OutKast, Eminem, White Stripes?  None really changed the face of music singlehandedly or nearly so.

We have some kickass bands, but they aren't famous. And they aren't changing the face of music. This might just be a decade where music isn't really revolutionized.

Plus, the decade is young, give it time, my son.

OutKast, Eminem, White Stripes?  None really changed the face of music singlehandedly or nearly so.


Well first of all, I don't think Nirvana compares to Elvis and the Beatles. Nirvana will be remembered, but not like Elvis and the Beatles. I also think we don't really know what defines this decade yet, since it isn't over yet. Only time will tell, like Apricot said there is good music out there, don't judge the whole decade by the top 40, the top 40 is usually weak anyway.

We have some kickass bands, but they aren't famous. And they aren't changing the face of music. This might just be a decade where music isn't really revolutionized.

Plus, the decade is young, give it time, my son.


It was young a couple years ago, but it's 2005, it's more than halfway over.  Today is different enough from the 90s, we just sound like every other decade.  No band really defines this decade the way they do with the 50s to 90s.

It was young a couple years ago, but it's 2005, it's more than halfway over.  Today is different enough from the 90s, we just sound like every other decade.  No band really defines this decade the way they do with the 50s to 90s.


It's still young really though, it will be until like 2008 or so.

Well first of all, I don't think Nirvana compares to Elvis and the Beatles. Nirvana will be remembered, but not like Elvis and the Beatles. I also think we don't really know what defines this decade yet, since it isn't over yet. Only time will tell, like Apricot said there is good music out there, don't judge the whole decade by the top 40, the top 40 is usually weak anyway.


I don't think Nirvana are as revolutionary as them, but come on who can be?  Elvis and the Beatles pretty much started modern music, I just hate it when people treat them as unbeatable.  Come on, how great is "Hound Dog", really?  Maybe it's the best song of the 50s but what was there?  Elvis is good though.  8)

Today might be the best time for music, not for popular music but just because you can access so much music today, even a lot more than you could in the 1990s.

It's still young really though, it will be until like 2008 or so.


I do picture the late 00s as being more eventful than the early and mid 00s combined which is saying a lot.  ;)

I do picture the late 00s as being more eventful than the early and mid 00s combined which is saying a lot.  ;)


Well Bush will be exiting the White House, thank God,  ;)

Well Bush will be exiting the White House, thank God,  ;)


Hopefully we won't get some other Conservative d*ckhead  ;)

Hopefully we won't get some other Conservative d*ckhead  ;)


I hope we don't.

I hope we don't.


We will if we get another John Kerry  ::)

We will if we get another John Kerry  ::)


I know, hopefully the democrats will make a better nomination choice next time around.

I don't think Nirvana is the best "icon" of the 90's.  I think that PRIOR to Nirvana, there was "modern rock"  (They Might Be Giants, Dead Milkmen, etc) and there was "rock" (Metallica, Scorpions, etc.)

After Nirvana, the "modern rock" and "rock" sort of melded together into grunge.  Neither the "mods" or the "rockers" really liked the grunge, and that is why many of the fans switched to hip-hop or country.  Many former rock fans became country fans, and Garth Brooks appealed to them with his "country that wasn't really country"  Every concert he did sold out in less than 15 minutes.

I don't think Garth is any comparison to Elvis or the Beatles, and I'm not a big country fan myself, but I think Garth Brooks would fit the title of 90s icon more than Nirvana.  I believe Nirvana and Pearl Jam chased alot of rock & modern rock fans away.

I don't think Nirvana is the best "icon" of the 90's.   I think that PRIOR to Nirvana, there was "modern rock"  (They Might Be Giants, Dead Milkmen, etc) and there was "rock" (Metallica, Scorpions, etc.)

