There seems to be a cutoff between the "average" person born before or after 1946-ish (the very earliest Baby Boomer).

Perfect example: from Jerry Springer's biography Ringmaster (which is a very interesting read, btw. Even though he seems like he's always been a cool/nice/fun guy, it really shows another more serious, personal side of him).

Anyway, before the talk show, he was a news reporter and commentator. In one of those commentaries (from 1986), he talks about his college experience. To put it into perspective, part of it says:

Our puritanical social concious was tempered by a less than serious view of campus life. We were the last generation of collegians who could listen to Peter Paul and Mary or Frankie Avalon without getting embarrased. Fraternities were "in", campus violence was a panty raid, and college football was king. We were the last class before the loss of innocence. By the time we graduated, our president would be shot, our campuses would be in turmoil, our cities would burn, and Vietnam would bury our classmates. College, much like life, would never be the same.

I think overall he's right. He and others born in 1944 clocked in a few years of college/early adult life before the true "60s" started. I also agree with him that when JFK was killed, there was definitely a change in the air and kinda ended the '50s feeling.

Now, someone four years younger is stil way old enough to remember the pre-1964 era with great detail. It's just that by the time they were 17 or 18 and "on their own", the "60s" (British Invasion/hippie/Woodstock/Vietnam) had arrived and totally changed pop culture.

I think this had a certain impression on how they've appeared since.

My personal interpretation of someone born around 1948, is that even though they've been very "adult-like" for years now, they've got a certain ingrained coolness that prevents them from REALLY seeming "old". Maybe because they had the Rolling Stones, etc as teens, they just seem like parents, not grandparents/senior citizens or anything (that's gonna be weird in 2015 when someone born in this era is over 65)!

Whereas someone born in the earlier '40s (rock stars and celebrities excluded) I can buy them being "senior citizens" more, if that makes any sense.

P.S. If you actually read all that, I commend you. ;) ;D

I think some of it has to do with age, but also where they were raised.  Just as an example my father was born in 1942 and lived his whole life in New York City (mostly Brooklyn).  My mom was from San Francisco, born in 1946 and moved to New York around 1970.  From what I've been told, the whole hippie thing was huge in San Francisco... and even though Woodstock took place in Upstate New York, NYC never really got caught up in the whole hippie thing.

So my parents do fit your profile, so to speak... my dad was more into the 50's & early 60's style stuff, but I think most people from NYC stayed with that, going into the late 60's with The Delfonics, Tommy James & The Shondells, The Foundations, Four Seasons, etc.... My mom was into the hippie-ish stuff... but that may have to do with the fact that she was raised in San Francisco.

^Yeah, that makes sense.

My dad is even a little older than that (born in '38) but moved out to San Francisco from the East Coast in 1969. Even though by then, he was a responsible adult and all, he still considers the late '60s his "time" in many ways (being really into the music and overall atmosphere of the era).

I agree it had a certain impact in the Bay Area that it may not have had elsewhere. San Francisco was very "progressive"/liberal in that sense.

I think there is a difference. My grandmother and grandfather(born in '40 and '39)were into Elvis and other more '50's/pre-1964 type things and never really got into the Beatles, Stones,hippie culture etc. But my grandomother's sister(born in 1950) is a huge fan of post-1964 culture. I think someone born before '46 were set in there ways by '64 they were adults,got married had families etc. But someone born after '46 was still young when '60's culture really took off.

I think there is a difference. My grandmother and grandfather(born in '40 and '39)were into Elvis and other more '50's/pre-1964 type things and never really got into the Beatles, Stones,hippie culture etc. But my grandomother's sister(born in 1950) is a huge fan of post-1964 culture. I think someone born before '46 were set in there ways by '64 they were adults,got married had families etc. But someone born after '46 was still young when '60's culture really took off.


I agree. You said pretty much what I did (just in way simpler words). :)

I do find it slightly ironic/funny/interesting that the peers of many people who "create" a certain era actually tend to not like it. For instance, people born around 1967 "created" much of the '90s, but your average person that age tends to be very attached to the '80s.

Same thing here. Your typical 1942-er played a big part in the late '60s culture, but a non-celebrity/typical 1942 person would tend to not like it.

