Actually disco was a huge influence on House music, so very much electronic music.

I'll remember it for the death of sound quality. The loudness war has really hurt the quality of many modern recordings, and throughout the last decade, it has extended its reach to many catalog titles that have been remastered. Even jazz albums have been affected.

Then you have the public's acceptance of low-bitrate MP3/AAC and online streaming, and stock earbuds to listen to them on. Music became exclusively a background activity for many people. Record companies are catering to this lowest common denominator, and damaging the music for those who actually take the time to listen at home on decent equipment. Higher resolution formats like SACD and DVD-Audio failed to catch on outside of a niche market.

There are some good signs, though. Vinyl has had a resurgence, even though part of the reason it can sound better is because they aren't mastering the CDs properly. (Of course, vinyl vs. CD quality is very debatable. ) Some sites are now offering lossless downloads, and hopefully all online sellers will follow suit as bandwidth and storage increase.

Excellent point. Brick-walled, clipped recordings have basically become the standard for all genres at this point. Zero dynamic range. For example, I don't know how anyone can listen to say Bruce Springsteen's "Magic" and think "yeah, that sounds good". Basically every recording I've heard in thepast ten years has been similarly affected...

Remastering has also ruined recording after recording, a good example being the Led Zeppelin remasters.

I don't know if it's the fault of the record companies. I don't think the record companies are really dictating anything. From what I hear, the record companies are basically in limbo and are just going with the flow.

It's the people who are choosing ease and convenience over quality.

Why does everybody always want to label Radiohead as an '00 decade band? Their first three albums all came out in the 90's - Pablo Honey (1993), The Bends (1995), and arguably their defining album, OK Computer (1997). That makes them a 90's band in my book, far more than an '00 band.

I kind of see them in the way I see The Flaming Lips. I've been listening to both since 1995, but both feel like 00's bands to me. Perhaps it feels more like the made the decade theirs, as opposed to when the albums were released. I would never say the 90's belonged to The Flaming Lips or Radiohead.

It's probably not quite as bad as it's made out to be, but it still lacks a big identity, and is the worst decade for mainstream music.

My comment about the stigma of the '80's has to do with the majority of people thinking that the music during that time was awful, because most people associate the '80's with the retro/pop music that was all over the place. The '80's most certainly had fantastic albums, as evidenced by the posts after mine, but those albums aren't generally what people think of when you talk about '80's music.

I was just wondering if this decade would get that kind of association, despite the fantastic albums that have come out over the past 10 years.

It's difficult to sum up a decade's worth of music, encompassing all genres, into a simple sentence.

I think the stigma surrounding the 80's lifted this decade, as you can find an appreciation of 80's music this decade, along with 80's retro coming back in style. Same as how the 70's became big again in the late 90's.

Oh, it has an identity. "metrosexual". or "flaming".

Because they released more albums this decade? Because they were more popular this decade? Because their output was better this decade?

As a child of the '80s (meaning I was in my teens in the '80s), and '80s music being by far my favorite, I have to agree, sort of.

I've said here many times, that the '80s has the best and worst music of the century. The first few years of the '80s (really 1978 - 1983, aka the "New Wave" era) was the best music of the century. The synth had just been made available to musicians and began a musical revolution, much the way the electric guitar had years earlier. Coming off the coat-tails of punk and alongside goth, the music was very minor key, dark and foreboding (Numan, early Ultravox, OMD & Human League, etc.)

But unfortunately, that meant that every Tom, Dick & Harry band or artist jumped on the synth bandwagon and started making music. And with the less talented came the shittier music. And synth music changed from dark and forbidding to bright and cheesy (with even bands such as OMD & The Human League selling out to that style). THAT is the music we all mock when we say "'80s music".

Unfortunately, the early '80s stuff is lost to most except those that were there, or real music fans who seek it out (and don't just accept whatever is handed to them on a mainstream compilation CD).

you mean like psuedo echo?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zDrJKmrOo2s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zDrJKmrOo2s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I don't think the stereotypical 80s cheese new wave is all so bad though. Human League I think actually IMPROVED over their early stuff with Dare. I've listened to the original band and don't like it at all.

I've tried listening to a lot of "early new wave" and none really do much for me besides Japan. Are there any others close to them? I know duran duran is an obvious choice but they were poppier and just lifted things from them.

Released more albums? Ok one more album than the prior decade, so technically, yes. More popular? I'd say just as, not more so. Output better, though? There I'm going to have to differ, as that's completely debatable. With the exception of In Rainbows, there's no album they've released this decade, on the whole, that is better than The Bends or OK Computer in my book. I only like about half of Kid A, about the same of Amnesiacand even less of Hail To The Thief. Even then, though, it still doesn't give enough justification to label them more of an '00 band than a 90's one.

Anyway, to me, whatever decade the band got their start and made their mark in fame wise first - which again in this case with Radiohead is still the 90's - is the one they ultimately belong to.

Oasis put out more albums this decade than the last, yet that doesn't make than an '00 band. R.E.M. released almost as many albums in the 90's as they did the 80's - but do you see them being referred to as a 90's band. Do you consider Aerosmith a 70's, 80's or 90's band? Even though they certainly had just as many hits in the 80's/90's (and were perhaps, even more popular) than they did in the 70's, to me I'll always associate them with the 70's, first.

Doesn't mean that a band can't move beyond just one decade for popularity, but still, the association will always be with their debut one.

Those shitty emo bands make me puke. That's what I hear on the radio nowadays.

I think decades tend to be stigmatized by their cultural excesses, and usually the worst excesses. For example, a lot of people think the '70s were nothing but disco music, bad hairdos, and garish fashions; and a lot of people think the '80s were nothing but bad perms, synthesizer-based pop music and cheesy hair metal bands.

It takes either actually living through a particular decade or at least doing your own digging in the past to break through the common stigmas.

Hitting the nail right on the head with that one.

I agree. also haven't really liked liked anything Radiohead has done since OK Computer. I'm always kind of amazed how well critics typically rate their albums. "In Rainbows" was, to me, by far the best thing they'd done since OK Computer, but even that album doesn't measure up. IMO, "The Bends" is still the best thing they've done.
/old fart contrarian.

I'm guessing Radiohead has sold more records this decade than the past.

I agree that The Bends is the best Radiohead album, but I really liked Kid A and remember it being a huge deal when it came out. I actually prefer that album to OK Computer. Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief did nothing for me, but I enjoyed In Rainbows.

But they had their biggest radio hit by far with Creep in the '90s.

Yes, but you could say that's also because they've had more records to sell, too. Still doesn't change anything. With his passing, Michael Jackson has sold more records this year than in the past ten years. By your logic, does that justify him now being an '00 artist, as well? Don't think so.

I'm skeptical.

I'd guess that this decade will be looked at as a sort of Dark Ages, when compared with decades in the past, and hopefully decades in the future.

Probably: iPods, iTunes, Britney Spears, American Idol