Your favorite band/year/genre/lifestyle/person/mefite sucks.
September 17, 2007 1:17 PM   Subscribe

Was 1997 the new 1967? Discuss. [via]
posted by bardic (110 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite
 
It better not have been, because I was dead in the 60s and if it turns out I was in fifth grade for the second 60s I'll be pretty pissed.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:23 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Your favorite band watershed year in music history sucks.
posted by Joe Invisible at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2007


I know the answer to this one:

No.
posted by Mister_A at 1:26 PM on September 17, 2007 [7 favorites]


Here are some things that we thought were cool back in the day. Here are some different things that we thought were cool on a completely different day. Is this sort of random comparison the new top ten list? Your favorite form of analysis sucks.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:27 PM on September 17, 2007


I thought 1997 was the new 1996.
posted by rocket88 at 1:28 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


I haven't listened to anything on that list, including the paragraph at the bottom of additional picks.

Apparently I've been too busy grooming my lawn.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:28 PM on September 17, 2007


Chalk me down as another No.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:28 PM on September 17, 2007


Gawd no. End of discussion.
posted by brautigan at 1:29 PM on September 17, 2007


I could find nothing in that link about discus, or about any other Olympic event, for that matter. False advertising, I say!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:31 PM on September 17, 2007


Hmm, I could give about 30 reasons for why every year was a great music year.

Let's start with 2007: Port-Royal, Moving Mountains, Explosions in the Sky, iLiKETRAiNS, Terrene, The Most Serene Republic, Stefan Ternemar, A Northern Chorus, Epic45, The American Dollar, Lights Out Asia, The Go! Team, Chikita Violenta, Modest Mouse, The Arcade Fire, The Tough Alliance, Cut City, Kevin Drew, JohnnyXXIII, Stars, The Shadow Project, The Severely Departed, World's End Girlfriend, Blonde Redhead, pg.lost, Do Make Say Think, Giardini di Miro, Eluvium, Feedle, Tulsa Drone

Just off the top of my head.
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:34 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think we've been stuck at the new 1952 for about the last twenty-five years.
posted by gum at 1:36 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


Also, if someone could fill me in on what makes 1967 so illustrious? Bless my ignorance.
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:37 PM on September 17, 2007


Will 2037 be the new 1997?

Stay tuned!
posted by BobFrapples at 1:39 PM on September 17, 2007


Oh please. Listen, some of those are very good bands and albums, but all of them put together are not fit to drink the dirty bathwater of Forever Changes. And that's just one album from 1967 (the best one).
posted by FelliniBlank at 1:40 PM on September 17, 2007


Don't trust any song over 30?
posted by hal9k at 1:40 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


You mean it was the year the Art-Farts took over and real rock and roll all but disappeared?
posted by jonmc at 1:44 PM on September 17, 2007


I'm going to buck the trend and say: Hmm, maybe they have a point.
posted by Artw at 1:44 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Q: Is 1997 the new 1967?
A: Ask me again in 2037.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:47 PM on September 17, 2007


... what makes 1967 so illustrious?

I think maybe that was the year following the first year that drugs start to be widely used on television production and advertising agency staffs.

Or maybe it's that it's when Vietnam vets first start filtering into the mainstream population. Or when journalists start coming back from their own tours in Vietnam.

The music is certainly regarded as experiencing a watershed in that year, and lots of people will discourse ad nauseum on how and why, but I suspect that what's really happenng is that it's the year that fixed in a lot of influential young-ish people's minds as being Super Imprtant for some cultural reason (drugs, the war, what have you). The music became a marker for that significant year.

That is, I suspect that the music per se, on honest evaluation, might not really be all that much more super in '67 than it was in '66 or '68. Or '76 or '78, for that matter, which would have been my first choices for a 'new 1967'.
posted by lodurr at 1:49 PM on September 17, 2007


On post-view: I change my mind. What jonmc said. (Except I kind of like a lot of the art-fart stuff. And what the hell is 'rock', anyway?)
posted by lodurr at 1:50 PM on September 17, 2007


'97 t'was a good year for la rocka. Then again, so was 1984. And 1980. But if we must debate silly lists like this one, I've seen much worse. If anything, the "honorable mentions" at the end kind of impress me more than the 17 actual picks.

