD spreadsheet. Very glad to learn that it wasn't just us hillbillies. Not to say that I think that Cleveland is a big societal jump (smile! just fooling!)
Vive Le Rock
Jim Clark |
| Thoughts on REM / U2 | Darius
May 10, 2001 3:47 PM | | I don't have time right now to give a good response to this post listing what I saw as the main trends in rock during such period and the major bands. This was a important period for me, as I graduated High School in 1990. I will just mention that I think the biggest actual rock band (at least American rock band) during such period, when you factor in consistency, popularity, critical respect, influence, etc., was REM. Does anyone disagree with me? I'm not saying they were my personal favorite of the period but I think it's telling, for example, that by 1987, Rolling Stone magazine had them on their cover under the title "REM: America's Greatest Rock n Roll Band" (or something like that). Also, I believe that starting with Life's Rich Pageant (1986) each REM album was more popular than the one that came before it.
U2 were also huge (although they suffered a bit of a backlash after the release of Rattle and Hum) but they were less prolific. But of course each of The Joshua Tree, Rattle and Hum and Achtung Baby were mega mega sellers, and generally respected.
There are many many to mention, but I gotta run. My personal favorite band of the period was The Smiths. |
| Thoughts on REM / U2 | KevB
May 10, 2001 4:03 PM | | After I posted I realized I forgot about REM/U2, and I would agree these were the two most important and influential bands to come out of this era. But Actung Baby was 1991 and wasn't Joshua Tree 1985? So Rattle and Hum was the only one between those 2. I didn't see either of those bands live during that period (stupid me) so maybe that's why I overlooked them. |
| my fave bands during the period | Darius
May 10, 2001 4:17 PM | | I guess I have a couple more minutes, here is a quick list of some of my favorite contemporary bands during the period '85-'92 (i.e., not necessarily now, but contemporaneously) (admittedly a somewhat standard list for my demographic):
REM
The Smiths
U2
Metallica
New Order
Public Enemy
The Cure
Husker Du
Sonic Youth
The Replacements
The Pixies |
| late 80's... | maf
May 10, 2001 3:54 PM | | It's funny, but '82-88 were my most active concert years. The music I was into remains some of my favorite stuff - The Smiths/Morrissey, R.E.M., Cure, Banshees, The Feelies, UB40, Magazine, Camper van Beethoven, John Hiatt, Violent Femmes, Husker Du, Los Lobos, Lyle Lovett, XTC, New Order, Screaming Blue Messiahs, Wire, The Pogues, The Sound, The The, Waterboys, The Chameleons, Gang of Four, The Beat/General Public, Big Country, .
Now, of course, non of these could be considered big (maybe REM?). For more mainstream artists who had big albums during late '80s, I seem to remember albums from Paul Simon (Graceland), Lou Reed (New York), Madonna (Like a Prayer), Dire Straits (Brothers in Arms), U2 (Joshua Tree), B-52s (Cosmic Thing) and Tom Petty (Full Moon Fever). And other stuff that was just kind of everywhere: Bryan Adams, Duran Duran, Tina Turner, Eurythmics, Paul Young, Boy George, Prince, Sheena Easton, John Cougar Mellencamp, George Michael, INXS, The Cult... All in all, the usual mixture of top 40 crap and decent, relatively unknown independent bands, most people never heard of.
As for the '90s, I was kinda clueless as I had discovered jazz and was concentrating on getting a decent collection of essential '50s and '60s jazz together.
Mark |
| Graceland | Masonjar
May 10, 2001 6:21 PM | | Almost everyone I knew back then had Graceland, even people who hardly listened to "mainstream" music. It was just a damn fine album!
I still love it to this day. Another sentimental "popular" favorite of the period was Stings "Nothing like the Sun" - I don't even own any of his other albums and don't really care to. Nothing I've heard by him seems to move me the way the songs on NLTS do. I also got some John Cougar but ended up selling them. Just didn't hold my interest. Loved the Cult though. They made AC/DC crunch cool for alterna-hipsters.