After Nirvana, the "modern rock" and "rock" sort of melded together into grunge.  Neither the "mods" or the "rockers" really liked the grunge, and that is why many of the fans switched to hip-hop or country.  Many former rock fans became country fans, and Garth Brooks appealed to them with his "country that wasn't really country"  Every concert he did sold out in less than 15 minutes.

I don't think Garth is any comparison to Elvis or the Beatles, and I'm not a big country fan myself, but I think Garth Brooks would fit the title of 90s icon more than Nirvana.   I believe Nirvana and Pearl Jam chased alot of rock & modern rock fans away.


You have a point.  Country was very big in the 90s.  Did it explode around 1992 with Grunge?

You have a point.  Country was very big in the 90s.  Did it explode around 1992 with Grunge?


This is how I look at it:

Early '90s- Old school rap/ grunge rock, Mid '90s- R&B/ Pop, Late '90s- Pop/ Country/ R&B

Early '00s- Pop/ Country/ Hip-hop, 'Mid 00s- Hip-hop/ R&B

So I see country being big more in the mid-late '90s than the early '90s.

This is how I look at it:

Early '90s- Old school rap/ grunge rock, Mid '90s- R&B/ Pop, Late '90s- Pop/ Country/ R&B

Early '00s- Pop/ Country/ Hip-hop, 'Mid 00s- Hip-hop/ R&B

So I see country being big more in the mid-late '90s than the early '90s.


To be more precise, which is probably a silly idea, here's how I see it:

1990-1991: Pop, Old School Rap, Alternative Rock, Heavy/Pop Metal, Dance
1992-1994: Grunge, Gangsta Rap, Country, New Jack Swing, East Coast Old School, Dance
1995-1996: R&B, West-East Coast Rap Feud, Post-Grunge, Country, Dark Pop (Fiona Apple sorta stuff)
1997-2000: Boy Band Pop, R&B, Numetal, Diva-Revival Pop (Britney-type stuff), Country
2001-2004: Mainstream Rap, Numetal, Nuwave, R&B, Dance, Pop-Punk

At the moment the UK Charts are being dominated with Elvis Presley.

I don't think Nirvana is the best "icon" of the 90's.   I think that PRIOR to Nirvana, there was "modern rock"  (They Might Be Giants, Dead Milkmen, etc) and there was "rock" (Metallica, Scorpions, etc.)

After Nirvana, the "modern rock" and "rock" sort of melded together into grunge.  Neither the "mods" or the "rockers" really liked the grunge, and that is why many of the fans switched to hip-hop or country.  Many former rock fans became country fans, and Garth Brooks appealed to them with his "country that wasn't really country"  Every concert he did sold out in less than 15 minutes.

I don't think Garth is any comparison to Elvis or the Beatles, and I'm not a big country fan myself, but I think Garth Brooks would fit the title of 90s icon more than Nirvana.   I believe Nirvana and Pearl Jam chased alot of rock & modern rock fans away.


nirvana was a huge influence on 90s pop culture. the 80s are seen a glossy and superficial, style over substance. songs during that era dealt little with teen angst, the music was about good times because reagan's america was about capitalism and living the good life. nirvana sung to the dissatisfied white surban kids who grew up in the 80s. they saw the hypocracy of their parents who grew from hippies and became yuppies. the teens values were different from their parents and nirvana touched on this. grunge saw an end to the good times of the 80s and showed what life is really like for angry gen-xers.

nirvana's angst filled lyrics is still being heard today through metal and pop punk/emo bands, their music's lyrics filled with anger, loss and unhappiness.

OutKast, Eminem, White Stripes?  None really changed the face of music singlehandedly or nearly so.


Crap!

Outkast was in the nineties. They are not a new group, except to the Mainstream (suburbs).

Tanya

nirvana was a huge influence on 90s pop culture. the 80s are seen a glossy and superficial, style over substance. songs during that era dealt little with teen angst, the music was about good times because reagan's america was about capitalism and living the good life. nirvana sung to the dissatisfied white surban kids who grew up in the 80s. they saw the hypocracy of their parents who grew from hippies and became yuppies. the teens values were different from their parents and nirvana touched on this. grunge saw an end to the good times of the 80s and showed what life is really like for angry gen-xers.

nirvana's angst filled lyrics is still being heard today through metal and pop punk/emo bands, their music's lyrics filled with anger, loss and unhappiness.


I agree with you that Nirvana was a big influence on the 90's... it chased away rock & modern rock as we knew it.  Maybe that was a positive change for some, but for me it was a big negative.

I don't agree that 80's was strictly "happy times" music though.  It may seem that way if you think of the "bubble-gum" stuff like "She-Bop" and "Look Out Weekend" and "Out of the Blue"

But there was more.  Here are some prime examples of "unhappy" music

Hideaway by Erasure (this one isnt too well-known but its about being afraid to come out of the closet)
Papa Don't Preach by Madonna
Oh Father by Madonna
Forever Young by Alphaville
Happy Birthday by Concrete Blonde
Signs by Tesla
When The Children Cry by White Lion
No One Is To Blame by Howard Jones
Land of Confusion by Genesis

This list does not include songs about heartache over lost loves, etc.  Just the ones about life in general and specific issues.

Nothing.  :P

Give it time... The revolutionary may not emerge until 2009, for all we know!

At the moment the UK Charts are being dominated with Elvis Presley.
???Could the Everly Brothers be far behind?Cheers1

Give it a few years. Its only 2005.

If 50s had Elvis, 60s Beatles, 90s Nirvana... What did the 70s and 80s have?

Crap!

Outkast was in the nineties. They are not a new group, except to the Mainstream (suburbs).

Tanya


That is true, but they're definitely more a 2000s band.  Outkast really could of been popular anytime after 1987 imo though.
Give it a few years. Its only 2005.

If 50s had Elvis, 60s Beatles, 90s Nirvana... What did the 70s and 80s have?


70s Queen, 80s Devo.  8)

I agree with you that Nirvana was a big influence on the 90's... it chased away rock & modern rock as we knew it.  Maybe that was a positive change for some, but for me it was a big negative.

I don't agree that 80's was strictly "happy times" music though.  It may seem that way if you think of the "bubble-gum" stuff like "She-Bop" and "Look Out Weekend" and "Out of the Blue"

But there was more.  Here are some prime examples of "unhappy" music

Hideaway by Erasure (this one isnt too well-known but its about being afraid to come out of the closet)
Papa Don't Preach by Madonna
Oh Father by Madonna
Forever Young by Alphaville
Happy Birthday by Concrete Blonde
Signs by Tesla
When The Children Cry by White Lion
No One Is To Blame by Howard Jones
Land of Confusion by Genesis

This list does not include songs about heartache over lost loves, etc.  Just the ones about life in general and specific issues.


i listen to goth music, specifically 80s goth. i know unhappy music. but some of the songs you listed and the whole goth genre was lost on the general public. my description of the 80s was a blanket assessment on what the attitude of the 80s were like to the masses.

WTF is so good about Elvis and The Beatles? true, they were famous, but music wise... they weren't anything to call your mother about.

This is who I would put as the most dominant artist/band for each decade since the 50's.

Fifties: Elvis Presley
Sixties: The Beatles
Seventees: Queen
Eighties: Michael Jackson
Nineties: Nirvana
2000's: ?

WTF is so good about Elvis and The Beatles? true, they were famous, but music wise... they weren't anything to call your mother about.

This is who I would put as the most dominant artist/band for each decade since the 50's.

Fifties: Elvis Presley
Sixties: The Beatles
Seventees: Queen
Eighties: Michael Jackson
Nineties: Nirvana
2000's: ?



Wow..prepare to get torn apart.

Please note that the Bee Gees were dominant in the 60s upto the 00s

Sugababes
McFly
The Rasmus
Gareth gates
Will Young
Gwen Stefani's solo career (And a few songs with No Doubt)
Girls Aloud
Busted (2002 - 2005)

Wow..prepare to get torn apart.


No, we won't go there, kid obviously has a lot to learn

yes, his religious devotion to a doomed pop star has clouded his judgement. we'll leave him be...

I know that some people will disagree with this, but bands like P.O.D. and Switchfoot are cool as far as today's music goes....

Crap?

This is who I would put as the most dominant artist/band for each decade since the 50's.

Fifties: Elvis Presley
Sixties: The Beatles
Seventees: Queen
Eighties: Michael Jackson
Nineties: Nirvana
2000's: ?


Queen weren't the most dominant artist of the 70s; not even close. The biggest band of the 1970s was Led Zeppelin. Nirvana didn't quite dominate the 90s as much as people make out. The biggest band of the 90s was Metallica.

50s - Elvis
60's - Beatles.

I agree with these. I would also have to add:
70s - Led Zeppelin
80's - U2. (I also think Metallica, Megadeth, and Guns N' Roses were right up there as well.)

As far as the 90's go, Nirvana may have been the band that sparked the alternative revolution, but I think Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains were far more influential (for better or for worse). Pearl Jam, unfortunately (and this isn't their fault), influenced many singers to copy Eddie Vedder's droning style of singing (like Scott Stapp from Creed or the guy from Seven Mary Three, for example), and badly, I might add.  
    Alice in Chains (one of my favorite bands from the 90s, and whom I personally think were superior to Nirvana), slowed hard rock down to a snail's pace. They were one of the very few hard rock bands who could pull this off and still make it cool and energetic. It seems like most of today's "hard rock" bands I hear also play in this slow and deliberate manner, but their music lacks the energy and raw power that made Alice in Chains so great, and these new bands come off as being lame and weak.
    As far as the 2000's go, call me a pessimist, but because of the state of the music industry today (or, more specifically, their preference for manufactured pop stars and disposable "rock" bands), and the stranglehold Clear Channel has on the airwaves, I have my doubts that we'll see any musical acts come around anytime soon that have that rare combination of innovation, talent, and mass appeal that made the aforementioned bands so great and influential. There are a lot of great bands out there, but I don't think they'll ever get the airplay and major label support necessary to capture the public's imagination the way Nirvana last did in 1991. I sincerely hope some kickass band surfaces soon and proves me wrong.

oki dok ppl

let see in my book...50's yes had Elvis...60's Beatles...70's Bee Gee's * Donna summer & Barbra striesand...80's...well this ones hard...i wouls say duran duran, madonna, & Michael Jackson...90's puff daddy,biggie, & tupac with Nsync and backstreet boys...00's so far...50 cent and eminem..but hip-hop and rap will fall around the '09...then i think it will be the 80's again..but way difrrent...

50s - Elvis
60's - Beatles.

I agree with these. I would also have to add:
70s - Led Zeppelin
80's - U2. (I also think Metallica, Megadeth, and Guns N' Roses were right up there as well.)

As far as the 90's go, Nirvana may have been the band that sparked the alternative revolution, but I think Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains were far more influential (for better or for worse). Pearl Jam, unfortunately (and this isn't their fault), influenced many singers to copy Eddie Vedder's droning style of singing (like Scott Stapp from Creed or the guy from Seven Mary Three, for example), and badly, I might add.  
    Alice in Chains (one of my favorite bands from the 90s, and whom I personally think were superior to Nirvana), slowed hard rock down to a snail's pace. They were one of the very few hard rock bands who could pull this off and still make it cool and energetic. It seems like most of today's "hard rock" bands I hear also play in this slow and deliberate manner, but their music lacks the energy and raw power that made Alice in Chains so great, and these new bands come off as being lame and weak.
    As far as the 2000's go, call me a pessimist, but because of the state of the music industry today (or, more specifically, their preference for manufactured pop stars and disposable "rock" bands), and the stranglehold Clear Channel has on the airwaves, I have my doubts that we'll see any musical acts come around anytime soon that have that rare combination of innovation, talent, and mass appeal that made the aforementioned bands so great and influential. There are a lot of great bands out there, but I don't think they'll ever get the airplay and major label support necessary to capture the public's imagination the way Nirvana last did in 1991. I sincerely hope some kickass band surfaces soon and proves me wrong.



Great post :) 

I don't think AIC are better than Nirvana but I haven't heard much AIC material.  How big was their 1990 "Facelift"?  I've heard it sold a million copies but it wasn't really much of a phoenomen with the general public.  Nirvana aren't the sole movers of Grunge but when "Teen Spirit" came out in late 1991 80s music grinded to a halt, esp the more mainstream 80s. AIC to my understanding didn't do that in 90 and Pearl Jam and Soundgarden only got big after "Teen Spirit". 

U2 are very influential, although, I can see the flames coming, all their songs sound the same, at least their hits. "Vertigo", while a good song, doesn't sound much different from what they were doing in 1991 or even 1981.

Great post :)
Thanks!

I don't think AIC are better than Nirvana but I haven't heard much AIC material.  How big was their 1990 "Facelift"?  I've heard it sold a million copies but it wasn't really much of a phoenomen with the general public.

I remember when "Facelift" came out, but since I was in Germany at the time I never knew how many copies it actually sold or how much impact it really had over in the states.  I actually thought "Facelift" sounded a lot like a slight evolution of 80's metal. Their next album, "Dirt" (1992), was much better and more influental in my opinion. "Dirt" is one of my favorite albums of the 90's.

Maybe a good indicator would be to ask your grandmother if she has heard of any 2000's artists.  If your grandmother has heard of it, it must be pretty big.

WTF is so good about Elvis and The Beatles? true, they were famous, but music wise... they weren't anything to call your mother about.

This is who I would put as the most dominant artist/band for each decade since the 50's.

Fifties: Elvis Presley
Sixties: The Beatles
Seventees: Queen
Eighties: Michael Jackson
Nineties: Nirvana
2000's: ?




Robbo,have you ever listened to Sargeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band....Rubber Soul....Revolver......Magical Mystery Tour....or Abbey Road?....those Beatles albums ARE something to talk about,even NOW...from both an artistic and technical viewpoint..

I know that some people will disagree with this, but bands like P.O.D. and Switchfoot are cool as far as today's music goes....


I like P.O.D.  8)

I totally disagree that grunge music defines the '90s, that's a crock of bull. Just look at the charts, r&b and pop dominated thoughout the '90s especially in the mid '90s. Grunge was big for a few years like 1992-94 or 95, but it still wasn't as big as pop and r&b. TLC and en vogue define the '90s more than grunge.

I totally disagree that grunge music defines the '90s, that's a crock of bull. Just look at the charts, r&b and pop dominated thoughout the '90s especially in the mid '90s. Grunge was big for a few years like 1992-94 or 95, but it still wasn't as big as pop and r&b. TLC and en vogue define the '90s more than grunge.


You have a good point.  Grunge is more anti-80s than 90s.  In a sense it is a product of the 1980s, someone here even said it spoke out to the 1980s youth that were the children of Yuppies.  R&B was the real 90s.  By 1997 music became more like today but 99 is when it became modern.

I totally disagree that grunge music defines the '90s, that's a crock of bull. Just look at the charts, r&b and pop dominated thoughout the '90s especially in the mid '90s. Grunge was big for a few years like 1992-94 or 95, but it still wasn't as big as pop and r&b. TLC and en vogue define the '90s more than grunge.


no doubt. grunge was deep and depressing while pop/hip hop and R&B is shallow and materialistic, which appeals to common masses and therefore reaches a wider audiance.

You have a good point.  Grunge is more anti-80s than 90s.  In a sense it is a product of the 1980s, someone here even said it spoke out to the 1980s youth that were the children of Yuppies.  R&B was the real 90s.  By 1997 music became more like today but 99 is when it became modern.


Grunge was more like a youth fad, it's part of the '90s but it doesn't define the '90s. Ace of Base, en vogue, TLC are the big '90s artists. Top song of 1995 was Waterfalls, 1994 was The Sign are those grunge songs, hell no. Then in 1996 hip-hop started to slowly take over. TLC had numerous hits in the '90s, many are top 10 or top 5. When I think of 1994, I think of Whatta man and The Sign.

I'm still sticking to my opinion that Garth Brooks and the revival of country dominated the 90's.

Robbo,have you ever listened to Sargeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band....Rubber Soul....Revolver......Magical Mystery Tour....or Abbey Road?....those Beatles albums ARE something to talk about,even NOW...from both an artistic and technical viewpoint..

I own all those albums. I like some of the tracks, but it's nothing spectacular. I was more referring to Elvis then the Beatles. Elvis could sing wonderfully, and he made Rock n Roll big, but he wasn't original. He never did any of his own stuff. He always got other people to write his music and never attempted to write his own stuff. Anyone can do a song and dance. People like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson and Prince were willing to go somewhere with their music. They were musical pioneers, they were innovative, creative and orginal. Elvis was just any old rock n roll star. He wasn't no Chuck Berry. IMO, Chuck Berry is the King of Rock n Roll. 

IMO, Chuck Berry is the King of Rock n Roll. 


With my username, I wouldn't do very well to disagree with that, now would I? ;D

Like I said before, I do think alot of what's big today is a (less good) extension of 90's styles. Now, I was never, like a "huge" fan of grunge, despite being about 9 to 13 when it was big, but I do think it had some good songs, and was -- for better or worse -- influential and helped define the 90's.

Alice in Chains, Nirvana & Pearl Jam (and, even STP) sounded alot "fresher" to me than the post-grunge/nu metal from around 1998 to now.

Seriously though, let's look at all the big trends of today:

POP/PUNK (Simple Plan/Good Charlotte/New Found Glory/Sum 41) -- Roots are in Green Day/Offspring-type of mid to late 90's mainstream punk. I'd still say this is my favorite modern style, but it's still pretty deritive with generic-sounding bands (although some, like the Ataris are a bit better).

TEEN POP (Britney/Christina/Kelly Clarkson/Ashlee Simpson) -- Although early Britney did somewhat evolve into what's now the American Idol-type stuff, it's still been pretty much the same since 1998/99. Roots are in Hanson, BSB, N'Sync - and their roots are with New Kids on the Block, etc.)

SINGER/SONGWRITER (aka: Anti-Britney) POP (Vanessa Carlton, Michelle Branch, Avril) -- A smidgen better than the teen pop, but actually still the same general musical foundation. Roots are in Alanis, Sheryl Crow, etc.

RAP (Outkast, Eminem, etc etc) -- Roots are in anything gangsta-related in the mid to late 90's (even thouhg it was never really my style, I still give credit to the early/mid 90's rap for being at least innovative and different).

In short, I think the record companies know it's in a slump, so they're consistantly going with what works: the same kind of formula bands/singers. All this said, there are still good bands that fit loosely into the above styles, but are a much better version of them, but it seems the radio & MTV aren't as willing to take a chance now.

With my username, I wouldn't do very well to disagree with that, now would I? ;D

Like I said before, I do think alot of what's big today is a (less good) extension of 90's styles. Now, I was never, like a "huge" fan of grunge, despite being about 9 to 13 when it was big, but I do think it had some good songs, and was -- for better or worse -- influential and helped define the 90's.

Alice in Chains, Nirvana & Pearl Jam (and, even STP) sounded alot "fresher" to me than the post-grunge/nu metal from around 1998 to now.

Seriously though, let's look at all the big trends of today:

POP/PUNK (Simple Plan/Good Charlotte/New Found Glory/Sum 41) -- Roots are in Green Day/Offspring-type of mid to late 90's mainstream punk. I'd still say this is my favorite modern style, but it's still pretty deritive with generic-sounding bands (although some, like the Ataris are a bit better).

TEEN POP (Britney/Christina/Kelly Clarkson/Ashlee Simpson) -- Although early Britney did somewhat evolve into what's now the American Idol-type stuff, it's still been pretty much the same since 1998/99. Roots are in Hanson, BSB, N'Sync - and their roots are with New Kids on the Block, etc.)

SINGER/SONGWRITER (aka: Anti-Britney) POP (Vanessa Carlton, Michelle Branch, Avril) -- A smidgen better than the teen pop, but actually still the same general musical foundation. Roots are in Alanis, Sheryl Crow, etc.

RAP (Outkast, Eminem, etc etc) -- Roots are in anything gangsta-related in the mid to late 90's (even thouhg it was never really my style, I still give credit to the early/mid 90's rap for being at least innovative and different).

In short, I think the record companies know it's in a slump, so they're consistantly going with what works: the same kind of formula bands/singers. All this said, there are still good bands that fit loosely into the above styles, but are a much better version of them, but it seems the radio & MTV aren't as willing to take a chance now.



Good points.  I think now is a different universe from 1990-95, but 1996, 97, 98, and 99 all contribute to the feel to today.  Today is sort of devolves 1990s, I guess.  As for numetal being "post-grunge", some of it, yes, but I think it's just as much influenced by Hip Hop and Electronica.  Look at Linkin Park, for instance.

The reason today is still a lot like 1999 (really the only 90s year that has the same atmosphere as today imo) is that 2000 was the new millenium and not just a new decade.  People were so focused on it being a new millenium that they forgot this is also a new decade.  2005 is nothing like any year pre-1996, and is only a lot like 1999. 

McFly, wouldn't you say the 2000s have a different atmosphere than the 1990s?  The 90s seemed a bit grittier and old schoolish, whearas today is really brightish and kinda enclosed feeling.  It's kinda hard to explain, but the kids of the 2020's won't care; they'll think 1997 and 2004 are the exact same thing.

As far as pop music goes,the stuff from the Sixties is way better than the crap that record companies shove at teens today....groups like Tommy James and The Shondells,the Beach Boys,any British Invasion band,had more musical talent than tripe like Britney Spears,Hillary Duff,and that God-awful Ashlee Simpson.....and of course the 60's gave us THE MOTOWN SOUND as far as dance stuff(as well as some really cool love songs by people like Smokey Robinson,the Supremes,and the Four Tops!)

As far as pop music goes,the stuff from the Sixties is way better than the crap that record companies shove at teens today....groups like Tommy James and The Shondells,the Beach Boys,any British Invasion band,had more musical talent than tripe like Britney Spears,Hillary Duff,and that God-awful Ashlee Simpson.....and of course the 60's gave us THE MOTOWN SOUND as far as dance stuff(as well as some really cool love songs by people like Smokey Robinson,the Supremes,and the Four Tops!)


Yeah it's better than 2000s pop.  But that's just because 2000s pop is so bad.  :P

Yeah it's better than 2000s pop.  But that's just because 2000s pop is so bad.  :P


Let's what 2000s pop is hmm, Ashlee Simpson, JoJo, Britney Spears, Hilary Duff, Lindsay Lohan, etc.  :P ok now I'm getting sick.

Let's what 2000s pop is hmm, Ashlee Simpson, JoJo, Britney Spears, Hilary Duff, Lindsay Lohan, etc.  :P ok now I'm getting sick.


To be honest though, if I was around in the 60s, 70s, or even the 80s I bet the pop of then would get on my nerves.  But today's pop is excruciating and I feel sorry for all the "trendies" of my generation (Gen Y).  I listen to New Wave, Modern Rock, and Old School/Underground Rap.