But my favorite bands suck many a cock-laden bucket, FYI.
posted by bardic at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2007


1966 was actually a much more important year culturally. Read this to learn more.
posted by jonmc at 1:52 PM on September 17, 2007


Yeah... sorry, that list sucks. (Wu-Tang & B.I.G. excepted...) I'm with jonmc on this one.
posted by jbelshaw at 1:53 PM on September 17, 2007


FWIW, they have Supa Dupa Fly by Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott on the list. If that isn't a watershed moment in music history, I'm not sure what is. The work she and Timbaland did on that album pretty much raised the bar for pop music and much of the best pop since then has been inspired by that album.

Of course, most of the best pop since then has been produced by Timbaland. Indeed, the MTV VMAs could have been accurately called the Timbaland Awards this year.

Anyhow, I only mention this because I think people are only seeing Radiohead (and the other four on the first page of the link) and are having a kneejerk "ZOMG indie music sucks" reaction. The list is little more thought out than that...

All that said, yeah, the same could be true for almost any year.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:55 PM on September 17, 2007


Are You Experienced was released in the US late in 1967, but went on to become the #1 selling album in the US for 1968.
Similarly, the best selling album of 1998 was released late in 1997. That record was The Titanic soundtrack.
Discuss.
posted by rocket88 at 1:55 PM on September 17, 2007 [6 favorites]


Mach3avelli writes "Let's start with 2007: Port-Royal, Moving Mountains, Explosions in the Sky, iLiKETRAiNS, Terrene, The Most Serene Republic, Stefan Ternemar, A Northern Chorus, Epic45, The American Dollar, Lights Out Asia, The Go! Team, Chikita Violenta, Modest Mouse, The Arcade Fire, The Tough Alliance, Cut City, Kevin Drew, JohnnyXXIII, Stars, The Shadow Project, The Severely Departed, World's End Girlfriend, Blonde Redhead, pg.lost, Do Make Say Think, Giardini di Miro, Eluvium, Feedle, Tulsa Drone"


Shhhh! Home taping is supposed to be killing music right now!
posted by mullingitover at 1:56 PM on September 17, 2007


And the Silversun Pickups are bringing it back.

Just in time, too, the new Interpol is balls.
posted by four panels at 1:57 PM on September 17, 2007


Good, not great.
posted by basicchannel at 1:57 PM on September 17, 2007


"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." - John Cage.
posted by twsf at 1:57 PM on September 17, 2007


For the record (or 8-track or cassette or CD or mp3), if 1997 was the next 1967, then the NEXT next 1967 will be in 2027, not 2037. (Shouldn't there be a bunch of math geeks here?)

And 2007 is the next 1977, which really scares me.
posted by wendell at 2:00 PM on September 17, 2007


1966 was actually a much more important year culturally. Read this to learn more.

A case can be made. Between Pet Sounds, Blonde on Blonde, and Revolver, you've got a pretty huge year right there.

Even though there were some massive records released in '67, I get the impression that it often gets the big watershed year nod solely because of Sgt. Pepper. But I'm in the "Revolver kicks the ass of Sgt. Pepper" camp. Blah-blah influential, blah-blah technical genius . . . fine, but it's no Forever Changes.
posted by FelliniBlank at 2:01 PM on September 17, 2007


Just in time, too, the new Interpol is balls.

Color me utterly disappointed as well. It's like they decided, "alright, let's veer into a new, experimental direction" and half-assed it. Completely uninspired and banal music.
posted by Mach3avelli at 2:04 PM on September 17, 2007


Hey, I think the new Interpol is pretty decent...
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:09 PM on September 17, 2007



And 2007 is the next 1977, which really scares me.


No Elvis, Beatles or the Rolling Stones...
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:09 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


wow, mach3, you must get invited to a lot of hipster parties.

I'll take any given New Model Army album over anything released in 1997. Or 2007.
posted by nasreddin at 2:09 PM on September 17, 2007


This seems pretty artificial, if not just wishful thinking on the writers part. History really only repeats itself if you blur your vision, a lot.