-Mason |
| Another album from this era I put with Graceland is | Darius
May 10, 2001 6:28 PM | | Peter Gabriel's So. Another unimpeachable, musically diverse album from an accomplished veteran. Both Graceland and So were huge, both in popular sales and in critics' year-end best-of lists, and both were owned by both younger and older music fans, by both the hip and the un-hip. |
| Sting - NLTS | Quadophile
May 14, 2001 3:20 PM | | You should listen to "Soul Cages" my second best album of Sting after NLTS. Its worth it, you will not regret it. |
| Rediscovered the music important to me now... | puffum
May 10, 2001 4:26 PM | | Same situation for me. I was newly married and w/ a young daughter - not much live music for me '87 - '93. There was quite a bit of music I may have enjoyed at the time, but it didn't seem as lasting to me (bands of the time) - of course with a few exceptions. I started appreciating songwriters though. Picked up a lot of Willie Nelson, Townes van Zandt, Gram Parsons (all I guess had that "country" appeal, but that wasn't it w/ me - it was the writing) and went back to The Faces, Humble Pie, etc... for that gut-wrenching/blues based Rock-n-Roll. Then 1990 - The Black Crowes, I thought I was in heaven. I'm still listening to all of this stuff today, along w/ alot of Austin sound - Alt/country - no depression type music. Thing is, I'm now divorced and there isn't a week to go by that I don't catch SOME live music and my appreciation for it has grown immensly. My musical taste runs the full spectrum, but that stuff I listened to when I couldn't find anything new is still my fav... |
| Where was this thread last night? | DustyChalk
May 10, 2001 5:12 PM | | Last night I was at the ex's, just going through some older stuff, and some of it was triggering thoughts on an 80's comp, but most of it was really 90's stuff. It seems like most of you already covered the stuff I would have covered (I'm not going to mention any names, Dave...), so I wasn't going to put one together unless I could come up with something worthwhile...you know, something different.
But every time I picked out an album, it was 199x. But now, for the life of me, I can't name any of them. The only ones that come to mind are Lush and My Bloody Valentine and Slowdive and Curve and early Catherine Wheel (and yes, some of that is late 80's, but most of it was early 90's).
But in answer to the original question -- Madonna. And I don't mean the genre Madonna, I mean the one, single artist Madonna. Madonna so completely dominating music radio and television that she was de facto entertainer of the decade, come the end of the 80's. No-one else was even close.
But I wasn't listening to that drivel, I was avoiding it...I was discovering Nine Inch Nails and Skinny Puppy, and getting into Metallica, and trying to keep up with all of Al Jourgenson's side projects (Lard, PTP, Acid Horse, 1000 Homo DJ's, etc.), and the whole industrial/E.B.M./Front 242/Frontline Assembly/PIAS/Legendary Pink Dots/Young Gods/etc. fold. I was being drawn to the dark side... |
| Madonna / Prince | Darius
May 10, 2001 5:55 PM | | You are right to mention that Madonna was huge for much of that period (at least the first half to 2/3 of it). As was Prince during the same period. Although 1999 and Purple Rain were behind him, he produced much wildly popular stuff during this period. Even folks who aren't crazy about dance pop must long for the days when pop acts like Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson ruled the charts as compared to certain manufactured teen pop acts of today. |
| Dry spells and the ability for certain women to avoid them | DustyChalk
May 10, 2001 8:19 PM | | Yeah, but Prince had dry spells, whereas Madonna was relentless. Prince has my vote for a clear second (over Michael Jackson, who had even longer dry spells), but...it is second. |
| Smiths, Chameleons, Wild Swans and | unleasHell
May 10, 2001 5:27 PM | | that's when I got back more heavily into progressive. |
| and Peter Murphy!!!!! | unleasHell
May 10, 2001 6:21 PM | | I put it in the wrong place above! |
| Husker Du, REM, Joy Divison, Clash, NIN, Janes Addiction, Sinead | Masonjar
May 10, 2001 6:11 PM | | In 1985, I was still in the midsts of my Heavy Metal Haze. Iron Maiden, Priest, Ozzy, Sabbath and the Scorpions were the biggies. Then I discovered Thrash by listening to a college station. Metallica, Slayer, Venom, Exodus soon followed.
Then I went record shopping with my cousin who turned me onto punk. My first punk records were Black Flag's MY WAR and DK's FRESH FRUIT... From there it kind of snowballed. REM, Husker Du, Replacements, Sonic Youth.
Then came college and my college dj career in 1988. There pretty much discovered everything else that I had missed up to that point. Joy Division (whoose albums where just becoming available again), Clash, Smiths, Siouxsie, Pixies, Jesus & Mary Chain, NIN, Ministry and all the industrial bands that everyone was playing on the college station.
