The 90's have been called by some, including but not limited to my father, as being "a decade without an identity". This expression is most often used in reference to the 90's music industry. There is a general understanding of what someone means when they say "I love seventies music" or "I love eighties music", however, there is absolutely no clarity in what someone means when they say "I love nineties music". This said, I don't think it is fair to describe the era as having no identity. I love nineties music, which is why I am so unhappy with that description being used. It suggests, or maybe is just used to suggest, that 90's music had no character - that it was droll, forgettable and didn't pioneer any new sounds or movements. On the contrary, I feel that if anything can be said for this era it would be that it had too much to offer. In past decades, "usually only a few types of music dominated the Top 40, but in the nineties you can find rock, rap, gangsta rap, alternative, punk, country, R&B, adult contemporary, ska, and classic rock." (1) There was a broader spectrum of music to accomodate an ever-fragmenting audience. Back in the 60's artists could get a mass audience and achieve mass hysteria (think 'Beatlesmania'), but in the 90's audiences showed signs of becoming less 'mass' and more 'niche'. Today we are experiencing the full effects of this. 00's music rarely has had a 'mass audience'; we're all savvy music consumers who know how to seek out the music we like. When was the last time an artist has 'mania' in the 00's? Never to my recollection. Rather than a decade without an identity, I'd call the 90's a decade with multiple-identities. And every decade from now will probably continue further with this trend - becoming more and more fragmented. The perceived "lack of identity" hence stems from the audience and not from the standard of music.
I agree with this perspective, but contributing to the effect is the fact that the music of the 70s and 80s has had several years in which to be judged and re-judged, as popular acts that have little merit are ignored while the artists who have stood the test of time or who were influential in hindsight (despite lack of commercial success) are reaffirmed into the critics' pantheon. Talk Talk's "Laughing Stock" is only now coming to be recognised as a great influence on post-rock, one of many genres to come out of the 90s.
ReplyDeleteThe comment that 70s and 80s music had time to be rejudged is true to an extent and I think in a few decades time there will be clear threads of the 90s remembered, which are already starting to show in their early forms now.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this post and agree with what is largely said. Certainly there is no definitive implication with 90s music as with the decades before, however I think some of the cultural mainstreaming which has happened has contributed to that. There were iconic and powerful movements in past decades but in both the 90s and even moreso now, attention spans are short, and people listen to everything.
However you're right thought, it's wrong to say the 90s had no character. Perhaps what the title statement could really mean is that the decade's identity is it's diversity and variety. Maybe it's defined by it's lack of one outstanding identity.