Perception of Early 2000s Music at the time

That's a good point. In a general sense, the Billboard Hot 100 charts from the Late '90s and Early 2000s are not dramatically different from one another. There are distinct differences, of course (such as the decline of the '90s alternative scene), however in regards to the music scene, I personally believe the two eras have more similarities than differences. I think that's why a lot of people often mistake the Early 2000s as being an extension of the '90s, even though the former was a cultural era in it's own right. 

Limp Bizkit, Sugar Ray and Smash Mouth were popular here during the Late '90s as well, however i'm not sure if they were as ridiculed as they were in the United States. I just think they were essentially "drowned out" by the continued success of alternative-rock and pop-punk bands, who would have received more attention by the press and music critics alike. It would have been hard for Limp Bizkit, Sugar Ray and Smash Mouth to make a big impression on the Australian public during the Late '90s, considering how successful The Living End's debut album was (it stayed on the charts for 63 weeks), the success of American alt-rock bands (such as Hole, Garbage etc.) and the fact that Silverchair were still at the peak of their career. Those bands wouldn't have had to face such stiff competition in the United States, which is why the American public were less receptive to them.

1998 seemed to be the last year in the US where alternative-rock was still a cultural force. I know the genre lasted well into 1999, but the genre wasn't as influential or culturally significant as it had been just a couple of years prior. I know I've mentioned this before, the alternative-rock scene never truly died out in the mainstream here; it just morphed into a more generic sound and the genre dropped it's '90s influences. Silverchair's Diorama was a massive success back in 2002 and Garbage's "Cherry Lips" was one of the biggest hits of 2002. 

In my own personal opinion, I think music's decline was more drastic here than it was in the US and even in the UK, to a certain extent. If you compare the Billboard Hot 100 and ARIA Charts from 1999, they generally differ quite a bit from one another. The Billboard Hot 100 had more R&B/hip-hop songs, while the ARIA Chart were typically comprised more of imported pop music from the UK/Europe and alternative-rock. 


I do like a lot of songs from the Early 2000s, such as "Hanging By a Moment", "In Too Deep" and "Numb". However, generally speaking, I personally believe the Early 2000s were an overall step-down in quality.

The reason why I don't view the Late '90s in the same way that I perceive music from 2000/2001 onwards, is because I think the music industry wasn't so consumer-driven at the time and most of the songs on the charts had substance. After the mass success of Napster in 1999, the music industry did change their approach in terms of marketing and producing new talent. Since 2000/2001, record labels have been more reluctant to sign unknown artists/bands, in case they do not make a profit. It is harder for record labels to make a profit, due to the competition with streaming services and digital sales. 

As a result, the music scene has generally become more commercialised in the 21st Century, because the marketing appeal of artists has essentially taken precedence over their creative output. That's why EDM and Trap over-saturate the charts to the extent they do. 


To be fair, there are a few notable differences which distinguish the 'Post-Grunge' bands of the Mid/Late '90s from the artists/bands of the Seattle movement, even if they are not truly drastic differences. Bands from the Post-Grunge scene were generally more experimental and incorporated influences from other genres into their music. For instance, Bush's "Glycerine" incorporates the cello. I would also argue that Post-Grunge songs are generally more polished than songs released by bands from the Seattle scene.

I do agree though that Post-Grunge bands are unfairly criticised for being too formulaic. A lot of people tend to have the impression that they were "record label" products and they were formed purely to market to teens/young adults, when it wasn't the case. Live formed as early as 1989, two years before Grunge emerged in the mainstream. Heck, I think you could even make a case for some Post-Grunge songs to be regarded as Grunge. I would personally consider songs such as "Comedown", "Tomorrow" and "Swallowed" as Grunge.