Metallica has never reached the height or genius they had with RtL and MoP, don't care what you say, and both were early 80's



me too

Perfect example of why the other decades were so much better, and what Creep is saying. Being the decade where the bands were formed and the music style was invented IS what matters. Why? Because saying 'the 90's were a big deal because it was the definitive years for metal' is stupid. It is called the natural evolution of music, if the metal bands that came out in the 80's happened in the 70's, the 90's metal would have happened in the 80's. All genres are bound to evolve, fall, stagnate, and evolve. All genre's follow a musical evolution path, and that path is determined by exploration of the genre, not what time it happened. However, if a new genre randomly spawns or is created in a certain decade, it will then follow that path as well, therefore, the most important time for any genre and when it should be attributed to is it's formative decade. Grunge belongs to the 90's, metal is 70's/80's. Dream Theater is a 90's prog band, but they borrowed nearly everything from Yes, KC, and ELP. Honestly, when I listen to Images and Words and then Relayer or Fragile, I notice unspeakable similarities. Saying '90's were important to prog because Dream Theater came around' is utter bullshit. Dream Theater is one of my favorite bands, but would have come around in the 80's or 70's had prog started any earlier, because it was just a natural progression, it was nothing new and was bound to happen sometime. I was talking to my Mom while writing this so this might not make as much sense as I want it to, but pretty much: Formative and creative years of a genre define the genre, any future decades cannot be claimed to that genre because it would have evolved that way anyways given the time, regardless of when it started.

Calm down man

I don't agree with Tim about a lot of the bands he has mentioned for the 90s, but I still stand for that they have lots of influential, progressive and groundbreaking music to offer.

I will return on the subject after some more research

Alright! Alright! Let's just get back to the vocalists like Timi said!

Well, at my school I'm one of the few who aren't big into the modern music. One of my best friend just has an AWFULL taste in music. Some of the modern music he listens to is just terrible noise...

But I'm well know at my school as "That Socttish guy who's obsessed with 'old-people music'"
Old people music

Wow, some great arguements there, guys. I was so glad to see that there was an alive discussion here. Anyway, now you're all being subjective and biased. There can never be one decade which is objectively better than another.

True, with that back to vocalists, and honestly, I we have a top 50 we kinda agree on, and before adding more, I'd like to have the two Wilson brothers somewhere in there, they deserve it.

clearly you don't get it, because I DO like the 90's. And my posts being 'the most bias I've ever written' is true, but I'd say it's around the same bias as your comments about the 80's, maybe mine are a wee bit more bias though



Are you saying they are the most influential prog act around NOW? Which is true. If you are saying EVER, that is false.

And yeah, those posts were...not my best in getting across what I was trying to say, I was not really concentrating while writing them, but whatever the message was meant to be, I know I still have it for the future, if I must write it better.

Either way, I think that ties up all loose ends in the 90's discussion, so, vocalists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvJGQ_pi ... re=related

metal as fuck

--from 1969, nigger. metal's been around since hendrix, basically, and if you peep sabbath's beginnings as a protest rock band you can see how our current notion of "metal" (like slayer and then a bunch of pussy slayer wanna bes) really fucking sucks and how "metal" in the sixties and seventies was much more experimental, easy to listen to, and a generally awesome evolution of music at the time.


back on track,



if sam cooke is a "rock vocalist" then many more soul/blues/gospel singers need to be included and we need to kick all these shitty metal singers off i mean cmon the guy from queensryche? fuck that. the fuck lonnie johnson and billy eckstine at?

yes

no

Johnson is blues, Eckstine is vocal jazz. Both may have had an influence on soul vocalists but neither of the two is rock.

what genres of music are included under the banner "rock" and is this signers in this genre or is it a specific type of singing that makes oen a "rock vocalist" -- in considering a rock vocalist do we consider a person's entire catalog and singing ability, or only the performances that fit into a "rock" format?

Every genre that uses late 1940's/early 1950's R&B or any lineal offshoot of it as its main ingredient.

so louis jordan qualifies but eckstine does not qualify enough? i feel as though this is a blurry line -- also, if a singer is in a "rock genre" but does use another style of singing (e.g. mercury) does this stll qualify?

also how the fuck is otis redding so low?