I more than a little surprised that noone above (unless I went blind while reading through) mentioned Nine Inch Nails. Not that I’m personally that big a fan. Trent Reznor’s music generally didn’t work that well with my aesthetic but he still made some amazing music over the years.
My personal top 5
5. Nirvana-true, they are far larger in death than in life but they still made some great and more importantly for a list of this type, influenctial, music
4. Smashing Pumkins-for a time the biggest band in America
3. NIN-have to have them here, really
2. Radiohead-though I had to think about this for a time-they only really put out 2 great albums in the 90’s. Kids A didn’t come until 2000 or 2001. But what a pair of albums.
To my great (great) shame, I’ve never really gotten into Pavement. One of my friends, a Pavement fan, recommended that I buy Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain first and then Slanted and Enchanted. What’s your opinion?
I love the Beta Band, but I’m going to call bullshit on this one.
Radiohead, my nomination for best of the 90s, had three full albums during the 90s:
Pablo Honey - Not the worst thing you could listen to, but embarassing in context.
The Bends - An insanely great almost-classic.
OK Computer - A classic of the highest order. I still have trouble believing that this was created by mortal beings.
The Beta Band had three full albums during the 90s:
The Three EP’s - An awesome record, to be sure, but with some weak spots.
The Beta Band - Decent overall, but horribly inconsistent - it ranges from pure brilliance to pure crap, sometimes in one song.
Hot Shots II - Beautiful, but repetative, with a few weak tracks.
They’re on my list, but they certainly don’t belong at the top.
Well, I respectfully disagree. ‘Loveless’ is like the monolith in 2001, which every other rock band since have gathered around like bewildered apes, scratching their heads, knowing they will never even begin to approach it’s genius. Ahem. Still, I would never fault anybody for placing ‘OK Computer’ above ‘Loveless,’ but really, not counting the transitional piece ‘Loomer,’ there isn’t a single song on ‘The Soft Bulletin’ that can hold a candle to even the weakest track on ‘Loveless.’
And don’t forget (not that it’s relevant) that neither of those albums, ‘OK Computer’ in particular, would have existed – or at least been anywhere near as good as they are – if it weren’t for the influence of ‘Loveless.’
All three are in my top ten of the 90’s, by the way. Okay, maybe not ‘Soft Bulletin’ anymore, because unlike ‘Loveless,’ which is endlessly repeatable, I have started to find it taxing to plow through (at 40+ listens), and I even at times (gasp!) skip tracks.
Agree on what you said about The Beta Band, though.
Pixies were before Nirvana. Pixies *inspired * Nirvana. Therefor i think that Pixes should be further credited. Radiohead produced great albums, but they have been mentioned many times. Though Modest Mouse hadnt produced their best work until 2000, they are very good and original. My Bloody Valentine, Slint, and Pavement just go without saying.
Hmmm, well first of all, A LOT of people never get into Pavement, especially this late in the game. Most say: “What is so special about this? This doesn’t sound particularly original or unique” And, that’s well… maybe a reflection on just how much influence Pavement really had. It WAS very unique at the time.
As for which album to start out with, S&E really stands out from all their other albums, if you like S&E, that tells you that you like S&E and still may or may not like the rest of their stuff. That’s the beauty of Pavement, BTW, in my mind: They were CONSTANTLY changing their sound between every album, Each one sounded different from the last while keeping an overall Pavement-y fell.
Slanted and Enchanted I think is worth listening to if you want to get a slice of indie rock history, regardless of rather you get into Pavement or not, as it had a TREMENDOUS influence. It’s release is constantly being termed “a shock of lightening” to the indie world. It and the sound it represented made a splash. It is fast-paced, low-fi, eclectic and appeals to the “rocker” in an “indie rocker”. If those words pique your interest, then definately go for it.
Crooked Rain, however, more accurately defined the band Pavement. It steered them away from the lo-fi rocking of S&E to more pop-oriented music. That’s not to say that it wasn’t eccentric and exciting. Just in a totally different way from S&E.
Judging just by the album’s themselves, I would normally reccomend CR,CR first, but the 2-disc Deluxe re-edition of S&E is just such a sweet deal, that I feel like that would be a good place to start. By including the Watery, Domestic EP it also shows a good deal of that transition to more pop-sounding music that occured between the two albums.
Defining songs of each album:
Slanted:
Summer Babe
Here
In the Mouth a Desert
Crooked Rain:
Cut Your Hair
Stop Breathin’
Range Life
Maybe it is just me who likes TSB so much. It’s partly sentimental value, for a number of reasons that don’t really belong in Cafe Society. Musically, I wouldn’t consider TSB to be better than Loveless.
But as for Loveless vs. OK Computer - yeah, Loveless was probably a big influence, but that doesn’t necessarily make it good. That makes it influencial. Loveless is just… It’s elusive. There are few moments in Loveless that you can fully, well, understand, at any one time. It’s so… Dense. Impenetrable. I’ll put it this way.
