Display posts from previous
Sort by

Michael Azerrad s Book for the 90s

62 by instant_zen_Archive
Mayfair wrote:One of the things I really liked about his book was that he was able to talk about a few different bands from around the country that did not just follow the wave but started their own path (put out their own and their friends records, booked shows in places these type of shows had not happened in yet, etc). These to me were not just randomly picked great bands, they were bands that help define what we now consider the way to do things.

SO, in answer to the question, I would choose bands from the 90's that continued in that vein but since they were more of a second wave (yeah, arguably the fourth wave but you know what I mean) their importance is not defined by their innovation as the first book's bands were, but for their full tilt investment in addition to being great bands. I would start with Fugazi (yes, was in the first book) and Dischord, continue to Superchunck and Merge, Tsunami and Simple Machines, Unrest and Teenbeat, recap Beat Happening and K Records, include Drag City and the revolution of sorts they and their bands brought forth (Royal Trux, Pavement, Palace, Smog, etc), continue on from more Touch & Go and Matador as they both helped define the 90's, look at the Louisville contingent (Slint, King Kong, Bastro, Squirrel Bait, etc), Unwound would be good, maybe even the Monomen and that whole Bellingham Estrus thing.... I feel like I am forgetting a few more naturals... I guess more on Sub-pop, maybe more labels...


nice work. obviously you've read the book. not to make people take sides, but i'm wondering if a lot of people posting in this thread have read it. something Azerrad explicitly states in the introduction are his criteria for choosing bands. at one point he acknowledges the fact that he left out a number of (very good, nationally recognized) bands (the Dead Kennedys and the Meat Puppets, for example). but, he says, it was either leave bands out, or turn the book into an encyclopaedia.

personally, i rather like it better than an encyclopaedia.

so mayfair, you're right in choosing bands that defined certain areas (like how Superchunk is not only a very good band, but their association with Merge is/was crucial). that having been said, rather than just listing our favorite 90s bands, we could pose a little argument for the sake of keeping things interesting.

also, that having been said, the only band i can think of that no one has named yet is still Tortoise. perhaps someone else can think of a more definitive Chicago band, but none come to mind at the moment (besides Shellac, of course). name some. i'm not sure how "ïnfluential" they were concerning other bands, but they sure as hell were different. and they helped to establish Thrill Jockey's reputation, certainly.
if i got lasik surgery on one eye, i could wear a monacle.

Michael Azerrad s Book for the 90s

63 by ECSean_Archive
Mayfair, you make an excellent point. It is safe to say that I bought much of my indie music throughout the 90's based on the label that represented them. Perhaps it should also be noted how many different directions the labels went, ala Drag City, KRS, or even Victory Records. It seems like so many new genres were represented by certain labels. It's as if you could watch these cities grow through the music they produced.
The Ever Constant Sea
Panda

Michael Azerrad s Book for the 90s

67 by tommydski_Archive
i have actually considered writing this myself over the last few years. initially i've wondered if it would be interesting to talk to bands who actually signed to a major record label in the 90s. i've always figured that i'd like to include -

the jesus lizard (this would also have bits of scratch acid and you could introduce touch and go)

drive like jehu (also with swami, pitchfork, hot snakes and rftc)

girls against boys (soulside, early dischord stuff)

shudder to think (dischord to major label jump, lot's of drama)

jawbox (the same! dischord era, major label era, all the drama)

helmet - (band of susans, amrep etc)

hum - (poster children, hidden agenda etc)

jawbreaker (hey fuck you, i liked this band :) )

hmmm, my memory is slipping. who else signed to a major only to crash and burn?
Last edited by tommydski_Archive on Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
run joe run wrote:Kerble your enthusiasm.

Michael Azerrad s Book for the 90s

69 by Chapter Two_Archive
tommydski wrote:i have actually considered writing this myself over the last few years. initially i've wondered if it would be interesting to talk to bands who actually signed to a major record label in the 90s. i've always figured that i'd like to include -

the jesus lizard (this would also have bits of scratch acid and you could introduce touch and go)

drive like jehu (also with swami, pitchfork, hot snakes and rftc)

girls against boys (soulside, early dischord stuff)

shudder to think (dischord to major label jump, lot's of drama)

jawbox (the same! dischord era, major label era, all the drama)

helmet - (band of susans, amrep etc)

hum - (poster children, hidden agenda etc)

jawbreaker (hey fuck you, i liked this band :) )

hmmm, my memory is slipping. who else signed to a major only to crash and burn?


That would make an interesting book, but I'd rather read the book about the bands that didn't take that route.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests