11 albums from 1994



Cockney Mackem said:
1992 was a canny year:

Faith No More: Angel Dust
Pantera: Vulgar Display of Power
Rage Against The Machine
Peter Gabriel: Us
Black Crowes: Southern Harmony And Music Companion
Alice in Chains: Dirt
PJ Harvey: Dry
Ministry: Psalm 69
Click to expand...

yet 1993 is better and more influential than both 1992 and 1994...

Top 11 albums from 1993

DEPECHE MODE – Songs of Faith and Devotion

SUEDE - Suede

PJ HARVEY – Rid of Me

SAINT ETIENNE – So Tough

NEW ORDER – Republic

SMASHING PUMPKINS – Siamese Dream

BJORK – Debut

THE THE – Dusk

RADIOHEAD – Pablo Honey

THE BREEDERS – Last Splash

PULP - Intro
 
Cockney Mackem said:
1992 was a canny year:

Faith No More: Angel Dust
Pantera: Vulgar Display of Power
Rage Against The Machine
Peter Gabriel: Us
Black Crowes: Southern Harmony And Music Companion
Alice in Chains: Dirt
PJ Harvey: Dry
Ministry: Psalm 69
Click to expand...

while for 1992 I don't see REM - Automatic for the People, Tori Amos debut Little Earthquakes, Carter USM's 1992 Love Album, or IMO best album of that year... Inspiral Carpets - Revenge of the Goldfish? ;)
 
UZZA_SPARTA said:
I'm quite cynical every time music journos keep bringing up 1994 as their year to remember... its like an intentional ploy to do the Blur/Oasis thing and IMO re-writing musical history at same time :rolleyes:
The reality being that the year or years before (so 1992 & 1993) were probably much more relevant as a musical shift or where bands/artists made defining albums, therefore changing the direction of alternative music (I'm not talking rock or metal here) … but then they can't bring up the lazy journalism Blur/Oasis battle ;)
I remember in 1993 when Suede had established themselves, Pulp were still out on tour supporting St Etienne, or Bjork had broken solo from Sugar Cubes... then there were defining albums by Depeche Mode or PJ Harvey, and even New Order... Carter USM and Inspiral Carpets were the go to indie bands, while Blur had been spending too much time pre-Park Life wanting to sound like a Madchester band... and at festivals the headliners were Levellers, James, Morrissey, Shakespear's Sister, and indie bands like Curve or The Auteurs were getting attention.... fast forward 6 months and the likes of Steve Lemacq or NME suddenly wanted to generate a new movement because American artists from Nirvana to Smashing Pumpkins were stealing the limelight and they gave us Britpop … all they do now is repeat their story every few years and people buy into it :lol:
Click to expand...
This is a great post. The indie and grunge scene was at its peak right at the end of 80’s and the start of the 90’s (albums like Stone Roses, Technique, Doolittle, Loveless, Screamadelica). The Blur Oasis thing typified how moribund it had all become by then. Drinks at 10 Downing St, FFS!

So pleased the scene peaked when I was 16-18 tho, an amazing soundtrack to grow up with.
 
chriswallace85 said:
Ridiculous attitude.
Click to expand...

Nah man, take his vocal lines when he's doing his usual end-of-song or instrumental break ad-libs for example. On Audioslave those parts tend to be very repetitive with very little layering or variation as if they've not spent too much time jamming out the tracks before recording them, or to experiment with parts in the studio. Compare this with similar parts on Superunknown where it's obvious they've taken a long time to jam it out, experiment and come up with alternative parts.

The same could be said for the guitar parts. As much as I rate Tom Morello for his individualistic style of playing, a lot of it can be very repetitive. Compare this with the Kim Thayil/Cornell parts on the Soundgarden stuff where they sound much more processed, less raw, and create a proper soundscape instead of just "here's the guitar part, right we're done."

Don't get me wrong, there's a place in music for a more raw sound (like I said, I love the RATM stuff and it's probably in part because of that rawness) and a place for that "get the album out ASAP" mentality, like when say the likes of Dream Theater write and record an album in two weeks. It's an interesting method and when you take the album in that context it can be amazing, but in both cases - Cornell and Dream Theater - I prefer the albums where it sounds like they've spent more time on it, jammed it out for a while, experimented in the studio for as long as it takes, than the ones where they sound like they've rushed to get it done.

At times that Audioslave album sounds like the band and the singer had never been in the same room together to jam the songs out - they've just emailed each other their parts and stuck them on top of each other.

I dunno, it sounds like I'm being a bit unfair to Audioslave. I do love plenty of their tracks and would defend them to the hilt against anyone trying to say that some shite like Oasis were a better band. I just liked Soundgarden and RATM more.
 
fyl2u said:
Nah man, take his vocal lines when he's doing his usual end-of-song or instrumental break ad-libs for example. On Audioslave those parts tend to be very repetitive with very little layering or variation as if they've not spent too much time jamming out the tracks before recording them, or to experiment with parts in the studio. Compare this with similar parts on Superunknown where it's obvious they've taken a long time to jam it out, experiment and come up with alternative parts.

