The Curious Case of Music

[The Man]

Well my point isn't that you should look at the reviews anyway, it's that you should look at the ratings. The five-star albums are pretty much certain to be of high historical importance. If they weren't influential immediately they became influential later - see: Velvet Underground, Nick Drake, etc. I can't think of any album they've rated with five stars that didn't go on to influence countless future musicians. Or at least become a strong influence on specific musicians who would go on to influence countless future musicians themselves. The Soft Boys didn't receive wide exposure, but they were a major and very obvious influence on R.E.M.

That said, I agree that it's pretty difficult to get a full perspective on how music evolved without actually listening to it. The problem, of course, is that there are far too many important bands to listen to all of them in the time allotted for this assignment, so Bunny is going to have to pick and choose. The five-star thing helps to narrow it down.

That said I just realised the assignment apparently focuses on the 2000s specifically. Which is incredibly dumb. Like, so dumb it refused to register in my brain the first time I read Bunny's post. Most of that music developed out of trends set in the '70s, '80s and '90s. And to a lesser extent the '60s. Most of the artists I mentioned predate the 2000s because it's a history of rock class, and it's pretty difficult to come up with a good historical synthesis of stuff that hasn't exactly had much time to have an impact yet. For that I'd say just go with lists like Rolling Stone and Pitchfork's lists of the best albums of the decade. Even though I often find myself strongly disagreeing with both publications when it comes to music reviews.

It should also be pointed out that my history of punk is by no means comprehensive; there are many subgenres such as oi and street punk that I didn't bother to cover because I've never had much interest in them. I did cover most of the subgenres of hardcore though.

[escobert]

wow between Aaron and Steve my brain just exploded

Steve you are never allowed to post in the same thread as Aaron. EVER.

[sharkythesharkdogg]

It isn't really a comprehensive project involving the histories of each genre. It's more a small project with an overview of the bands who brought the most to a genre, heavily influenced other artists, and/or reached some sort of milestone in their own time.

Well hardcore, punk, and all those can still be considered "smaller genres" but some older hardcore bands that were very influential are:

Originally hardcore was best described as just angrier sounding punk rock with a more focused message. Some of the bands best know for this are:

7 seconds
Minor Threat
Agnostic Front
The Gorilla Biscuits
Sick of It All
Warzone
Strife
Youth of Today
Black Flag
Judge

Those bands are pretty much known for establishing the "traditional" way hardcore sounded and being big influences that way. Here are some bands that in began experimenting with the sound first.

Bad Brains (brought some reggae and metal elements into hardcore when it was still very punk)

Refused (considered hardcore, but very experimental. One of the first to bring elements of screamo, techno, and other influences into hardcore. Almost their own genre.)

The Cro-Mags (one of the first to really bring full on metal solos and some breakdown elements into hardcore. Perhaps one of the first metalcore bands? Not many breakdowns. Better described as speed metal meets hardcore.)

Hatebreed, Trial (these bands kept the message, but started adding the heavy, heavy "breakdowns" associated with hardcore today)

Prayer for Cleansing, Undying, Unearth (This are the bands that began the fairly even distribution of metal riff/solo, hardcore breakdown formula. Look at the earlier stuff I guess)

[Jiro]

wow between Aaron and Steve my brain just exploded

Steve you are never allowed to post in the same thread as Aaron. EVER.

You could build a castle out of those walls. But jesus were they good.

[Iceglow]

my posts weren't THAT long, my post in the covers thread was far longer :P

Though Hardcore is one of the genres I readily associate with and a lot of the bands I listen to today are considered Hardcore. I guess I'm a Punk at heart if not in fashion.

[Bunny]

That said I just realised the assignment apparently focuses on the 2000s specifically. Which is incredibly dumb. Like, so dumb it refused to register in my brain the first time I read Bunny's post. Most of that music developed out of trends set in the '70s, '80s and '90s. And to a lesser extent the '60s. Most of the artists I mentioned predate the 2000s because it's a history of rock class, and it's pretty difficult to come up with a good historical synthesis of stuff that hasn't exactly had much time to have an impact yet.

All decades are represented by different groups. Mine was assigned specifically the decade of 2000-2009/2010. 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s are going to be represented by similar groups in a somewhat similar fashion. It sucks that I got saddled with the 00s but I'm not really complaining about it all that much.

I'm still going through this thread and looking at all the suggestions, as well as putting together information of my own gathering, so that's why I haven't really responded all that much. That and I've had a busy weekend otherwise.