Those paintings of heavenly light… You know, with the clouds, or impossibly beautiful landscapes. Blues, golds, deep, sea-greens, and sometimes passionate reds all over the place. And always light, shining down from… Wherever. You’re being offered a glimpse of heaven. And that glimpse of heaven, as satisfying and beautiful as it is… There’s always a feeling that if you could actually enter the promised land, shining down in these paintings, there would be something more to experience. Loveless is plagued by this kind of feeling. Not so for OK Computer, in my opinion.
In conclusion, Loveless kicks ass, but OK Computer kicks ass just that tiny bit more. It’s like 10 and 10.1.
As for The Soft Bulletin, I have various stupid personal reasons for liking it more, but if I were treating it objectively, I’d probably place Loveless ahead.
Another vote for Pearl Jam, and another fote for "If Kurt hadn’t died when he did, Nirvana wouldn’t be #1 on so many countdowns and “best of” lists. They were a great band, but not that great, IMO.
In addition to their full albums, Radiohead also had the best b-sides of any band I know in the 90’s.
Talk Show Host, A Reminder, Bishop’s Robes, Polyethylene… too many to list.
I’m just as likely to be singing “If I get old, I will not give in. But if I do… remind me of this…” to myself, as something from a major release.
The b-sides cement Radiohead’s place as band of the 90’s.
I disagree.
Nirvana’s last album was their best. They were only getting better as they went along. If Kurt stuck around, Nirvana might not have been #1 on as many trendy critics lists, but they would probably be #1 on more lists of music listeners (like mine).
I like Pearl Jam. Ten was the first album I ever bought. But they had nowhere near the impact on me that Nirvana had. In Utero, in particular, is unconscionably good.
I do think Nirvana’s influence is way overstated. None of the bands who supposedly were influenced by them sound anything like them, or have anything resembling their personality.
I’m kind of surprised that no one has mentioned Soundgarden yet. While I probably wouldn’t put them as THE best, I’d put them up there pretty high. I’d have to overall say that Pearl Jam has to take the top slot simply for the years of high quality productive work. Nirvana could write good songs, but as far as musicianship goes, Cobain had little talent…very mediocre guitar player and a pretty poor singer…but I still had all their albums. I have to say though, we need a resurgance like the early/mid 90s…best music in the last 25 years in my opinion.
I very seriously considered noting Soundgarden. Just couldn’t quite do it. If one is including influence or innovation they don’t quite stand up to the other bands I had mentioned. On the other hand they were tight, they had range, they pushed themselves musically, and they had 2 great albums. Just couldnt’ see them knocking out one of my other bands.
I hear this all the time, and I just don’t get it. People talk as if Nirvana were just some moderately famous band when Kobain died, and then they exploded. What’s with the historical revisionism? Nirvana were HUGE when Kobain died. Well before Kobain died, Nevermind was hailed as the album that killed off hair metal and brought alternative music to the mainstream. With In Utero they managed to top the almost impossible standards they set with their sophomore album.
I’m not a particularly huge Nirvana listener, but I cannot find any compelling argument against Nevermind being one of the most, perhaps THE most, influential album of the 90s. Even while Kurt was still alive, they inspired a fanatical following in the mainstream and with music critics, a rather difficult balancing act, if you ask me.
Yes, Kurt was partly a media-created “spokesperson for Generation X.” But there was also a lot of substance to go along with the style. For a rock band, I cannot think of any that had a greater influence on pop culture and music in the 90s than them.
And they were even “HUGER” afterwards. This isn’t revisionism, I noted it at the time. Nirvana had been a very popular band, but not as popular as they suddenly became once Cobain was dead. You only have to look at the numbers to see that Nirvana album sales (not just for In Utero, but their back catalogue as well) took a huge jump in the weeks following his suicide.
I would speculate that it’s unlikely Nirvana’s popularity would have remained as strong had the band survived for a few more albums. This isn’t to say their next album would have been a step-down musically from the previous ones, but not many groups manage to stay at the top for long. In late 1993 Nirvana was already looking at lower-than-expected ticket sales for the tour in support of In Utereo, that’s what prompted their appearance on MTV’s “Unplugged”.
I agree. Nirvana, especially on Nevermind, just took the Pixies formula, prettied it up to appeal to teenage girls, stole a mediocre Killing Joke riff and for this they’re the Beatles of the 90s?!?!?!?
I gotta say though, that I really liked the first Nirvana album BLEACH, but I think they went backward from there and became more formulaic with each album.
skutir , your second to my vote was wonderfully refreshing! Nice to see you!!
This is great I’m seeing a lot of similar tastes to mine! Radiohead, My Bloody Valentine, Fugazi, REM, I like all those bands. Now, there are some new ones I may buy & try based on the enthusiastic recommendations. The almost evangelistic zeal of the Cowboy Mouth fan (sorry, short term memory loss on the screen name :)) makes me want to see them or buy their albums or something!
I disagree. NOFX is just a relevant, and the Descendants still sound pretty damn good. Those are truly the only three relevant punk bands left. Of course, YMMV.
I have to say though, we need a resurgance like the early/mid 90s…best music in the last 25 years in my opinion.