Michael Azerrad s Book for the 90s
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:57 am
Zeni Geva. So what if they ain't 'murkin, there is precious little to be found about this remarkable band.
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.
)