I'd say so, but early '40s has traces of Boomer.

Actually, I'd say '30s-born and up is where the "hip" generation really starts.  They would at least be kind of young in the '60s, whereas the 19th Century attitudes really extended up to the 1950s so someone born before the '30s would be old fashioned.

The '60s were truly the first "modern" decade in many ways, relative to now of course.

I'd say so, but early '40s has traces of Boomer.

Actually, I'd say '30s-born and up is where the "hip" generation really starts.  They would at least be kind of young in the '60s, whereas the 19th Century attitudes really extended up to the 1950s so someone born before the '30s would be old fashioned.

The '60s were truly the first "modern" decade in many ways, relative to now of course.


Yeah, I would probably say the biggest change is the people who liked rock and roll. In 1955, the oldest fans were probably 20. Maybe 25 if you want to push it (people "aged" way faster then -- healthwise, appearance, attiture and tastes), so that'd be 1930 to 1935 or after.

My older uncle was born in 1930 and there's a clear difference between his points of reference and those of my dad born in '38 (17 versus 25 in 1955). Well, my uncle is still pretty "young/hip" for his age, but there's still a change.

Yeah, I would probably say the biggest change is the people who liked rock and roll. In 1955, the oldest fans were probably 20. Maybe 25 if you want to push it (people "aged" way faster then -- healthwise, appearance, attiture and tastes), so that'd be 1930 to 1935 or after.

My older uncle was born in 1930 and there's a clear difference between his points of reference and those of my dad born in '38 (17 versus 25 in 1955). Well, my uncle is still pretty "young/hip" for his age, but there's still a change.


Would you say that in mindset, the 19th Century actually went up to the 1950s?  I would say in a way, because there was still racism and girls were still considered "sweethearts" and the like.  Plus, the general mindset of the present really originated in the 1960s.

Would you say that in mindset, the 19th Century actually went up to the 1950s?  I would say in a way, because there was still racism and girls were still considered "sweethearts" and the like.  Plus, the general mindset of the present really originated in the 1960s.


In some ways, yes. Even though 1950 was a world away from 1890 in technology and industry, we had alot of antiquated thinking. I'd even say 1962 is more like the 19th century (mindset-wise) than it is to 1969.

The civil rights didn't even pick up steam to the point of changing until the mid '60s. There's a HUGE change with before and after 1964, IMO.

In some ways, yes. Even though 1950 was a world away from 1890 in technology and industry, we had alot of antiquated thinking. I'd even say 1962 is more like the 19th century (mindset-wise) than it is to 1969.

The civil rights didn't even pick up steam to the point of changing until the mid '60s. There's a HUGE change with before and after 1964, IMO.


I would say by 1930, tech was closer to today than 1890, but the mindset shift wasn't until 1967 or so.

I would say by 1930, tech was closer to today than 1890, but the mindset shift wasn't until 1967 or so.


That's true. Even late 1963-66 is still a bit old-fashioned/pre-modern. After JFK was shot and when the British Invasion happened, it just made things "less 50s". The honest to God "60s" actually begin in 1967 - pop culturally, technology and mindsetwise.

By the early '70s, stuff like open racism was (thankfully) becoming a relic of the past. Even in 1972, 1962 probably seemed like a lifetime ago.

That's true. Even late 1963-66 is still a bit old-fashioned/pre-modern. After JFK was shot and when the British Invasion happened, it just made things "less 50s". The honest to God "60s" actually begin in 1967 - pop culturally, technology and mindsetwise.

By the early '70s, stuff like open racism was (thankfully) becoming a relic of the past. Even in 1972, 1962 probably seemed like a lifetime ago.


It's funny, because 1972 is more "Sixties" than 1962!

This is why I think someone born as late as 1963 is a Boomer.  "The Sixties" were the Boomer era, but they centered around the late '60s and spilled into the '70s big time.  Whereas someone born in 1983 would have limited '80s experience, and would thus probably be a Y because they were still a little kid in the early '90s and weren't even 18 in 2000.

It's funny, because 1972 is more "Sixties" than 1962!

This is why I think someone born as late as 1963 is a Boomer.  "The Sixties" were the Boomer era, but they centered around the late '60s and spilled into the '70s big time.  Whereas someone born in 1983 would have limited '80s experience, and would thus probably be a Y because they were still a little kid in the early '90s and weren't even 18 in 2000.