1967 was probably the high-water mark for initial effects of LSD on pop music, and probably the gateway year for the mass introduction of drugs in general to teenagers. So the pop music of the day reflected this, not a huge suprise. I don't see any relation to that and 1997.

OK Computer was the album that broke Radiohead to the mainstream audience, but it's arguablly not their best (The Bends) and it also marks the beginning of the end for a lot of their fans (not me, but I understand the feeling). There are certain parallels between OK Computer and Sgt. Peppers, they are both somewhat transitional albums for their respective groups. Both bands were more "pop"oriented before and less so after. But so what?
posted by doctor_negative at 2:10 PM on September 17, 2007


More like, "17 reasons why 1997 blew! (and Erykah Badu, who is cool). Take THAT!

(FelliniBlank: Revolver blows Sgt. Pepper out of the water. Probably the best Beatles album ever. Hell, Pepper is one of my LEAST favorite Beatles records.)
posted by papakwanz at 2:10 PM on September 17, 2007


TheWhiteSkull typed "No Elvis, Beatles or the Rolling Stones..."

Dan Deacon, Art Brut, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah.

Next.
posted by roll truck roll at 2:15 PM on September 17, 2007


Dan Deacon, Art Brut, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah.

Are you being sarcastic?
posted by nasreddin at 2:17 PM on September 17, 2007


But I'm in the "Revolver kicks the ass of Sgt. Pepper" camp.

I think Rubber Soul is better than either.
posted by jonmc at 2:19 PM on September 17, 2007


nasreddin: No, he's pointing out how utterly derivative and crappy most music is today by listing 3 of the biggest offenders.
posted by papakwanz at 2:20 PM on September 17, 2007


Are you being sarcastic?

No. He's revealing how little he knows about Elvis, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones.
posted by dobbs at 2:23 PM on September 17, 2007


roll truck roll:

I'm not sure how Set A equals Set B in your comment, and I like two of the three bands you named.

Besides, I think you may have missed the reference (1977).
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:24 PM on September 17, 2007


"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." - John Cage.
posted by twsf


I've never seen that attributed to Cage. Wikiquote says "This has been attributed to Elvis Costello, Laurie Anderson, Thelonius [sic] Monk, Frank Zappa and Steve Martin, but the actual author remains unknown."
posted by ism at 2:25 PM on September 17, 2007


Wow, this utterly depressed me. To compare those mostly normal albums with 1967's output. Sigh.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:26 PM on September 17, 2007


I was being a little bit sarcastic.

The more early rock and roll I listen to, the less I wish oldies stations played of Elvis and the Beatles. So I was being intentionally flippant about their names being invoked.

But now, I think I probably missed the point of TheWhiteSkull's comment.
posted by roll truck roll at 2:31 PM on September 17, 2007


All the songs listed for 1967 (except Cohen) were well known to a broad audience. Most of the 1997 list are not so well known. I am guessing the author was a Freshman in college about 1997.
posted by caddis at 2:35 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Huh. I was just coming over to the blue to post this, and got beat by a few minutes. Damn, though I'm happy that the hate isn't landing on my shoulders, I guess.

My problem with saying '97 is the new '67 is that '67 - with the drugs and war a hippies and hawks and doves and general upheaval of Eisenhower values - simply cannot be remembered without the music being first and foremost. You can't really say that about any year since, much less '97. I like OK Computer as much as anyone, though both The Bends and Kid A are better in my opinion, but indie rock and mainstream hip-hop never made anyone so much as put a flower in their hair, let alone sleep on the White House lawn. There was a lot of good music, to be sure, but the pan-cultural importance just can't compare.

Now, if you want to look at '92-'93, then you'll fi Tnd the watershed years. That's the era where pop had just eaten itself, and nobody - particularly at MTV, which was still showing videos - knew what the kids were going to want next. So they just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, and it all came at a highly fruitful and transformative time for music anyway. We got Snoop Dogg and the mass invasion of West Coast gangsta rap on the "black music" side, and Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins all doing their best work on the "white music" side. And, perhaps most importantly, parents who didn't listen to the music at all still knew all about the changing tide, because it was all on the news. Hell, my grandparents knew enough about it to buy me flannel shirts throughout the entire period. That, to me, is a watershed era; the simultaneous rise of gangsta rap and grunge, the two genres which would, by my count, influence more music since than any other genre has.

