most under rated album

[Jonathan]

I was not the one who started with the elitist attitude.

Yeah, that was me!

[executioner]

If Dave Matthews Band and Mighty Mighty Bosstones get you as revved up as Petra and, say, Whiteheart, more power to you.

If getting "revved up" is the qualifier you use for good music, then you don't understand music at all.

Meanwhile, your elitist attitude about who has better taste in music is irritating and frankly inappropriate. Your taste is no better than anyone else's on this board. You just think it is ... because it's your taste. Likewise, I think my taste in music is awesome, the fact that 95 percent of the world finds it annoying notwithstanding.

Pot meet kettle...

I was not the one who started with the elitist attitude. And I am simply saying what is generally agreed upon. The music ladder is generally considered to be:

60s/70s
90s





80s

Your generally considereds must be from a different planet or something because I've never heard it quite like that. In experienced music circles 80's are considered far above the 90's. maybe its all the dope and herion that 90's(so called artists) consumed in the their time and day.

[Shell]

Good grief you guys, dope in one form or another has been a part of the music industry since day one, it doesn't matter what decade, drug and alcohol use has always been a problem. I happen to like music from the 80s. I also happened to like David Cassidy, Bobby Sherman and Davy Jones when I was a kid way back in the dark ages (I will admit my taste has improved since then). I also happened to think (and still do) that David Hasselhoff is sort of cute, but so what? Does it really matter? Is the world going to stop revolving? This has gone way off topic and it's ridiculous to bicker about taste in music.

[Jonathan]

Shell! One more post and you are at 2600!

[Dan]

= Atari

I wonder what title you get at 2600?

[Jonathan]

Bingo!

[separateunion]

= Atari

I wonder what title you get at 2600?

Sounds like a good once off title to me.

[separateunion]

In experienced music circles 80's are considered far above the 90's. maybe its all the dope and herion that 90's(so called artists) consumed in the their time and day.

I will never buy that you are involved in "experienced music circles".

And the drug use was probably worse in the 60s - 80s than it was in the 90s. Regardless, someone's drug use does not inhibit them from making good music.

[knotodiswrld]

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "wasteland" to describe the musical environment of the 1990's. So for that, I apologize. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone.

But that's not why I am ashamed to be a member of this website right now.

I am ashamed because of the tone this conversation has taken regarding something as silly as whether the music of the 90's was better than the music of the 80's. The tone is disgusting. It's horrendous. And if any unsaved people are reading it, you've just convinced them all that our supposed relationships with Christ are a joke.

Have you ever been on a Sci-Fi website and read one of the "Could a Federation Starship from Star Trek beat an Imperial Star Destroyer from Star Wars" threads? They tend to go on and on for dozens or hundreds of pages. And they start calling each other names I wouldn't want a drill sergeant to hear. Sounds silly to get so riled up over something like that, huh?

Well, is it any less silly for people who are supposed to be Christians, who are supposed to model the love and humility of Christ Jesus, to get so angry and to take such offense over which decade's music was better?!!??!

Look, I've seen some of the tone taken here over theological disagreements. And while most of those tended to develop a very combative attitude as well, I sort of understood. People can get very emotional about their theological beliefs. So, wile it is still wrong to take such a tone over pre-destination or faith healing or whether Wesleyan theology is truly "Protestant", such conversations can challenge a person's core perceptions of Ultimate Reality. And when those perceptions are threatened people sometimes react much the same way they would if they were under personal physical attack, or if their home were being invaded. They can feel as if their whole world is being threatened. So, I've always held my tongue ... or in this case my keyboard ... about that before.

But this is outrageous. To get so angry over whether a particular decade had good music? How can you justify that? Whether your position is correct or not, how can you justify getting angry over it?

Even if you are totally, 100% right and the other guy is totally 100% wrong (which is not possible when discussing something totally subjective like whether 90's music is any good), does it really justify getting angry about it? Is it really worth getting offended?

Guys, think about our priorities here. Are we really so intent on proving we're right about such a foolish topic that we're willing to attack and insult each other? Frankly, I say it's not worth it. Think what you want about the music of whatever decade. I want no part of such foolishness.

2 Timothy 2:23: Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

[Shell]

Very well put.

[Jonathan]

[CatNamedManny]

If getting "revved up" is the qualifier you use for good music, then you don't understand music at all.

I don't understand why you keep launching ad hominem attacks, first by calling other posters "ignorant," then by belittling their taste in music. It does not reflect well on you.

As I said in my post, I'm not really talking about "good music." I'm talking about popular, i.e., successful music, which I personally don't consider to be the same thing as "good." (Sometimes it's good; sometimes it's not.) You may consider what was on the radio in the 1980s equally good (or not as good) as what was on the radio in the 1990s. If that was indeed what a lot of people felt, Petra would not have had any trouble selling albums in the '90s.

In fact, this whole debate is based on the fact that music in those two decades was very, very different. I don't think you'd disagree. That's why I said, "Rock music in the 1990s ... pretty much sucked, especially if you like the kind of rock/hard music that was popular in the 1980s." So I'm not sure what you're arguing against, unless it's just my opinion that "rock music in the 1990s ... pretty much sucked" while ignoring the qualifier. In that case, you seem to be arguing that the 1990s had better rock music on the radio, which is you giving your personal opinion that the music Petra played in the 1980s -- which was based pretty explicitly on what was popular at the time -- was not as good as the popular rock music of the 1990s that they could not successfully adopt. That's an odd argument to make on a message board like this, but hey, to each his own.

I am guilty, as I already acknowledged, of substituting opinion-based language for more objective-sounding language (saying, for example, "music in the 1990s was terrible" instead of "I did not like music from the 1990s"). Everyone does this, especially when the subject is music. That doesn't make it right, but it's habit. Still, that's a far cry from accusing those who disagree with me of not knowing "what good music is" or not "understand[ing] music at all." I also didn't call anybody "high" for disagreeing with me. As I said before, that kind of name-calling is inappropriate, especially given the nature of the board where we're posting, as others have stated.

I'm sure I've contributed to taking this discussion in an unhealthy direction, and I apologize for that, but it doesn't excuse your decision to launch personal attacks on those who don't like your favorite bands. That's never OK.

[Shell]

We've all gotten snarky (cool word ) at some time or another, it happens when you have a group of people on a message board. If we are going to be cranky, though, it should at least be over something a little more important than different taste in music -- and yes, name calling is never acceptable and doesn't accomplish anything.

[fcollazo]

What about Pearl Jam and Stone Temple Pilots, 2 of the most creative and original bands of any era. Again, to me the 80's music was fabricated product for mass consumption, the 90's was freedom to create a be yourself. Check this comparo on rock trends:

80's 90's
Hair spray Any hairdo
Spandex Flannel shirts and anything else
Neon solid color guitars Actual wood classic guitars
Transistor amps Tube amps
Digital equip. Analog equip.
High pitched vocals Wider range vocals
EVH type solos Any type solo or none