I was just thinking about this today (stuff like this will sometimes pop into my head at random times -- only a geek like me! LOL), but every decade tends to have three "points". A spillover entry from the previous decade, a main portion, and a pathway to the next decade.

Well, I realized the 60s didn't really have a pathway to the '70s. At all. Not even '69. In 1971/72-75 things simply became "less 60s" (hippies and such faded away, and things were a bit more modern in music, technology and mindset, but there weren't any "sweeping" cultural changes).

So I'd even say the "60s" was 1964-75!

I was just thinking about this today (stuff like this will sometimes pop into my head at random times -- only a geek like me! LOL), but every decade tends to have three "points". A spillover entry from the previous decade, a main portion, and a pathway to the next decade.

Well, I realized the 60s didn't really have a pathway to the '70s. At all. Not even '69. In 1971/72-75 things simply became "less 60s" (hippies and such faded away, and things were a bit more modern in music, technology and mindset, but there weren't any "sweeping" cultural changes).

So I'd even say the "60s" was 1964-75!


I think the '90s and '00s is exactly the same way.  Every year since 1997 has simply seemed "less '90s", with an occasional fad like Emo music/culture or the Ipod which is distinctly '00s, just like disco or Shaft is distinctly '70s.  Since 1997, it's sort of been like floating on a log in a lake, slowly and not no surely leaving the shore of the '90s towards the opposite 2010s shore, and occasionally being bounced back by the waves of Mariah Carey singles.

When people throw '00s parties, they'll probably mix it with Grunge/coffeehouse culture and "true '00s" stuff, like Good Charlotte and 50 Cent. 

As a last note, the '70s were simply the bridge between the '60s and '80s, with some village people and shiny balls along the way.  I've actually heard people lump the '70s and '80s together quite a bit.

I think the '90s and '00s is exactly the same way.  Every year since 1997 has simply seemed "less '90s", with an occasional fad like Emo music/culture or the Ipod which is distinctly '00s, just like disco or Shaft is distinctly '70s.  Since 1997, it's sort of been like floating on a log in a lake, slowly and not no surely leaving the shore of the '90s towards the opposite 2010s shore, and occasionally being bounced back by the waves of Mariah Carey singles.

When people throw '00s parties, they'll probably mix it with Grunge/coffeehouse culture and "true '00s" stuff, like Good Charlotte and 50 Cent. 

As a last note, the '70s were simply the bridge between the '60s and '80s, with some village people and shiny balls along the way.  I've actually heard people lump the '70s and '80s together quite a bit.


Good description.

It's amazing to me how close the "60s" and "80s" really are. 1975 was still 60s-feeling in many respects (the last year before Disco took off), and 1979 was the year big new wave singles started catching on for instance.

So the very last of the 60s and very first of the 80s were theoretically only four years apart.

Good description.

It's amazing to me how close the "60s" and "80s" really are. 1975 was still 60s-feeling in many respects (the last year before Disco took off), and 1979 was the year big new wave singles started catching on for instance.

So the very last of the 60s and very first of the 80s were theoretically only four years apart.


Alternately, the '80s and '00s are also very close, if you think about how the last of the "Eighties" occured in 1991 and that the first "'00s" things began in 1997.  That's only six years.  Maybe that's why nostalgia is more like 25 to 30 years.

Even the '60s weren't too far from the '90s.  Even back in 1999, the '60s was still seen as "around 25 years ago".  I remember back in 1999 thinking about how a little bit of the '60s was still less than thirty years ago. Today that seems miraculous, as in less than four years 30 years ago will be 1980!

Alternately, the '80s and '00s are also very close, if you think about how the last of the "Eighties" occured in 1991 and that the first "'00s" things began in 1997.  That's only six years.  Maybe that's why nostalgia is more like 25 to 30 years.

Even the '60s weren't too far from the '90s.  Even back in 1999, the '60s was still seen as "around 25 years ago".  I remember back in 1999 thinking about how a little bit of the '60s was still less than thirty years ago. Today that seems miraculous, as in less than four years 30 years ago will be 1980!