Also, if I'm going to choose between '97 (the year of OK Computer) and '96 (the year of Pinkerton) I'm gonna have to go with Pinkerton every time.
posted by Navelgazer at 2:36 PM on September 17, 2007 [3 favorites]


Mach3avelli writes 'Also, if someone could fill me in on what makes 1967 so illustrious? '

The drugs, obviously. Which is why 1988 was the real Second Summer of Love.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:36 PM on September 17, 2007


Was there a 1967 before 1967? If not, why do we ever suppose there'll be another one?
posted by niccolo at 2:38 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


'92-'93 was better than '97
posted by caddis at 2:40 PM on September 17, 2007


Was there a 1967 before 1967?

1956?
posted by caddis at 2:43 PM on September 17, 2007


bardic, it's "1997 is the new 1967. Discuss." Make a statement, and then say, "discuss."
posted by ethnomethodologist at 2:44 PM on September 17, 2007


I'd also suggest the last decade as a watershed period, at least for the individual listener. The P2P era. The amount of compartmentalization and specialization of much of today's music is growing by the day. Everything is being reinvented and every hybrid form of music is making the rounds. The gaps are being filled to suit any palate.
posted by Mach3avelli at 2:45 PM on September 17, 2007


I haven't listened to anything on that list, including the paragraph at the bottom of additional picks.

I've heard two of them and one of those was Dylan's. And I just looked down and noticed that the last song that I played on my ipod was Strawberry Fields Forever. 1967 it is.
posted by octothorpe at 2:55 PM on September 17, 2007


I'm fond of 1977. A great year for debuts. The Clash's first album, Blank Generation, Marquee Moon, Cheap Trick's first album, Never Mind the Bollocks, Talking Heads '77, Amy Grant!
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 2:59 PM on September 17, 2007


I'd have to agree with no. But wasn't there a summer a few years earlier when Nirvana and Public Enemy and the Mudhoneys were sticking it to the man?
posted by PHINC at 3:01 PM on September 17, 2007


If OK Computer was the new Are You Experienced? then what will the new Van Halen I be? I'm a little bit scared to find out.
posted by The World Famous at 3:02 PM on September 17, 2007


I haven't listened to anything on that list, including the paragraph at the bottom of additional picks.

There's a lot of good stuff on that list and with convenient youtube videos to check out the stuff you haven't heard before. For that alone this is a nice post. The assertion that '97 in any way compares with '67 is a bit silly though.
posted by caddis at 3:05 PM on September 17, 2007


1997 has a lot to answer for: Kenny G, Insane Clown Posse, Backstreet Boys, Spice Girls, and Celine Dion all had albums (some more than 1!) that year. "Barbie Doll" was the #1 single (followed by "Mmmmmbop" at #2).

Of course, my judgment is suspect - I was locked in the basement by my parents all that year. I subsisted on a diet of pizza and pancakes. I heard no music.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 3:19 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


Robocop, you blaspheme. Mmmmmmbop was excellent. I love the Hanson girls.
posted by Sk4n at 3:24 PM on September 17, 2007


Robocop! one of my favorite kids in the hall bits... pasted from imdb...

Guy #1: I know it's a cliche, but my favorite album of all time is still "Sgt. Pepper's."
Guy #2: "Sgt. Pepper's"? What's that?
Guy #1: Only the Beatles' most famous album!
Guy #2: I'm sorry, the Beatles? Who are they?
Guy #1: The best group of the sixties!
Guy #2: Oh, the sixties. I didn't hear much music in the sixties.
Guy #1: What are you talking about?
Guy #2: Well, dad always was a little crazy. After the car accident he started medication and things got worse. One night he woke me up and knocked me out. He brought me down to the basement where I lived for the next ten years. I heard no music, I had no friends. They shoved food under the door so I had to eat pancakes and pizza. It was awful, but I survived.
Guy #1: Gee, I'm sorry. I, uh, didn't know.
Guy #2: Of course I've heard of the Beatles, you retard!
posted by ill3 at 3:33 PM on September 17, 2007 [5 favorites]


I agree - 1997 was a great year for music, but still, it was no Freedom Rock.
posted by Flashman at 3:34 PM on September 17, 2007


I thought the new Interpol album was pretty "rad". Not as good as Antics, sure, but did not dissapoint.
posted by liquorice at 3:52 PM on September 17, 2007


"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." - John Cage.

