00s "genre"?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by mcblahflooper94, Jul 28, 2013.


  1. mcblahflooper94

    mcblahflooper94

    Aug 31, 2011
    So it typically goes
    20s- big band/jazz
    30s-blues
    40s-swing
    50s-rockabilly
    60s-early rock (psych, folk, blues) +Motown
    70s-R&B, funk, disco, harder rock (punk begins to emerge, but not known mainstream)
    80s-R&B and glam, new wave
    90s-hip hop and grunge

    Generalization, but I think I hit a lot of pins here. Not including underground movements, but just what was popular without saying just pop music. Now following this generalization sort of formula, what would you say was the popular genre in the 00s (2000-2009)?
     
  2. kreider204

    kreider204

    Nov 29, 2008
    WI, USA
    Over-produced, low-talent crap?

    ;)

    Kidding, kidding. Hmm, lots of Nickleback, for sure ...
     
  3. Register_To_Disable

  4. VeganThump

    VeganThump

    Jun 29, 2012
    South Jersey
    AKA Butt-Rock
     
  5. A lot of Nu-Metal (Korn etc.)
     
  6. Not sure about the 00's, but the 10's is going to be EDM for sure.

    lowsound
     
  7. verycoolname

    verycoolname

    Jan 28, 2013
    VA/PA
    I could think of a few...

    *Talentless Pop music (Katy Perry, Rhianna, Justin Bieber)
    *Emergence of Dubstep (Skrillex and deadmau5...to name some "mainstream" ones)
    *"Folky rock" (Mumford & Sons, The Lumineers, Of Monsters and Men)

    And, my personal least favorite...
    *Alternative rock bands whose singles appeal to pop music lovers who want to be "hipster/cool" (Imagine Dragons with "It's Time", "Radioactive" and "Demons" and AWOLNATION with "Sail" and "Not Your Fault.")

    I like Imagine Dragons, AWOLNATION, etc., but I bothered to buy their whole albums...I hate the teenage girls who buy singles from a band and then claim to be their biggest fan.
     
  8. Bassist4Eris

    Bassist4Eris Frat-Pack Sympathizer

    Aug 11, 2012
    Upstate NY, USA
    We need a genre name for the current crop of young female singers who sing at the top of their lungs from the beginning of the song to the end. I'm too old to know any of their names. Avril Lavigne was an early exponent of what I'm talking about. And singing shows on TV seem to encourage this kind of histrionic performance style. Every time I walk into a store, I'm "treated" to some young lady practically screaming at me about all her important emotions. Personally, it makes me want to stab myself in the ear drums. :spit:

    I mean, honestly, if I want to hear some chick yelling the top of her lungs about her feelings, I'll get married. :D
     
  9. verycoolname

    verycoolname

    Jan 28, 2013
    VA/PA
    Sigged.
     
  10. two fingers

    two fingers Opinionated blowhard. But not mad about it. Gold Supporting Member

    Feb 7, 2005
    Eastern NC USA
    Sorry OP. There are a lot of opinionated old guys looking for ways to get offended for breakfast here. This thread will ultimately be a collection of diatribes about how bad music sucked during that time period rather than attempting to answer your question.

    Honestly, I would like a good answer to it as well. I can't think of any one thing that nailed the decade. Of course, pop country was as hot as anything (and still is). But it didn't take over the music scene like many of the other decades you mentioned.
     
  11. Interesting question... IMO, sadly, the haters have so much to hate. It(the whole *music* industry)all seems SOOOOOO overtaken by utterly rampant commercialism these days. Every damn pop ditty HAS to have a *rap* inserted for one thing- nothing against rap in general, I think it has its place and I can respect it if it has some sort of lyrical/thoughtful substance. Dunno...

    Edit: BTW, I am a old guy, w/strong opinions, but am rather open-minded about what others find appealing- I know my tastes nauseated old folks when I was young, it's the circle of life, etc... I do hear new stuff I like now and then, and do NOT need to defend *my era* as it had its element of all the aforementioned crap. And I want waffles for breakfast, not butthurt. :D
     
  12. mcblahflooper94

    mcblahflooper94

    Aug 31, 2011
    I want to clarify that I am not claiming to be satisfied with the music of the past decade, but rather wanted to have an objective goal to understand the 00s genre. Please, if you guys are here just to slam it, don't bother posting because it really isn't doing this thread-or anything really- any good. Thank you
     
  13. BBox Bass

    BBox Bass Supporting Member

    Apr 2, 2011
    NW Pennsylvania
    I think the widespread availability of music online resulted in no single genre dominating the 00s. Yes, we saw the emergence of styles like post-grunge, nu-metal, and emo, but none of them really defined that decade like other styles had in the past.

    Before the Internet, people latched onto bands they liked and bought their albums. Music fans probably had to feel pretty strongly about a band or style in order to justify spending $10-$15 on an album. If a band got popular enough, the record companies signed other bands that sounded similar in an attempt to capture the same audience. Then when the airwaves got oversaturated with a style, something else came along to repeat the cycle (e.g., glam metal gave way to grunge).

    These days we can easily download a few singles from multiple bands from different genres without spending a lot of money. If we get bored with a style, it's not difficult or costly to find something else that sounds good to our ears. I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that, but I believe it's part of the reason for the fragmentation.
     
  14. grinx

    grinx

    Mar 24, 2003
    Raleighwood, NC
    seems like the broad scope of the 00's because of the easy-access to a billion forms of music negates pigeon-holing easily.

    The Decade of Dilution
     
  15. Bert Slide

    Bert Slide

    May 16, 2012
    Louisville KY
    I think autotune is the genre of the 00's. The robots have already taken over. Run, Sarah Connor!
     
  16. letsrumble

    letsrumble

    May 23, 2010
  17. +1

    But I think we're still too close historically to the "aughts" to really tell what's shaken out, though and the ease of access is going to make it more difficult to analyze.
     
  18. tbz

    tbz Supporting Member

    Jun 28, 2013
    SoCal
    Well, two things kinda prevented that.

    1) The proliferation of bandwidth allowed folks to download/listen to a broad selection of music. This prevented a single genre from taking over.
    2) There has been substantially less money being pumped into the music industry because of downloading and because folks now simply believe that they do not have to pay for music.

    As a result the top selling album of 1999 sold ~10 million copies.

    The top selling album of 2005 sold ~5 million, 2006 3.8, 2007 3.6, 2008 2.9 and 2009 3.2. Adele's album, sold 4.5 million in 2011, and 5.5 in 2012 making 10 million total, but that is an incredibly popular album by today's standards, and again only sold half as many copies per year as the top album of 1999. Additionally the fact that a single album was the top seller two years running speaks volumes about the lack of momentum in the industry.

    This drastic drop in cash influx to the industry prevented it from putting money behind, and thus creating, a truly major (e.g. Zeppelin, Metallica, GnR, Nirvana) act during the 2000-2009 time frame. This lack of a truly major act prevented any single genre from taking over in any significant manner.

    As-is the industry is in this weird holding pattern, even now. Money is really only put behind established acts or acts that are "safe" enough to guarantee a return, or that have minimal upfront costs. This is why we see tons of Taylor Swifts/Lady Gagas/Katie Perrys, etc. Costs next to nothing to take a singer, throw some electronic music behind them and then put them on the road solo with a few backup dancers. Bands are substantially more expensive to develop, produce and maintain on the road. Plus if they're cute it's a "safe" investment, due to the eye candy factor.

    Kind of a shame, people that don't love music enough to pay for it, have almost killed the industry.

    All that being said, it does remind me of the atmosphere in the industry in the 50s (or at least how it's been communicated to me.) Lots of overproduced, squeaky clean stars with manufactured images, created by a frightened industry. So if we're lucky this decade might be another 1960s in terms of industry changes/changes to music.
     
  19. Bassist4Eris

    Bassist4Eris Frat-Pack Sympathizer

    Aug 11, 2012
    Upstate NY, USA
    Uh oh, guilty as charged. :oops: My apologies.

    OK, then, back on topic, and hopefully less troll-ish. :meh:

    I think that by Y2K the internet had changed music culture enough that there was no dominating genre. Everybody began to have access to everything, and I don't know about you, but if I play my whole mp3 collection on shuffle, it goes from jazz to country to avant-garde to r'n'b to punk to etc, etc, etc. And I think the scene is like that now. You've got the pop-country. You've got the dubstep. Hip hop is as hot as ever. There's a thriving metal scene so complex that you need a handbook to keep track of all the hyphens.

    In short, I think the days of one genre dominating the culture are possibly over.
     
  20. yes, absolutely for popular music, but that was also a golden age for jazz and classical was doing very well, too. And rock's roots were well into being established at this time.

    +1 hoping this is just another 60s.
     
  21. Jazz Ad

    Jazz Ad Mi la ré sol Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Dubstep, without a doubt.