That last sentence is scary, since it still seems like yesterday that someone born in '80 was only 20.

I agree the "70s" and "90s" were both very short decades if you think about it (actually, so was the "main 60s" of 1967-71).

The '80s actually has alot of staying power, if you want to extend it as far as possible was 1979-92. Maybe that's why alot of people such as myself can never really get tired of it. There's so much to explore, not like just a few years of cheesy fashions before it was over or anything.

That last sentence is scary, since it still seems like yesterday that someone born in '80 was only 20.

I agree the "70s" and "90s" were both very short decades if you think about it (actually, so was the "main 60s" of 1967-71).

The '80s actually has alot of staying power, if you want to extend it as far as possible was 1979-92. Maybe that's why alot of people such as myself can never really get tired of it. There's so much to explore, not like just a few years of cheesy fashions before it was over or anything.


I know!  When I think "Decade", I think Eighties.  Most decades just seem like a certain "time" and generally are packaged as decades later, but the '80s seem like they actually felt like a decade.  Songs of the '50s, '60s, '70s, '90s, and '00s are not instantly dateable the way '80s songs are.  Plus, the '80s never really died in some aspects, which may be partly why people are so reluctant to bring them back (also, to people over 35 they still seem really recent I would think).

I know!  When I think "Decade", I think Eighties.  Most decades just seem like a certain "time" and generally are packaged as decades later, but the '80s seem like they actually felt like a decade.  Songs of the '50s, '60s, '70s, '90s, and '00s are not instantly dateable the way '80s songs are.  Plus, the '80s never really died in some aspects, which may be partly why people are so reluctant to bring them back (also, to people over 35 they still seem really recent I would think).


I sometimes wonder if the '80s aren't quite "dead" yet either, just because of the mindset in the average kid/teenager of the time. In other words, look at many of today's "typical" 28, 30 or 33 year olds. Sure, they're adults and hold down steady careers or jobs (well, they should at least! LOL) and many have families, but they were so imprinted by Nintendo, or music videos, toys or just rebellion in general back in the '80s that they're still like big kids.

I think for instance, the '50s came back in the earlier '80s, and the 60s came back around 1989, and the '70s in the '90s because everyone from those times clearly acted/felt way differently, so it was like culture's way of saying it was "time" to revisit them.

That hasn't happened with the '80s yet because the '80s kids still act/feel like kids in so many ways (I'm not lambasting that, since I would put myself in that group in several ways too). ;)

I sometimes wonder if the '80s aren't quite "dead" yet either, just because of the mindset in the average kid/teenager of the time. In other words, look at many of today's "typical" 28, 30 or 33 year olds. Sure, they're adults and hold down steady careers or jobs (well, they should at least! LOL) and many have families, but they were so imprinted by Nintendo, or music videos, toys or just rebellion in general back in the '80s that they're still like big kids.

I think for instance, the '50s came back in the earlier '80s, and the 60s came back around 1989, and the '70s in the '90s because everyone from those times clearly acted/felt way differently, so it was like culture's way of saying it was "time" to revisit them.

That hasn't happened with the '80s yet because the '80s kids still act/feel like kids in so many ways (I'm not lambasting that, since I would put myself in that group in several ways too). ;)


I'd agree.  I don't really see people born in the '70s as parental figures.  Even late '60s people don't wholly seem parental to me, although they're getting up there.  The people I'd see as "my parents" are more like 1955-1965 born.  The '80s people still kind of act cool, even if they have to pretend to be uncool when they have kids.

I think the reason people were so quick to bring back the '70s in the '90s is because the '80s were so vast.  However, the '70s were revived into the '90s so much that they almost seemed like a non-technological '90s in some ways.  That '70s Show, for instance doesn't seem that far off from the '90s or now, even though it's probably not a really accurate '70s.

I'd agree.  I don't really see people born in the '70s as parental figures.  Even late '60s people don't wholly seem parental to me, although they're getting up there.  The people I'd see as "my parents" are more like 1955-1965 born.  The '80s people still kind of act cool, even if they have to pretend to be uncool when they have kids.

I think the reason people were so quick to bring back the '70s in the '90s is because the '80s were so vast.  However, the '70s were revived into the '90s so much that they almost seemed like a non-technological '90s in some ways.  That '70s Show, for instance doesn't seem that far off from the '90s or now, even though it's probably not a really accurate '70s.


In my experience, having kids can either extend/heighten your "coolness" or it can stop it in its tracks altogether. Oddly, alot of people who have kids early in life grow up faster in behavior and tastes too (well, if you have a kid at 16 or 19, etc. you have to. You can't just think of your own self, you have another life to care for, so that can really change someone's mindset, especially if they're not ready mentally or physically).

It's the people who aren't "ready" that age faster. The young parents who can better handle it, I think, tend to share more pop culture/cool experiences with their kids (if their kid is 10 when they're still only 28 for instance, they could like some of the same stuff).

On the other end, older people who have kids are already "set" in their ways, so it's less likely to change them. If they're cool, they'll continue to be, and if they're not, they'll stay that way too. I was lucky for instance, that my dad was basically the former when he had me at almost 44.

From what I know, my birth didn't really change either of my folks (aged 27 and 43 at the time).

In my experience, having kids can either extend/heighten your "coolness" or it can stop it in its tracks altogether. Oddly, alot of people who have kids early in life grow up faster in behavior and tastes too (well, if you have a kid at 16 or 19, etc. you have to. You can't just think of your own self, you have another life to care for, so that can really change someone's mindset, especially if they're not ready mentally or physically).

It's the people who aren't "ready" that age faster. The young parents who can better handle it, I think, tend to share more pop culture/cool experiences with their kids (if their kid is 10 when they're still only 28 for instance, they could like some of the same stuff).

On the other end, older people who have kids are already "set" in their ways, so it's less likely to change them. If they're cool, they'll continue to be, and if they're not, they'll stay that way too. I was lucky for instance, that my dad was basically the former when he had me at almost 44.

From what I know, my birth didn't really change either of my folks (aged 27 and 43 at the time).


Wow, your mom was only 27 and your dad was 44?  That's quite a gap!

Wow, your mom was only 27 and your dad was 44?  That's quite a gap!


Yeah, that's probably one reason May/December relationships always seemed more normal to me.

It's a safe thing to say they're both "young" for their real ages, but my dad is more like your typical 1946-ish person (i.e. likes the 60s more than the 50s), so there was never a really huge cultural gap between them from what I know.

Then again, my mom is more into today's music than me sometimes! Seems more 35-40 than 51, that's another reason I can't really view 50s born people as "old".

Yeah, that's probably one reason May/December relationships always seemed more normal to me.

It's a safe thing to say they're both "young" for their real ages, but my dad is more like your typical 1946-ish person (i.e. likes the 60s more than the 50s), so there was never a really huge cultural gap between them from what I know.

Then again, my mom is more into today's music than me sometimes! Seems more 35-40 than 51, that's another reason I can't really view 50s born people as "old".


That's cool.  Yeah, '50s born people would probably be into the '60s and '70s most, even the early '80s.
27/44 of course isn't perverted.  They're both adults, and some 27-year-old look and act 40, whereas some 44 years old look and act 25.

That's cool.  Yeah, '50s born people would probably be into the '60s and '70s most, even the early '80s.
27/44 of course isn't perverted.  They're both adults, and some 27-year-old look and act 40, whereas some 44 years old look and act 25.


Yeah, they met at 24 and 40 in 1978. Even though my mom is definitely more "hip" especially in the period after the '80s (notably with fashion - my dad is kinda clueless on that, but that's another story!), they both kinda see the "60s" as their time, and also like alot of '80s.

I can forgive my dad for being "older" in the ways he is, since I doubt many 47 year olds liked current music in 1985 or played Nintendo games in 1988. ;D

Yeah, they met at 24 and 40 in 1978. Even though my mom is definitely more "hip" especially in the period after the '80s (notably with fashion - my dad is kinda clueless on that, but that's another story!), they both kinda see the "60s" as their time, and also like alot of '80s.

I can forgive my dad for being "older" in the ways he is, since I doubt many 47 year olds liked current music in 1985 or played Nintendo games in 1988. ;D


Yeah, I can just see Uncle John collecting stars in Super Mario!  ;D

Yeah, there's a certain point where you can't really get into the new pop culture.  I think it's because it seems alien and unfamiliar to you, and thus you stick to what you liked when you were young.