The same could be said for the guitar parts. As much as I rate Tom Morello for his individualistic style of playing, a lot of it can be very repetitive. Compare this with the Kim Thayil/Cornell parts on the Soundgarden stuff where they sound much more processed, less raw, and create a proper soundscape instead of just "here's the guitar part, right we're done."

Don't get me wrong, there's a place in music for a more raw sound (like I said, I love the RATM stuff and it's probably in part because of that rawness) and a place for that "get the album out ASAP" mentality, like when say the likes of Dream Theater write and record an album in two weeks. It's an interesting method and when you take the album in that context it can be amazing, but in both cases - Cornell and Dream Theater - I prefer the albums where it sounds like they've spent more time on it, jammed it out for a while, experimented in the studio for as long as it takes, than the ones where they sound like they've rushed to get it done.

At times that Audioslave album sounds like the band and the singer had never been in the same room together to jam the songs out - they've just emailed each other their parts and stuck them on top of each other.

I dunno, it sounds like I'm being a bit unfair to Audioslave. I do love plenty of their tracks and would defend them to the hilt against anyone trying to say that some shite like Oasis were a better band. I just liked Soundgarden and RATM more.
Click to expand...
Have you ever considered that you just like heavier stuff?
 
fyl2u said:
Nah man, take his vocal lines when he's doing his usual end-of-song or instrumental break ad-libs for example. On Audioslave those parts tend to be very repetitive with very little layering or variation as if they've not spent too much time jamming out the tracks before recording them, or to experiment with parts in the studio. Compare this with similar parts on Superunknown where it's obvious they've taken a long time to jam it out, experiment and come up with alternative parts.

The same could be said for the guitar parts. As much as I rate Tom Morello for his individualistic style of playing, a lot of it can be very repetitive. Compare this with the Kim Thayil/Cornell parts on the Soundgarden stuff where they sound much more processed, less raw, and create a proper soundscape instead of just "here's the guitar part, right we're done."

Don't get me wrong, there's a place in music for a more raw sound (like I said, I love the RATM stuff and it's probably in part because of that rawness) and a place for that "get the album out ASAP" mentality, like when say the likes of Dream Theater write and record an album in two weeks. It's an interesting method and when you take the album in that context it can be amazing, but in both cases - Cornell and Dream Theater - I prefer the albums where it sounds like they've spent more time on it, jammed it out for a while, experimented in the studio for as long as it takes, than the ones where they sound like they've rushed to get it done.

At times that Audioslave album sounds like the band and the singer had never been in the same room together to jam the songs out - they've just emailed each other their parts and stuck them on top of each other.

I dunno, it sounds like I'm being a bit unfair to Audioslave. I do love plenty of their tracks and would defend them to the hilt against anyone trying to say that some shite like Oasis were a better band. I just liked Soundgarden and RATM more.
Click to expand...
Ffs, man, lad. Never known anyone overthink music so much.
 
UZZA_SPARTA said:
I'm quite cynical every time music journos keep bringing up 1994 as their year to remember... its like an intentional ploy to do the Blur/Oasis thing and IMO re-writing musical history at same time :rolleyes:
The reality being that the year or years before (so 1992 & 1993) were probably much more relevant as a musical shift or where bands/artists made defining albums, therefore changing the direction of alternative music (I'm not talking rock or metal here) … but then they can't bring up the lazy journalism Blur/Oasis battle ;)
I remember in 1993 when Suede had established themselves, Pulp were still out on tour supporting St Etienne, or Bjork had broken solo from Sugar Cubes... then there were defining albums by Depeche Mode or PJ Harvey, and even New Order... Carter USM and Inspiral Carpets were the go to indie bands, while Blur had been spending too much time pre-Park Life wanting to sound like a Madchester band... and at festivals the headliners were Levellers, James, Morrissey, Shakespear's Sister, and indie bands like Curve or The Auteurs were getting attention.... fast forward 6 months and the likes of Steve Lemacq or NME suddenly wanted to generate a new movement because American artists from Nirvana to Smashing Pumpkins were stealing the limelight and they gave us Britpop … all they do now is repeat their story every few years and people buy into it :lol:
Click to expand...

Agreed.

In the pre-94 indie/alternative scene there were such a wide range of bands on the scene, but then Britpop landed and suddenly everyone's a jangly-guitarred shite Oasis clone.

91-93 saw so much great music from so many awesome British alternative artists of so many different styles:

The Wonder Stuff
Pop Will Eat Itself
Ned's Atomic Dustbin
Carter USM
Sisters Of Mercy
The Levellers
PJ Harvey
Inspiral Carpets
Cud
The Wedding Present
The Cure
The Mission
New Model Army

The list goes on and on. And yet people who were into one were invariably into most of the rest of them too. I can't remember any bollocks from PWEI fans arguing that The Wonder Stuff were shite or vice versa for example.
 

Back
Top