Once the Inevitable 90s Revival occurs which genre will be the most influetial or popular?

Shoegaze fetishism has been key in certain pockets of electronic & indie music for most if not all of the 00s, which is totally fine by me, but any "revival" there would probably just mean more of the same.

If there is anything specifically I'd like to see revisited, it is the dancier, more house-centered end of madchester/baggy, but still w/ guitars & vox (like the Mondays or early Inspiral Carpets). Maybe someone is already doing this?

Am I the only one who feels that there was an emphatic musical changeover around the start of the decade? I remember my 19-year-old self around late 2001 noticing that there'd been boybands, Ibiza anthems, nu metal, Moby still being taken seriously, feckin Starsailor, and then suddenly, BANG! we had garage rock, electroclash, dance-punk, post-punk, emo. This is completely subjective, obviously.

Boy/girl bands more or less disappearing was probably the one most significant change around the turn of the decade. It didn't really happen until around 2001 though. (And Westlife are still around)

I envision more boyz II men style r&b elements in mainstream hiphop with added stripper references

Dubstep from the start has also been arguably a revival of certain 90s values - see Dissenus, the 'nuum (sigh) etc.

Sorry, but I don't quite get this sentence, could you maybe explain it a bit more. What are "Dissenus" and "the 'nuum" and how do they relate to 90s values?

http://www.dissensus.com/

Big on dubstep.

the 'nuum refers to the ardkore continuum, a music crit trope invented by simon reynolds (i think) to dexcribe the evolution of roots'n'future dance music, starting with early rave, through jungle, through d'n'b, garage, two-step, grime, dubstep etc...

I'm hopeful that early 90s trainers will see a revival, because my pair of nikes are nearing the end of their lives (they got openly laughed at by some urchins by St Paul's one night back in 2000 - the joke'll be on-u, scumbags)

Is there anything worth reading on this massive thread or is it full of terrible parroting of received wisdom about Britpop, grunge and rave?

i don't know, how about reading and contributing?

It's really long! I want to know if it's worth it.

seems like you've made up your mind already, so read it and scoff or don't bother.

Is that pronounced new-um? num? NOOM?

ñoom

Crusty is maybe the early 90s genre that seems to me most beyond the pale of taste (in varieties running from Spiral Tribe through Levellers to Senser). So much so that I immediately dismiss it as unrevivable (plus it was never that big, plus they're mostly still around). But maybe something like that will come out if politics radicalise a bit? I hope not. I don't really want to live in a world in which it turns out Back To The Planet and Ozric Tentacles were the great neglected bands of the 90s.

will politics affect UK music in the '10s? seems that casual radicalism died when blair got in. if cameron and the tories come back, will we see a return to the crustie scenes? or are they dead and gone forever?

Dunno the answers to that really (I'm not an informed political thinker) - it sprung from reading John Lanchester's argument that ideology & radicalism are going to come back hard when the public sector cuts/freezes start to kick in over the next few years - he suggests that'll move us away from the managerial years of politics.

will politics affect UK music in the '10s? seems that casual radicalism died when blair got in. if cameron and the tories come back, will we see a return to the crustie scenes

I'm honestly not deliberately jumping on you here, but one of the problems I have with your Carmody-style grand unifying theory type posts is that the connections you make between events seem so flimsy. What is casual radicalism?

Are you connecting the rise of New Labour with the decline in the "crustie scene"? I'm not sure they had anything to do with one another. Why would it suddenly become back because we have a Tory government? What is it that would create those conditions that the massive public opposition to the Iraq and Afghan wards failed to do?

Gotta say that is the genre of pop commentary I hate most - every Popular thread for aeons has been stunk up by received wisdom on how Thatcher caused X

it's something i've been kinda concerned over for a few years and have piped up about on ilx a couple of times. subversion and radicalism in pop and youth culture have been quashed since the mid-90s when tony blair invited tate artists and britpoppers to his house for drinks. there's very little rebellion in music any more. protesting doesn't work. it's no longer deemed cool to want to smash the system and the only people getting up on soapboxes are daily mail readers/lunatics (sic). affluence is the prescription of youth. dance culture has moved from the warehouse to the nightclub; indie rockers sign to Sony and go out on the razz with IT girls; hip hop thugs have been promoted to billionaire businessmen; accountants now wear mohawks; punk rock has been absorbed, taken to pieces, sanitised, then sold back to us by marketers and admen etc.