Yeah, I can just see Uncle John collecting stars in Super Mario!  ;D

Yeah, there's a certain point where you can't really get into the new pop culture.  I think it's because it seems alien and unfamiliar to you, and thus you stick to what you liked when you were young.


Would you agree that, while people ACT younger now -- probably more than ever -- the age for being "stuck" with pop culture has also gone down?

In other words, a 40 year old in 1986 acted older, but were more likely to be into at least a few of the songs at the time, whereas a 20 year old in 2006 is already very possibly "attached" to the stuff from their childhood/early teen years and has a tougher time liking the new stuff?

Is it because we have more stuff to pick from now, so we're imprinted earlier and faster? Hell, my uncle is 75 and got a digital camera five years ago when I was still saying how I missed Polaroid cameras from 1992! ;D

Would you agree that, while people ACT younger now -- probably more than ever -- the age for being "stuck" with pop culture has also gone down?

In other words, a 40 year old in 1986 acted older, but were more likely to be into at least a few of the songs at the time, whereas a 20 year old in 2006 is already very possibly "attached" to the stuff from their childhood/early teen years?

Is it because we have more stuff to pick from now, so we're imprinted earlier and faster? Hell, my uncle is 75 and got a digital camera five years ago when I was still saying how I missed Polaroid cameras from 1992! ;D


I'd agree with that.  In a way, the '90s (well about 1994-2000) seem like "my time".  Even though most "emo kids" or whatever are probably actually a little older than me those trends seem a bit beyond my time, if you know what I mean. 

I'd agree with that.  In a way, the '90s (well about 1994-2000) seem like "my time".  Even though most "emo kids" or whatever are probably actually a little older than me those trends seem a bit beyond my time, if you know what I mean. 


Yeah. I guess "my time" is 1985-94 or thereabouts, with alot from 1978-84 in there too.

That doesn't mean by '95 I didn't like anything anymore, but that was when I was slightly less familar with it. That was when I started getting weird looks from kids when I said I liked Lionel Richie or Journey (so I wondered what had "taken their place" if you know what I mean. In a way, I was still in a 1987 mentality then). ;D

Yeah. I guess "my time" is 1985-94 or thereabouts, with alot from 1978-84 in there too.

That doesn't mean by '95 I didn't like anything anymore, but that was when I was slightly less familar with it. That was when I started getting weird looks from kids when I said I liked Lionel Richie or Journey (so I wondered what had "taken their place" if you know what I mean. In a way, I was still in a 1987 mentality then). ;D


Agreed. Even 1991-1993 I think of as sort of "my time", even though I can't even remember it really, just because it's still influential on today and obviously 1994-1999. I don't necessarily like my time, actually the next era might be better pop culturally, it just won't be home.

Agreed. Even 1991-1993 I think of as sort of "my time", even though I can't even remember it really, just because it's still influential on today and obviously 1994-1999. I don't necessarily like my time, actually the next era might be better pop culturally, it just won't be home.


I agree. :)

Going back to my previous post --- I wonder if there actually is a corralation between older people liking younger things in the past, but people seeming younger now. In other words, a typical 30 year old today may dislike modern pop culture, attitude and technology, but they still act young because they're acting/feeling that way about the stuff they grew up and were imprinted with.

Example: for me, when I was 10 I thought the typical person who is my age now, was like Wayne's World, or Michael J Fox, or the guys from Police Academy. So I kind of (even subconciously) act like the typical 24 year old in 1985 or 1990 instead of the typical 24 year old of 2005/06, which I really am. Just because I became so attached to the former.

Whereas a 40 year old in 1985 didn't have as much to base their "youthful personalty" off of, therefore making them more willing to change with the times. Does that make sense?

I agree. :)

Going back to my previous post --- I wonder if there actually is a corralation between older people liking younger things in the past, but people seeming younger now. In other words, a typical 30 year old today may dislike modern pop culture, attitude and technology, but they still act young because they're acting/feeling that way about the stuff they grew up and were imprinted with.