As pointed out above, not Cage--the most common attribution is currently thus:
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture - it's a really stupid thing to want to do."

--Elvis Costello, in an interview by Timothy White entitled "A Man out of Time Beats the Clock." Musician No. 60 (October 1983), p. 52.
John Cage would never be so glib, nor so facile.

I don't think there will ever be another 1967--what made 1967, well, 1967, as observed above, was a tremendous confluence of elements (social awareness, liberation from conservative social mores, widespread social drug use, etc.) in a youth culture that primarily listened to the same popular music. Culture in the past couple of decades has lacked such a monolithic musical focus, and I don't see any particular music becoming so emblematic of a generation's coming of age as 1967 epitomizes.

I don't think it has to do with the inherent substance (or lack thereof, YMMV) of the music listed from 1997, I don't think any year's music, no matter how amazing, can have the sort of social impact music in the 1960s did.
posted by LooseFilter at 3:57 PM on September 17, 2007


From an article in the Toronto Star, 4/6/1997:

Randy Lennox, general manager of Universal Music Canada, declined to talk about U2 or any other band. He would say only, "In most cases, the blue chip artists today are not delivering up to expectations. Despite a flat year in 1996, the total health of the industry is intact, but that's largely due to young blood," Lennox said, about such new top-selling acts as No Doubt, Jewel, Shania Twain and Morissette.

Ah, I'll bet the Musico-Industrial Complex longs for those dear, precious, long-lamented olden times .....
posted by blucevalo at 4:00 PM on September 17, 2007


I'm not going to answer that question without my formula sheets.
posted by lazaruslong at 4:00 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


""Let's start with 2007: Port-Royal, Moving Mountains, Explosions in the Sky, iLiKETRAiNS, Terrene, The Most Serene Republic, Stefan Ternemar, A Northern Chorus, Epic45, The American Dollar, Lights Out Asia, The Go! Team, Chikita Violenta, Modest Mouse, The Arcade Fire, The Tough Alliance, Cut City, Kevin Drew, JohnnyXXIII, Stars, The Shadow Project, The Severely Departed, World's End Girlfriend, Blonde Redhead, pg.lost, Do Make Say Think, Giardini di Miro, Eluvium, Feedle, Tulsa Drone""

Wow, 2007 sucked for music.

"Dan Deacon, Art Brut, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah."

Never-heard-of-'im, Fall knock-offs and a crappy flash in the pan?
posted by klangklangston at 4:09 PM on September 17, 2007


When all the people that lived in the 60's have died off and the people whose youth was spent synchronising dance moves to "Wannabe", we'll probably be having this same conversation. I know that the 60’s in particular has become this romanticised era of awesomeness but fuck that, man. The past is the past. Get off my lawn, you wrinklies.
posted by liquorice at 4:14 PM on September 17, 2007 [5 favorites]


1997 has a lot to answer for: Kenny G, Insane Clown Posse, Backstreet Boys, Spice Girls, and Celine Dion all had albums (some more than 1!) that year. "Barbie Doll" was the #1 single (followed by "Mmmmmbop" at #2).

"Mmmbop," is a pop masterpiece, ICP have their moments, Scary Spice is hot, and "Barbie Girl" is nice for lap dances.
posted by jonmc at 4:14 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


OK Computer = Sgt. Pepper.

Hmmm. Ok, Sgt. Pepper represented the work of a masterful, once-in-a-lifetime band no longer at the peak of its songwriting abilities, starting to give into self-indulgence and ennui, and starting to pull away from one another. OK Computer, a decent (but let's face it, wildly overrated album) from a pretty good band that is largely the brainchild of one very talented, though slightly self-indulgent person.

Yeah.
posted by psmealey at 4:15 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think this has been an amazing year for music, personally.

