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.