Example: for me, when I was 10 I thought the typical person who is my age now, was like Wayne's World, or Michael J Fox, or the guys from Police Academy. So I kind of (even subconciously) act like the typical 24 year old in 1985 or 1990 instead of the typical 24 year old of 2005/06, which I really am. Just because I became so attached to the former.

Whereas a 40 year old in 1985 didn't have as much to base their "youthful personalty" off of, therefore making them more willing to change with the times. Does that make sense?


It certainly does.  For instance, people born in the '40s probably see the '60s as nostalgic, but in the 2020s I'll probably only miss the '00s, rather them see them as "back in the day" the way I see the '90s.  That way, I'll always sort of think the same way as I thought when I saw "Beavis and Butt-head Do America" on MTV in 1997.

It certainly does.  For instance, people born in the '40s probably see the '60s as nostalgic, but in the 2020s I'll probably only miss the '00s, rather them see them as "back in the day" the way I see the '90s.  That way, I'll always sort of think the same way as I thought when I saw "Beavis and Butt-head Do America" on MTV in 1997.


Yeah. I mean, I miss 1999 and even as recent as 2002/03, but more for personal experiences as opposed to the years themselves, if you know what I mean. The last year I miss for the year itself was '96. Maybe a teeny bit of 97-98 too.

Someone who was born in 1940 was a teenager and early 20-something in a time where you still pretty much went from a kid to a grownup pretty fast, so they were less "tied down" to the time they were 10 or 15 like I am, for instance.

Their mind grew faster, but they hadn't experienced everything in pop culture yet, so their thought could still be influenced in 1965 at age 25 or even at 35 in 1975, even if they acted more adultlike. Going back to my very first post, that seems to be how Jerry Springer is.

Yeah. I mean, I miss 1999 and even as recent as 2002/03, but more for personal experiences as opposed to the years themselves, if you know what I mean. The last year I miss for the year itself was '96. Maybe a teeny bit of 97-98 too.

Someone who was born in 1940 was a teenager and early 20-something in a time where you still pretty much went from a kid to a grownup pretty fast, so they were less "tied down" to the time they were 10 or 15 like I am, for instance.

Their mind grew faster, but they hadn't experienced everything in pop culture yet, so their thought could still be influenced in 1965 at age 25 or even at 35 in 1975, even if they acted more adultlike. Going back to my very first post, that seems to be how Jerry Springer is.


Agreed.

Strangely, I miss 2004 for some reason.  It seemed like a diamond in the rough.

^ That was a good year for me too. Things seemed to be looking exciting/different in pop culture too (I do still think if Kerry won, it would have changed slightly) and the only real "2000s" year.

^ That was a good year for me too. Things seemed to be looking exciting/different in pop culture too (I do still think if Kerry won, it would have changed slightly) and the only real "2000s" year.


2006 seems like it'll be crappy. 2007 will probably slowly gravitate to the 2010s.

2006 seems like it'll be crappy. 2007 will probably slowly gravitate to the 2010s.


Yeah. It's almost been two months, and I can't think of one "2006" song (given I really don't listen to hit radio much, if at all, anymore. In fact other than friends/acquaintences/classmates and being online, my main exposure to pop culture is VH1 - i.e. catching part of a video).

2006 seems like it'll be crappy. 2007 will probably slowly gravitate to the 2010s.



Yeah '06 has gotten off to a rather slow start. It's hard to say but its looks like its gonna be a lot like 2005(which is not a good thing.)

Echoing earlier comments here, but I'll be brief...or try to be.  :)

I would agree with the notion that pre-'46 folks can be of a slightly different mindset when compared to boomers, but I do think local culture can play a big part, too. My parents are of a relatively rare vintage;  they were born in 1942 and spent their formative years in the mostly rural Deep South. By 1964, they had graduated college, gotten married and had moved into the 9 to 5 lifestyle.

When I've spoken with my dad about the 60s and all the stereotypical elements of the decade, he's actually become rather annoyed
Because he and my mom came from traditional families and grew up where they did, they didn't participate in many of the things that they're assumed to have been involved with in those days; "Just because we were around back then doesn't mean we were *all* marching in the streets!" In other words, I think my parents take a dim view of the "Time Life" version of the decade because they don't feel it accurately reflects their life experiences. That's assuming they've ever taken stock of such things.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

I would agree that most people born pre-'46 probably the ones that looked down upon the hippie lifestyle/rock n' roll music etc. in the 60's. They would have been well into there 20's after all.