So whither the crusties and anarchists, the mohawks and ravers, the goths and the nihilists and the grungers and the swampies and their dogs on hair-string leads? or did they die out in the 2000s in the same way the hippies died out in the 70s, to grow up and become yuppies?

Other than maybe a few exceptions, I'm struggling to think of much music before 1997 that didn't at least have pretensions towards a subculture. But after that, you'd have a hard time inviting the Levellers or the Ozrics or any of that lot in from the cold.

for "IT girls" read "'It' girls" haha!

"So whither the crusties and anarchists, the mohawks and ravers, the goths and the nihilists and the grungers and the swampies and their dogs on hair-string leads?"

i still see these people.

Damn, you still getting flashbacks?

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg96/a0n0t/1243594993_cupcakedog-war-flashback.gif

no, there were crusties with a dog hanging out on the street just the other day. passing through town.

and mohawks and goths and all the rest never really go away. and icp people. i see icp people.

Dog Latin, in all honesty I think you're over-romanticising a so-called rebellious past you weren't there to experience.

matt and ishmael, i realise this is all theorising over factors that may or may not exist. i'm not saying this is fact, just a debating point. There are obviously a lot of factors to consider when looking at how music and pop culture have evolved. But I really don't believe that they exist in a vacuum. Music, as with all artforms, is a filter and a mirror of everything that goes on around it. And yes, politics will have an effect, the economy will have an effect, technology affects it, media attitudes etc... all these can be classed as direct or indirect influences on people's muses.

this is why it dumbfounds me, when so many opposed the Bush/Blair agenda - that in the 2000s we barely heard a peep of musical commentary, short of "George Bush Is An Islamic Fundamentalist" by The Rub. It makes me wonder whether if it had happended in the 90s there would have been more of an outcry among music makers. If not, then you're right and I'm definitely barking up the wrong tree.

i love all the little scenes where i live. there is a great underground thrash show coming up down the street. there is hardcore contra dancing at the grange hall. and i'm having a noise matinee at my store next sunday.

dog latin, i wrote a controversial crust punk anthem about the lack of protest in music during the 2000's. it bugged me too.

It makes me wonder whether if it had happended in the 90s there would have been more of an outcry among music makers.

90s stalwarts like 3D, Albarn and Yorke (and perhaps less visibly, FunDaMental) were probably the most vocal against all that. there were actually a whole bunch of records protesting the war (minor hits from bands like Travis, er...some hip-hop both from US and UK...). it does seem that there was less "angry-sounding" music making a commercial impact in the 00s compared to the 90s tho, like it became seen as unfashionable as much as unprofitable.

Dog Latin, in all honesty I think you're over-romanticising a so-called rebellious past you weren't there to experience.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 12:51 (32 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I've been a music fan since January 1990 and was friends with squatters, ravers and activists etc throughout the decade. So please don't tell me where I was and where I wasn't.

Anyway, I'm simply saying, and this is undeniable, that agitpop had a much bigger presence in the Tory years than any time after. Give me examples of bands in the 2000s who would equate to and have the same appeal as FUN>DA>MENTAL, RATM, Senser, Blaggers ITA, The Levellers, the "Fuck Leah Betts" campaign, Skunk Anansie, even the Happy Mondays had streaks of it with their socially irresponsible pro-drugs rap.

I've been a music fan since January 1990 and was friends with squatters, ravers and activists etc throughout the decade. So please don't tell me where I was and where I wasn't.

are we going to get an ex crustie losing my edge pls

Just a function of music meaning less at that time I think. If you'd had a surplus of young people at the time we might've got 1968 protest songs again, as it is we got a surplus of Guardian opinion pieces.

"I was there at Megadog when Eat Static played a 48 hour set - they said I'd never make it through the whole thing - they were wrong"

I threw lager across the Cambridge Corn Exchange at Senser's first show in 1993...

are we going to get an ex crustie losing my edge pls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQcoej6lJg

FUN>DA>MENTAL, RATM, Senser, Blaggers ITA, The Levellers, the "Fuck Leah Betts" campaign, Skunk Anansie

I think part of the issue might have been that most of these bands were fucking terrible and made overt sloganeering cringeworthingly unfashionable. Comparing most of this stuff to 60s protest songs is a bit of an insult to the 60s dudes.

if they were terrible, why was this acceptable in the 90s and what changed that (both for the audience/market and for the artists themselves from a motivational pov)?

Are we doing a Calvin Harris for these bands now?

Senser >>>>> Calvin Harris

If by "acceptable" you mean "briefly fashionable for about a year in the 90s when the music press didn't have much else to latch onto". I'm not sure any of them, Rage aside, comes close to the impact of a Hail To The Thief, or Dizzee at his most political, or The Recession, or "George Bush doesn't care about black people", or even something like London Zoo.

i'm inclined to agree, but whether they did or not, they existed and they were covered and people listened to them. and yeah, these bands definitely played a part in making protest/political commentary in music deeply unfashionable (then again, isn't that what this thread's about?). most of them were fucking rubbish, especially in retrospect. but what's wrong with a bit of mindless rebellion now and again? is it time for this to make a comeback, or is it gone forever? we still get "angry" sounding music - hardcore and emo bands and that, but the anger is channeled through internal angst. I'd rather hear an angry band who at least pretended to make a statement about the world around them rather than the eternal navelgazing of most 2000s hard rock I've heard.

sorry, that was xpost to matt dc.

i mean acceptable largely as in actually hitting the charts (with The Levellers likely outselling RATM here at the time), that being a reasonable indication of popularity and cultural impact then. i'm not sure how you're measuring the equivalent effects of Dizzee (who its fair to say ppl aren't into for the 'politics'), net-based viral songs/memes and critical darlings like The Bug who clearly sold fuck all.

but what's wrong with a bit of mindless rebellion now and again?

why would it (have to) be mindless?

I'm not sure any of them, Rage aside, comes close to the impact of a Hail To The Thief, or Dizzee at his most political, or The Recession, or "George Bush doesn't care about black people", or even something like London Zoo.

These are good examples. Then again, aren't they slightly abstract? These are singular commentaries on current affairs, not a call to arms or what have you. The crustie movement wasn't supposed to be fashionable - so accusing the bands of being unfashionable is missing the point. Laugh at the crusties all you will (it's easy now) but at the time it was a definitive movement that bothered tabloid readers and people in positions of power. The 00s never really saw a subculture trying to go against the flow. And I think this is kind of an important thing in rock/pop - maybe this is considered a cliche in the 21st century, but I believe it's important for young artists to challenge the status quo, be it according to politics, fashion (e.g. Nirvana's dress style going against preconceptions of what a rock band should wear etc), or pretty much any factor. If there has been a rebel-factor in 00's music, it's involved a subtle integration rather than full-frontal counter-culture. I wonder if people are ready to be slapped int he face by subversion once more.

Hate to say it, but Pete Doherty ticks a few of your boxes

These are good examples. Then again, aren't they slightly abstract? These are singular commentaries on current affairs, not a call to arms or what have you.

god forbid political music have some nuance to it

The 00s never really saw a subculture trying to go against the flow.

I'm wondering what counts for you as a subculture? What criteria have to be met? Maybe this is just because I tend to get very overwhelmed by the way the idea of "culture" can be applied on so many different scales (anything from national cultures to the culture of a small business). Would a culture that only exists virtually count as a sub-culture, for instance?

Also, I'm not sure if it's meant to be understood that you mean a new subculture? Do you really think there were no subcultures around at all in the last decade?