On that 1997 list, OK Computer, yes, Homework, yes, the rest of it, meh.
posted by empath at 4:30 PM on September 17, 2007


The next 3 years are going to be HUGE for electronica, since a flood of software based synths are hitting the market now. A lot of teenagers are going to be rocking our faces off with stuff with amazing new sounds. It's already starting if follow indy music blogs.
posted by empath at 4:32 PM on September 17, 2007


Was 1997 the new 1967?

No, hell no, a thousand times no, at least by that list, anyway. OK Computer could be classified as a major work of art, but Sgt. Peppers? uh, again, no.

There may have been some great albums released that year, as there will be in just about any year if you dig beyond the confines of radio, but something happened in 1967 that changed the face of music and youth culture in a way that really can't happen twice. When you couple the Vietnam war, the first stabs at multi-track recording, the explosion of the drug culture, and the confluence of Folk-style protest lyrics with electric instruments, and you have the perfect storm.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:40 PM on September 17, 2007


(Actually, my comment above would really apply to the 4-year span of '65-'68, but '67 was peak output. in some ways.)
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:52 PM on September 17, 2007


dobbs writes 'No. He's revealing how little he knows about Elvis, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones.'

Not to mention Clash lyrics.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:52 PM on September 17, 2007


I have 1996 on the phone, and it claims that 96 is functionally equivalent to 69.
posted by sfenders at 5:10 PM on September 17, 2007


Mach3avelli writes "Also, if someone could fill me in on what makes 1967 so illustrious? Bless my ignorance."

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released
Are You Experienced? (Hendrix's debut) was released
The Velvet Underground and Nico was released (another debut)
David Bowie's self-titled debut album is released
The Doors self-titled debut album is released
Arlo Guthrie releases Alice's Restaurant
The Doors and The Rolling Stones play Ed Sullivan for the first time - both are asked to alter their suggestive lyrics
The Who plays the US for the first time
Rolling Stone magazine is launched
BBC Radio 1 is launched
Monterey Pop Festival
Woodstock
"Summer of Love"

That's not anywhere near a complete list. Sure, every year has its musical highlights, but 1967 was gigantic.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:11 PM on September 17, 2007


Fond of 1991 myself:

Blue Lines - Massive Attack
Nevermind - Nirvana
Screamadelica - Primal Scream
Loveless - My Bloody Valentine

(Not to mention the La's, Teenage Fanclub, De La Soul, KLF, the Orb, the Pixies, Public Enemy, the Chilli Peppers, REM...)

Not convinced by the 1997 argument, though there are clearly bands there that I need to check out. And you all need to give more love to Spiritualized.
posted by Infinite Jest at 5:15 PM on September 17, 2007 [3 favorites]


woodstock was in 1969, genius.
posted by jonmc at 5:15 PM on September 17, 2007


"""Let's start with 2007: Port-Royal, Moving Mountains, Explosions in the Sky, iLiKETRAiNS, Terrene, The Most Serene Republic, Stefan Ternemar, A Northern Chorus, Epic45, The American Dollar, Lights Out Asia, The Go! Team, Chikita Violenta, Modest Mouse, The Arcade Fire, The Tough Alliance, Cut City, Kevin Drew, JohnnyXXIII, Stars, The Shadow Project, The Severely Departed, World's End Girlfriend, Blonde Redhead, pg.lost, Do Make Say Think, Giardini di Miro, Eluvium, Feedle, Tulsa Drone""

Wow, another thread in which my enormous musical ignorance is revealed. Of your list, I've heard of Modest Mouse. I've never heard Modest Mouse, mind you, but I've heard of them.

Oh, and I believe I have heard of The Arcade Fire because somebody made a FPP to metafilter about them a few days ago. Didn't like the music at all.
posted by Justinian at 5:22 PM on September 17, 2007


jonmc writes "woodstock was in 1969, genius."

You're right. Thanks, genius.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:50 PM on September 17, 2007


You know who else was a genius in 1967? That's right: Charlotte Brontë.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:57 PM on September 17, 2007


Of the five bands on the first page that clearly make up the core of their argument, all five also released a good album in 2000. Four of those I would argue were even better than their 1997 release.

