I hate to say it, but 2000-2004 was really a modified Late 90s pop culture wise and will probably be lumped into the 90s the way the early 70s are into the 60s. 2006 seems like it will be the first "2000s" year with all the late 90s icons phasing out.  any thoughts?

I hate to say it, but 2000-2004 was really a modified Late 90s pop culture wise and will probably be lumped into the 90s the way the early 70s are into the 60s. 2006 seems like it will be the first "2000s" year with all the late 90s icons phasing out.  any thoughts?


Devorule?? Is that YOU? :)

Devorule?? Is that YOU? :)


Ha ha!  ;D

I think early 2004 was really the big changing point. Music-wise, fashion-wise, etc.

Someone with a meticulous eye could probably find many things today that reflect on the 1990s. But, 20 years from know, I doubt someone's going to see 2004, 2005 and put it in the same category as the 1990s.

I think early 2004 was really the big changing point. Music-wise, fashion-wise, etc.

Someone with a meticulous eye could probably find many things today that reflect on the 1990s. But, 20 years from know, I doubt someone's going to see 2004, 2005 and put it in the same category as the 1990s.




I'd say it was towards the end of the year, with the Neo-Wave bands like the Killers coming out that started to tear down the late 90s holdovers (mind 2000-2004 is HUGELY different from pre-1997 and a bit distinct from 1997-1999 as well).  The 90s are now beginning to become uncool: an example of that is the huge success of Gwen Stefani (who reminds me a lot of Cyndi Lauper) and the fact the while Mariah Carey's new song is big it hasn't sold all that much.

The year 2624.

2999....  ::)

The '00s started back in '02. The '90s are over. This year is easily the best year of the '00s so far, imo. Hopefully 2006 will continue the improvement. I see a distinct change overall in music in 2005 from 2004.

I'd say it was towards the end of the year, with the Neo-Wave bands like the Killers coming out that started to tear down the late 90s holdovers (mind 2000-2004 is HUGELY different from pre-1997 and a bit distinct from 1997-1999 as well).  The 90s are now beginning to become uncool: an example of that is the huge success of Gwen Stefani (who reminds me a lot of Cyndi Lauper) and the fact the while Mariah Carey's new song is big it hasn't sold all that much.


"We Belong Together" has been #1 for 10 weeks and is easily the biggest hit of 2005.

...Hopefully, this year  :).

In true honesty (I don't give a crap), I think this year is certainly alot better music wise (Crazy Frog aside) than the last 4-5 years. Maybe this is the turning point as far as music culture is concerned?  :o

Devorule?? Is that YOU? :)


Either that or someone with a similar posting style. ;)

Anyway, I would say things started becoming 2000's-like in 1997 -- boy bands, South Park, popularity of the Internet and new videogame systems -- and more full force in 1999.

You can wear clothes as far back as 1998 and it still blends in. You'd stand out like a sore thumb wearing 1988 clothes in 1995 or 1978 clothes in 1985. Heck, I bet you'd hardly get a stare from playing popular songs from 7-8 years ago either. The movies don't look outdated, even if there's minor differences.

Politically I think they started on 9/11.

I agree from late 2001 to now it's been more "subtle" changes (there haven't been any HUGE worldwide bands someone's grandma would know about, or major pop culture shifts). However I think I could say there was a difference in 2004 itself.

Late 2001 to mid 2004 all mostly blends together for me. The past year still isn't what I'd call a watermark year, but there's a definite shift in things like music and fashions, as you said, toward a slightly flashier, electronic style.

IMO the 90's probably will never get lambasted like the 70's did by 1982 or the 80's did by 1992. Things from then will just fade away on their own - by virtue of a 13 year old in 2010 not remembering anything from the 90's, that will make them uncool and will be more naturally replaced.

The "60s" 60s was really from about 1967 to 1970-71 (the 50's ended in late 1963/early 64, but the hippie/counterculture/Vietnam/psychedelic 60's didn't TOTALLY kick in until 1967).

So I guess the 2000's could be similar. Maybe in 2007-08 we'll get another big shift that will last a few years. But I think the 2000's will still be mainly a modified late 90's all the way.

Either that or someone with a similar posting style. ;)

Anyway, I would say things started becoming 2000's-like in 1997 -- boy bands, South Park, popularity of the Internet and new videogame systems -- and more full force in 1999.

You can wear clothes as far back as 1998 and it still blends in. You'd stand out like a sore thumb wearing 1988 clothes in 1995 or 1978 clothes in 1985. Heck, I bet you'd hardly get a stare from playing popular songs from 7-8 years ago either. The movies don't look outdated, even if there's minor differences.

Politically I think they started on 9/11.

I agree from late 2001 to now it's been more "subtle" changes (there haven't been any HUGE worldwide bands someone's grandma would know about, or major pop culture shifts). However I think I could say there was a difference in 2004 itself.

Late 2001 to mid 2004 all mostly blends together for me. The past year still isn't what I'd call a watermark year, but there's a definite shift in things like music and fashions, as you said, toward a slightly flashier, electronic style.

IMO the 90's probably will never get lambasted like the 70's did by 1982 or the 80's did by 1992. Things from then will just fade away on their own - by virtue of a 13 year old in 2010 not remembering anything from the 90's, that will make them uncool and will be more naturally replaced.