Then came the "Manchester" fad in 1990 (Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, 808 State, Shamen, Charlatans UK) followed closely by the Shoegazer movement (My Bloody Valentine, Slowdive, Galaxie 500) which happend concurrently with the whole AmRep/Touch & Go scene (Jesus Lizard, Big Black/Shellac, Melvins, Helmet, Unsane, Slint, etc etc). I was playing all kinds of new and fun music on my college radio shows, there was so much going on... and it was a great time to be a music fan!!
-Mason |
| Violent Femmes... | maf
May 11, 2001 8:24 AM | | It was probably my most listened to and favorite album of the '80s too, and though you're right that they never matched it, there are moments on Hallowed Ground and The Blind Leading the Naked that are truly inspired as well. Just plugged HG into the changer as I type - Never Tell is an awesome song. I was lucky enough to see them after HG was released and it remains one of my top five shows ever. Brian Ritchie is an incredible bass player, the first and only time I've seen a bass player break not one but two strings on the same song - the afore mentioned Never Tell.
One of the most striking things that Kev wrote in his original post for me, was his mentioning that he had no significant concert memories from those years. These were the years that my best and most important concert memories are from. I guess the main reason for that is I was now old enough to not have to see Arena shows and could see lesser known bands in liscensed clubs. The bands I saw in those days almost always put on inspired shows. ie: Pogues, Cramps, Femmes, Banshees, Cure, Bunnymen, Clash, Gang of Four, Wire, Wire Train, Lou Reed, Vibrators, REM/Feelies, Yellowman, UB40, Big Country, Screaming Blue Messiahs. Priceless memories. I guess my question to Kev would be; if you were in College/University during this time, what were you listening too? A lot of the bands that have been mentioned in mine and other posts were ubiquitous at the University I attended.
Mark
NP. Jesus Walking on the Water - From Hallowed Ground |
| Here's your answer | KevB
May 11, 2001 10:42 AM | | There are several factors that explain why my live concert going was so limited in those years, and why I was not exposed at that time to "underground" or 'alternative' music.
I had already graduated from college, was in my late 20's, and was starting my career, thus was not exposed to college radio of the late 80's.
I lived in the heart of the midwest, where quite frankly we were not exposed to the club scene and bands that may have toured more extensively on the east and west coasts. On top of that, St Louis and surrounding area is notoriously slow to be "trendy" or cutting edge, and has always been known as a hard rock/classic rock town (ie, Sammy Hagar is a virtual god here).
I was between the transition from lp to cd in the late 1980's--I don't think I bought my first cd player until 1988 or 89. I had already scaled back lp purchases knowing that cds were coming, and so there was a period there where I just did not buy a whole lot of new music.
finally, there is the wife factor. Got married in 1987, which cuts down on the party life, so I can blame some of this on the wife! |
| Violent Femmes... | Jack-O
May 11, 2001 12:56 PM | | It's funny, your list of bands are really similiar to the bands I liked and saw during that period. I was a fan of the Violent Femmes and when they came through New York headlining a bill with the Reverend Horton Heat and the Pogues I was really excited. The Reverend Horton Heat kicked off things and got the fans really going - then the Pogues came on and really blew everyone away - it was one of the rare Pogues shows I saw where Shane was not totally bombed. The Femmes came on and the place was rocking - The Femmes then proceeded to give one of the worst shows I had ever seen. They literally sat on three folding chairs and played an uninspired set. The audience started screaming for the Pogues and soon they started rioting - seats were destroyed and fires where started. I got real ugly real quickly. Who knows, maybe the Femmes were pissed off about something?
Jack-o |
| That bill was a mistake... | maf
May 11, 2001 2:56 PM | | When I saw VF they were the only band on the bill and played for a good 2-1/2 hrs. Their show built from a very quiet, laid back opening and really only got going after 1/2 hour or so. But once it got going... I think it was a big mistake to put two high energy acts on before them and expect the crowd to be receptive to a low key opening to The Femmes set. I probably would have grown impatient too after The Pogues got my adrenaline going.
Incidentally, when I saw The Pogues, they were on a bill with New Order. The Pogues were on that night, and though the crowd was perfectly happy with New Order's lower key set (I think they were mostly there to see New Order), I left after 45 minutes, bored stiff.
The Moral - Never let The Pogues open for your band.
Mark |
| Marillion, Dire Straits, Rush, Saga, Talk Talk, and IQ | HV
May 13, 2001 2:53 AM | | These are still among my favs. |
| |