2000 doesn't have OK Computer, of course, but it has Stories from the City, Stories from the Sea, which qualifies as the year's obligatory Legendary Album. And unlike 1997, 2000 was also an outstanding year for hip-hop, with releases like Stankonia, The Marshall Mathers EP, Since I Left You, Like Water for Chocolate, and Quality Control.

Was 2000 a historic year for music? Of course not. The consensus album of the year was the soundtrack to a Coen Brothers movie for god's sake.

I know we're already all on the same page on this one, but every year has a lot of really enjoyable music. Nothing on this list makes it stand out from any other year. But, you know, it's exciting to discover that a lot of AV Club writers were freshmen in 1997. I'm sure it was a fun time for them.
posted by Simon! at 6:00 PM on September 17, 2007


"Wow, another thread in which my enormous musical ignorance is revealed. Of your list, I've heard of Modest Mouse. I've never heard Modest Mouse, mind you, but I've heard of them."

That's because the majority of them are sucky post-rock. Modest Mouse is good, generally. Arcade Fire is OK, but reading anything about them is like reading eBay comments: A+++++++++++++++! for the guy who just managed to send you your Vader mask on time and let you use a check?

"I know we're already all on the same page on this one, but every year has a lot of really enjoyable music. Nothing on this list makes it stand out from any other year. But, you know, it's exciting to discover that a lot of AV Club writers were freshmen in 1997. I'm sure it was a fun time for them."

Bingo. I think the list was a good one, about oft-underrated late '90s, but they totally didn't support their thesis at all.
posted by klangklangston at 6:05 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


This was recorded in 1967. Nothing recorded or released since has been able to touch it's majesty, IMHO, although there have been plenty of attempts, and, uh, Captain Beefheart, but that's a different kind of discussion.

[Of course, this kind of music is an acquired taste.]
posted by Minus215Cee at 6:17 PM on September 17, 2007


Gotta agree with kingfisher here - the main reason 1997 isn't like 1967 is because 1977's music really kicks 2007's ass.
posted by rfs at 6:35 PM on September 17, 2007


Wow, another thread in which my enormous musical ignorance is revealed. Of your list, I've heard of Modest Mouse. I've never heard Modest Mouse, mind you, but I've heard of them.

I'm not a good barometer to judge it by. I have a very narrow, limited scope of styles of music I listen to that aren't liked all that much, as klangy shows.
posted by Mach3avelli at 6:36 PM on September 17, 2007


"96 is functionally equivalent to 69"

In Utah, perhaps.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:42 PM on September 17, 2007


LSD was criminalized in 1967.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 6:53 PM on September 17, 2007


OK Computer could be classified as a major work of art

Well...if we really want to look at the heavy hitters of 1997, I recommend this piece (with sound file goodness!) as the most significant musical work produced in that year. It is astonishing, beautiful, monumental music, with craft very rarely seen in the art form these days.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:21 PM on September 17, 2007


1971 blows 1967's pretty ass through the back wall.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:43 PM on September 17, 2007


you had to have listened to am radio through 1967 to appreciate it - it was incredible, and the beatles' sgt pepper was just a small part of it

Fond of 1991 myself:

and that, sir, was the 2nd best year for music, '67 being first
posted by pyramid termite at 9:12 PM on September 17, 2007


and that, sir, was the 2nd best year for music, '67 being first

I assume you have an unwritten caveat of "within the style of rock music specifically" in there, pt? Or is that the unwritten caveat of this whole thread?
posted by LooseFilter at 9:29 PM on September 17, 2007


i suppose you prefer 1952

"how much is that doggie in the window ...?"
posted by pyramid termite at 9:59 PM on September 17, 2007


This is starting to sound like vh1.
posted by bam at 11:07 PM on September 17, 2007


Writing about music is like dancing about architecture

Sounds like a perfectly fine thing to do. If anything, architecture sounds like it has much more in common with dancing than music has with writing - practitioners of architecture are arranging and dividing 3D spaces much like those of dance, though dance takes place through time, of course.

John Adams' Naive and Sentimental Music is astonishing, good call, LooseFilter, though Harmonielehre slightly beats it out for me. John Adams has explicitly said his cell based music was inspired by the repeating, cell based forms of architecture, so maybe architecture about music, or music about architecture is more sensible.

