90s x 2000s

[Bruno]

Has anyone here ever noticed that the songs released in the 2000s are in better rank than 90s songs?

TOP 100:
90s: 10
2000s: 9

TOP 500:
90s: 39
2000s: 75 !!!

TOP 1000:
90s: 115
2000s: 142 !!!

This really surprised me.

[Nick]

That's actually really interesting, as most people would expect a downward trend to occur due to the bias against newer releases. Does anyone have a solid idea of why this is? Perhaps it's due to publications wanting to shed their image of only promoting "canon" works (i.e. music from the 60's and 70's) by championing more recent music on their all time lists?

[Henry]

That's actually really interesting, as most people would expect a downward trend to occur due to the bias against newer releases. Does anyone have a solid idea of why this is? Perhaps it's due to publications wanting to shed their image of only promoting "canon" works (i.e. music from the 60's and 70's) by championing more recent music on their all time lists?

I do not see a bias against more recent music. My conjecture is that there are more lists are generated for recent years and decades, so the bias is actually against mid-tier songs from earlier decades, especially the 1960's and 1970's as evidenced by the precipitous drop of Steely Dan, including Reeling In the Years.

[Henrik]

I had noticed this trend, but probably looked at different levels than top 500 and top 100, because these numbers took me by surprise. It made me create a diagram of the number of songs per year, for different levels. And this diagram shows that the '90s and the '00s are pretty similar when going further down the list.

The 4000-6000 curves show four tops, around 1967, 1980, 1994 and 2007.

[imgsize 600x400]http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/songs_year_trend.jpg[/imgsize]

[Jonathon]

Has anyone here ever noticed that the songs released in the 2000s are in better rank than 90s songs?

TOP 100:
90s: 10
2000s: 9

TOP 500:
90s: 39
2000s: 75 !!!

TOP 1000:
90s: 115
2000s: 142 !!!

This really surprised me.

I noticed the 90s song trend. What's interesting is the 90s is the strongest album decade since the 70s, but doesn't do well for songs.

As a fan, it does bug me a bit that Nirvana has only one song in the top 500. In my opinion they deserve at least 3-4.

[Listyguy]

I'm highly surprised by this, because I consider the 90's to be a much stronger decade that the 00's. This may in part be the resonance of end of the decade lists, but I could be wrong. Maybe critics like the 00's more than the 90's.

[Jonathon]

I'm highly surprised by this, because I consider the 90's to be a much stronger decade that the 00's. This may in part be the resonance of end of the decade lists, but I could be wrong. Maybe critics like the 00's more than the 90's.

The strange things is as far as albums go, critics prefer the 90s too.

[Henry]

I had noticed this trend, but probably looked at different levels than top 500 and top 100, because these numbers took me by surprise. It made me create a diagram of the number of songs per year, for different levels. And this diagram shows that the '90s and the '00s are pretty similar when going further down the list.

The 4000-6000 curves show four tops, around 1967, 1980, 1994 and 2007.

Thanks for sharing the very informative graphical analysis.

I attempted to indicate in my earlier post that I am particularly interested in a comparison of the decade strengths (60's through 2000's) in this 2014 update versus the last 2013 update and earlier updates.

[Jirin]

I would conjecture that it has something to do with the fact that a lot of indie alt-rock bands gained a lot of attention at the same time in the early to mid 00s.

Also the mid to late 90s are generally associated with post-grunge. It was kind of a between period for popular music where the remnants of grunge were hanging on and dance-pop hadn't taken off yet. Also in the 90s rap was dominated by very marketing-oriented labels whereas in the 00s there were more marketing oriented individuals who learned how to use social media to sell their own brand instead of the label's brand. Critics like individuals, not labels.

[Jonathon]

I would conjecture that it has something to do with the fact that a lot of indie alt-rock bands gained a lot of attention at the same time in the early to mid 00s.

Also the mid to late 90s are generally associated with post-grunge. It was kind of a between period for popular music where the remnants of grunge were hanging on and dance-pop hadn't taken off yet. Also in the 90s rap was dominated by very marketing-oriented labels whereas in the 00s there were more marketing oriented individuals who learned how to use social media to sell their own brand instead of the label's brand. Critics like individuals, not labels.

I actually think what we maybe seeing is the sheer number of end of decade lists for the 2000s helping that decade, though it's curious that the 90s does 50% better on the album list, and underperforms so much for singles.

[Listyguy]

I think one reason the 90's albums did so much better than the 90's songs, compared to the 00's, is because a lot of the big names from the 90's were alternative, album-oriented groups, such as Radiohead, R.E.M., PJ Harvey, the Flaming Lips, etc. Meanwhile, in the 00's, you have a lot of acts like Rihanna and Britney Spears cracking the list (much to my dismay).

[Nassim]

Outside of some potential bias due to number of lists or something, I think some reasons might be :

- Lack of acclaimed pop hits in the 90s, the kind of songs that could appeal to all kind of publications. In the 00s you have every year a few tracks that are both huge critical and commercial successes (Crazy, Crazy in Love, Umbrella, Can't Get You Out of My Head, Hey Ya...)
- There are a lot of very acclaimed songs in the UK (and by extension in Europe) that get little recognition in the US : Oasis, Pulp, the Stone Roses and Blur only have 1 or 2 songs successful in the US and other acts like the Charlatans, Happy Mondays, Underworld, Suede or Supergrass barely make a dent in the US lists. On the other hand a few US acts like Pavement and some hip hop artists have troubles crossing the Atlantic too. Safe for a few exceptions like the Libertines, the 00s seems, maybe thanks to the internet, to have much less of a transatlantic gap.
- Most of 90s most acclaimed act see their showings in lists splitted between a lot of songs : there doesn't seem to be the same agreement on which are the 1, 2 or 3 best songs of R.E.M., PJ Harvey, Bjork, Pavement, the Chemical Brothers or Nick Cave as there is for the 00s bands with as much acclaim (Outkast, LCD Soundsystem, the White Stripes and Arcade Fire ... even the Strokes and Radiohead which I expected to not have more than 1 song really standing out seem to have a few more)

[Henrik]

There are a lot of very acclaimed songs in the UK (and by extension in Europe) that get little recognition in the US : Oasis, Pulp, the Stone Roses and Blur only have 1 or 2 songs successful in the US and other acts like the Charlatans, Happy Mondays, Underworld, Suede or Supergrass barely make a dent in the US lists. On the other hand a few US acts like Pavement and some hip hop artists have troubles crossing the Atlantic too. Safe for a few exceptions like the Libertines, the 00s seems, maybe thanks to the internet, to have much less of a transatlantic gap.

I think you might be onto something here, Nassim. With the internet availability during the '00s, we saw an increased correlation between US and UK/European critics. There is a similar amount of acclaim overall between the '90s and the '00s (as seen in the top 6000), but with the combined acclaim from US and Europe, there are more songs from the '00s in the alltime top 500.