I would agree that most people born pre-'46 probably the ones that looked down upon the hippie lifestyle/rock n' roll music etc. in the 60's. They would have been well into there 20's after all.


My dad has often referred to the activists of that era as "rich kids with too much time on their hands." He was speaking primarily of the anti-war crowd, though he himself was also against the Vietnam War...but only in the way it was handled by the suits.   

I would agree that most people born pre-'46 probably the ones that looked down upon the hippie lifestyle/rock n' roll music etc. in the 60's. They would have been well into there 20's after all.


True. By today's standards, that would be a nothing difference, but back then, people changed their mindset faster.

A 1946-er would still be only 18 in '64 and 23 in '69. Versus a 1942 person at age 22-27. See what I mean? The latter would probably already be settled, or in the process of "settling down" by then.

I think a couple generations ago, 25ish was looked upon as the age people really became "adults" just as far as starting a family and giving up the stuff from their childhood (at times several years earlier, even). Today it's more like 35, even if we get imprinted by pop culture at an early age now.

I have some insite to this question. My brother was born in 1941, his teenage years were in the beginings and the heart of the 50's cultural revolution. I have to say that he and the crowd he was invovled with were "cool" and were involved with radical thoughts and actions helping to get the Rock and Roll generation were it is today. In those years, the accepted idea of how they were going to live their lives in the future was to graduate high school, get drafted into the army, do your two years and come out a man then get married and start a family. College was not in the plans for most of the Middle Class. Family owned businesses, trade schools and Union jobs were the only secure options to make a living at. The man would pound out a living with his wife staying home to raise the kids, back then the wifes did not do the money earning, wifes who worked showed weakness in the husband to provide for his family was a social embarresment...an ego thing. The family ideals were handed down through the generations, that's what our parents did their parents did and so on. That's all they had to go on to plan their futures. It was a common accepted lifestyle and I'd say 90% of those 50's marriages are still in tact and going strong today. My brother inlisted in the NJ National Guards  while in high school, graduated high school in 59', married in 60' and a father in 61' and still happily married today ready to retire to Florida.

I was born in 47', because I had an older brother as a teenager in the 50's I grew up faster then my friends. I was made aware of a lot of older kids ideas, girl relations, school habits, and best of all Rock and Roll music in it's beginings. My teenage years were in the 60's and we had our own cultural and social revolution. Unlike the 50's, the 60's revolutions changed the world as we know it today, but personally, I still had the upbringing and ideals of the 50's as most of the 1947 babies who graduated high school in 1965. I think, the class of 1965 was the last of the 50's way of thinking and the kids from 1966 and up were the pioneers in the new way of thinking and practiced the social changes that the previous years fought for starting with the Hippy life style.
 
Is there a difference?...YES! but in the "big  picture" every age group contributed something to social changes, even your birth year is different and will have something to contirbuted to the way we live now or the in the future...

Hot Wax
   

The main audiences of 'Rock' n' Roll tended to be teenagers or those in their early twenties, whereas fans of what was called 'Rock' (aimed more at adults) were generally in their twenties or thirties, so many of those rock and roll fans would have later taken to rock.

My mother was born in 1930 and my dad in 1933. I had a discussion with my dad one time and he said that there are very few "depression babies" (as both my parents are). I don't have the stats of how many "depression babies" there were as to how many baby boomers. But my theory is that the "depression babies" didn't have an identity of their own-as the baby boomers did. My mother tends to associate with the generation before her and my dad tends to assocate with the generation after him. Right now my dad is feeling a bit isolated. He feels that most people are either too old or too young for him. He can never find anyone his own age (meaning-his generation and in the same mind-set that he is).


As for the baby boomers-I have said this many times, Carlos was one of the first baby boomers and I was one of the last. He doesn't know a lot of the pop culture (but that is because who he is-he doesn't get "into" it). But he was aware of the changes throughout the 60s (more so than I was because I VERY young). He went to protests-and was even called up for the draft to Vietnam. He was part of the "scene" so to speak and my only concern was watching the Brady Bunch and the Partridge Family on Friday nights.  ::)




Cat