The "60s" 60s was really from about 1967 to 1970-71 (the 50's ended in late 1963/early 64, but the hippie/counterculture/Vietnam/psychedelic 60's didn't TOTALLY kick in until 1967).

So I guess the 2000's could be similar. Maybe in 2007-08 we'll get another big shift that will last a few years. But I think the 2000's will still be mainly a modified late 90's all the way.


True all that.  Another possibility is that the 90s will become known as the "Seattle years" (about Sept 1991 to July 1997, I'd say). There's little grungy about the 2000s exept for some rock, most of which is corporate so really isn't true Grunge anyway. Every decade seems to have a "capital" somewhere in the United States (note that when I talk about "cultural decades" I'm speaking only of the US).  The 60s had San Francisco, the 70s New York, the 80s Los Angeles, the 90s Seattle and the 00s Atlanta.  The 2000s are like a 90s with 80s glitter and bits of every decade from 1930 to 1980 thrown in.

P.S. the 60s died by 71?  Disco didn't really hit until 1974-75; was there very 70s stuff in the 1972-73 period that wasn't disco.  Funny how decades become a few select years.  ;)

True all that.  Another possibility is that the 90s will become known as the "Seattle years" (about Sept 1991 to July 1997, I'd say). There's little grungy about the 2000s exept for some rock, most of which is corporate so really isn't true Grunge anyway.

Yeah. Punk has become the same way - alternative rock in general has become the mainstream (whereas that kind of music was created in the first place to be "outsider" and anti-establishment) which is a paradox if you think about it. ;D

You could well argue grunge too has mainstreamed itself and morphed into Incubus, Nickelback and Puddle of Mudd.

Every decade seems to have a "capital" somewhere in the United States (note that when I talk about "cultural decades" I'm speaking only of the US).  The 60s had San Francisco, the 70s New York, the 80s Los Angeles, the 90s Seattle and the 00s Atlanta.  The 2000s are like a 90s with 80s glitter and bits of every decade from 1930 to 1980 thrown in.

I never thought about that before, but you're right - good observations. :)

P.S. the 60s died by 71?  Disco didn't really hit until 1974-75; was there very 70s stuff in the 1972-73 period that wasn't disco.  Funny how decades become a few select years.  ;)

Yeah, I'd agree the "central" 70's was closer to 1975-78. Disco exploded in 76 (although I think it was rumbling in 75).

As for the 60's dying out - from what I've seen, the basic "hippie" culture seemed to be pretty much gone by 1971. Especially after Janis Joplin, Hendrix and Jim Morrison died. :(

The 1971-74 era seems situated about evenly between the 60's and the "Disco/main" 70's. The feel of it was more laid back, hence closer to the 60's (everything that Dazed and Confused was trying to portray, such as teens smoking weed alot and cruising). But the look and technology was more 70's.

Come on people, these threads are a waste of time and space. I wish you guys would stop treating the decade names as symbolic terms. The simple fact remains that the _0's run from January 1st of the year _0 through December 31st of the year _9. (The underscore can be replaced by any digit.) Yes, I know that the pop culture of one decade tends to hang around into the early years of the next decade, but to actually say that the early part of one decade is part of the previous decade is downright absurd/ignorant.

The Zero decade factually began on Jan 1st, 2000, and will end on Dec 31, 2009. Period. End of discussion.

Come on people, these threads are a waste of time and space. I wish you guys would stop treating the decade names as symbolic terms. The simple fact remains that the _0's run from January 1st of the year _0 through December 31st of the year _9. (The underscore can be replaced by any digit.) Yes, I know that the pop culture of one decade tends to hang around into the early years of the next decade, but to actually say that the early part of one decade is part of the previous decade is downright absurd/ignorant.

The Zero decade factually began on Jan 1st, 2000, and will end on Dec 31, 2009. Period. End of discussion.
You are...

WRONG!

;D

On the contrary, pal,
YOU
are wrong.
;D

Seriously, grow up.

I understand not everyone is interested in the same types of threads. For everything someone doesn't like, someone else will, though. The "get a life" comment was not necesarry.

There's always going to be some differences in what we each say - that's totally fine, as long as we all respect each other's right to post. In other words, if I see something that doesn't particularly interest me, I'll simply not post in (or read) the thread, but I certainly won't berate or pick on those who do enjoy it.

As long as it's not breaking any rules, it doesn't "hurt" me what kind of things someone else says. In fact, I think a little difference/variety is what makes the board a cool place. Just like in real life. ;)

Let's all just try to be nice and civil to each other, alright? :)

In case anyone was wondering, my above comment was a joke.  ::) ;)

In case anyone was wondering, my above comment was a joke. ::) ;)


Don't worry man, I know you're a good guy. :)

I was referring to Joe Schmo. I sometimes get a little defensive when people "diss" threads that I like, but I'm over it. It's not WW3.

Don't worry man, I know you're a good guy. :)

I was referring to Joe Schmo. I sometimes get a little defensive when people "diss" threads that I like, but I'm over it. It's not WW3.
I actually have a sneaking suspicion that there is 1 person who is a guest, and doesn't use the same name who has been posting rubbish every so often as of late. Don't take my word for it, its just what I assume.  ;)