Album Rating: 5.0

For a thrusting, dangerous, rebellious youth culture. Definitely.

Album Rating: 5.0

Even the stuff most people in the nineties recognised as 'sort of dross' from the '90s like Dookie, Smash, Weezer Blue Album, Californication and The Colour and the Shape would prob scoop AOTY here now - at the time they were big but def seen as lower tier. Sad thing is those types of band are who primed many of the most popular styles of the 00s and beyond.



Weezer are still going I think.

Album Rating: 5.0

To be honest they’d be considered albums of the year but yeah they didn’t have that bona fide absolute immediate classic feel that so many had back then.



There was a genuine ‘I’ve never heard anything like this before’ sensation a few times a year that funnily enough was more part of the mainstream than the underground.

Album Rating: 3.0

"There was a genuine ‘I’ve never heard anything like this before’ sensation"

Yeah, cause you were a kid/teenager. The fact is that anything you heard in the mainstream 90s (at least early on) happened the decade prior. You guys just weren't around for that because it wasn't being sold to you yet.



Calling the younger gen me-centric, but y'all proving you only see life in 2D and how it happened to you.

Well, 'rock' or 'guitar' bands are dead and antiquated. A lot of dangerous and exciting new acts exist in different genres that were still coming into their own in the 90s.

Album Rating: 3.5

Bubble boy speaks the truth. Still love ya though, zak.

Album Rating: 3.0

In conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Vn_vu3-EY

I was born in the wrong generation apparently.

My rocking chair squeaks and my kids don't visit.

Someone pass me an applesauce packet.

Album Rating: 4.0

the problem is that this band is getting recognition based solely off the fact that they are predetermined as "elite" by this genre-raping elitist bandwagon where you have to find the most obscure albums possible and taut them until they are believed to be high esteemed, where they are soon forgotten because eventually no one cares and everyone's is onto the next elite phase. why support this band after they are broken up? where was your support in 1993?

Album Rating: 3.0

I got punched in the gut back in the 90s for saying Nirvana were shit once, I did my time.

Album Rating: 4.0

It's a copypasta. Now you just have to comb the site and find where it comes from

Album Rating: 5.0

Ya Portisheads, Massive Attacks, Leftfields, Chemical Brothers, Jungle, Trance, and all that was mental back then sarnie.

Album Rating: 3.0

Is that pasta possibly me in a past life? Maybe.



Electronic music started in 1990, that's right zak.



Goddamn it, top of the page again.

Someone get me out of here, please.

Album Rating: 5.0

Come on there were astronomical leaps forward for dance music in a ridiculously short space of time. It went from krautrock grooves and experimental ambience to disco and hip hop type stuff to the lates 80s house stuff which lit the touchpaper for the absolute madness of the 90s.

Album Rating: 5.0

'Yeah, cause you were a kid/teenager. The fact is that anything you heard in the mainstream 90s (at least early on) happened the decade prior. You guys just weren't around for that because it wasn't being sold to you yet.'



Sandwich about to argue Tear for Fears ignited the yoot just like Nirvana



Yes Pixies, REM and Sonic Youth were knocking about but none of them wrote songs that appealed to as many people as Michael Jackson songs appealed to. 'tis why Kurt Cobain was a bit different. Wasn't just the blond locks.



For bands with the mainstream appeal of Nirvana today you're talking Coldplay - and even then that's more long term sales. Let that sink in.

"The more things are out, the less original you can get"
I wish I could disagree with this.

"I mean, I think what you’re getting at is good music went from the mainstream to more niche channels" The mainstream is always getting worse. For rock music, I would say the only time when the best bands were mainstream was the 60s.

Album Rating: 5.0

The best 'bands' and the best 'music' are aligned strongly but not exactly the same thing.



A debate I've had many times here for my sins. I'm right on this one, anyone who disagrees...I feel for, I really do, I won't say they're wrong, but my condolences all the same.



The difference between the 90s and now is the best 'bands' were largely releasing some of the best 'music' too, and because they were good 'bands' they ignited the mainstream's interest.



For an '80s example, Guns n Roses - not the best ever band musically, break it down and they only have about 10 popular songs, but they were very good at being a 'band'. So they sold.



Now you have bands like Coldplay as the biggest sellers who don't have an ounce of mystique or 'beyond the music' interest to them. Muse? Same thing. So mainstream is seen as very sickly.

Album Rating: 5.0

'Come on there were astronomical leaps forward for dance music in a ridiculously short space of time. It went from krautrock grooves and experimental ambience to disco and hip hop type stuff to the lates 80s house stuff which lit the touchpaper for the absolute madness of the 90s.'





The amount of sub genres of electronic music that emerged in the 90s cannot be disputed - and in a lot of cases the standout releases in those sub genres are still the 90s greats.

Album Rating: 5.0

Agreed Doof always 😍

Album Rating: 2.0

beyond the music meaning, boasting about sex and drugs

Album Rating: 5.0

I've struggled trying to work out who are the best 'bands' (this includes solo artists, I'm using the generic catch all meaning of 'band').



The National did win points when I caught them live and they put in a real shift. They still aren't that mainstream. As close to the perfect balance between 'band' and 'music' a few years ago, probably on the wane now though.



The Mods are class - there's style, soul and a message - so a classic 'band' but definitely a better 'band' than purely the 'music' in a vacuum.



Maybe if I really followed and caught Death Grips live or the like then I'd be able to assess their 'band'ness too...but again the music is too niche to really double down on any 'band' points.