Wilfull pretentiousness aside, I definitely doubt that John Cage, who would happily hit pans and pour water or listen to silence about music, would complain about anything as prosaic as dancing about architecture...
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:28 PM on September 17, 2007


i suppose you prefer 1952

No, today I'd go with 1905, because any year that sees the premieres of Pelleas und Melisande, Kindertotenlieder, La Mer, Salome, and even The Merry Widow, was a good year for music. Plus, the special theory of relativity and Fauvism as a bonus.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:34 PM on September 17, 2007


(also: though Harmonielehre slightly beats it out for me

yes, I'd be inclined to agree.)
posted by LooseFilter at 11:36 PM on September 17, 2007


and that, sir, was the 2nd best year for music, '67 being first

91 was a better year for parties though. "The old bill have took the fookin' decks, the bastards"
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:22 AM on September 18, 2007


>woodstock was in 1969, genius.

>>You're right. Thanks, genius.


Could somebody call me a genius, too? I'll insult your favorite band or something, if you want...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:29 AM on September 18, 2007


Navelgazer: ... '67 - with the drugs and war a hippies and hawks and doves and general upheaval of Eisenhower values - simply cannot be remembered without the music being first and foremost.

Wow. What a strange thing to say.

But it drives home for me how much the culture of individual expression rules American life.

And people were buying me nothing but flannel shirts from 1976 through 1981, long before Cobain was even thinking about plaid clad heroin anthems.
posted by lodurr at 3:25 AM on September 18, 2007


FWIW, they have Supa Dupa Fly by Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott on the list. If that isn't a watershed moment in music history, I'm not sure what is. The work she and Timbaland did on that album pretty much raised the bar for pop music and much of the best pop since then has been inspired by that album.

Of course, most of the best pop since then has been produced by Timbaland. Indeed, the MTV VMAs could have been accurately called the Timbaland Awards this year.


You're confusing "popular" with "good" - if Supa Dupa Fly is a watershed moment in music history, I will shoot myself in the face.

"Beep beep, who got the keys to the Jeep? VROOM!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! But congratulations, your favorite artist really does suck.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:38 PM on September 18, 2007


This was a nice post, a nice list. I like the Elliot Smith, especially his cover of "Thirteen" by Big Star.

'97 is the new '67? 'Fuckknows. Nice excuse to cruise through some good music though.
posted by From Bklyn at 3:39 AM on September 19, 2007


Arcade Fire is OK, but reading anything about them is like reading eBay comments

That comment is genius.

I also agree that doing an interpretive dance to critique the works of Mies van der Rohe is a perfectly acceptable form of commentary. I often marvel that the "dancing about architecture" quote is bandied about like it's some form of truism, and the more often it is used, the less clever it's revealed to be.

It's probably wiser to end any such debate with the actual truism: "de gustibus non es disputandem", which is Latin for "your favorite band sucks".

I think that's really what Cage (or McManus) meant.
posted by psmealey at 4:13 AM on September 19, 2007


It's probably wiser to end any such debate with the actual truism: "de gustibus non es disputandem", which is Latin for "your favorite band sucks".

I've been doing this for years, but I find it looks more impressive if you use the correct spelling of "disputandum."
posted by nasreddin at 11:52 AM on September 19, 2007


Yes, correcting the spelling of latinisms -- that impresses, too.
posted by lodurr at 12:20 PM on September 19, 2007 [1 favorite]


Hey, it's a phonetic transliteration, ok? ;-)
posted by psmealey at 2:11 PM on September 19, 2007


It's probably wiser to end any such debate with the actual truism: "de gustibus non es disputandem", which is Latin for "your favorite band sucks".

You saw my tags, no?
posted by bardic at 3:43 PM on September 19, 2007


Are you kidding? No. I never think to look there. It's a mental block. Actually I lied. I do think to look there sometimes, but that's the second to last place I look. The absolutely last place I look is in the post title bar. Such is my fate. Doomed to repeat witticisms already articulated by the OP.

I am so not punk rock, but I was born in 1967, so that's something.
posted by psmealey at 4:15 PM on September 19, 2007


« Older Lucky stars   |   Is your sensei leading you down a zen garden path... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments