I was looking through some of my old video game magazines yesterday, as well as looking at archives at old internet forums from the 90s (remember, CERN publicized its World Wide Web in 1991 with the actual creation of http, html, etc. occurring two years earlier in 1989).  One thing I've noticed, and something that I find very interesting considering the amount of hate the 00s get, is that people have always complained about whatever is "current" at the time.  Even the mid-90s received some hate at the time.

Allow me to give a couple examples.  Some video game fans today contend that gaming has gone downhill from what it once was.  These people usually cite the 16-bit Genesis/Super Nintendo era of 1991-1995 as being the "golden age" of modern gaming.  However, I have magazines from that time period and the letters section in my 1994 issues have several letters complaining about how gaming was going downhill and that some earlier era in the 80s was the golden age (usually the NES era or the early 80s Pac Man/Space Invaders era).  The issues have several letters complaining about how there are way too many copycat fighting games with no originality (now, modern gamers complain that there are too many copycat shooting games with no originality).  They also complained about the price of games, which averaged $70 in the year 1994!  Take inflation into account and just think how much that is today!  We should be glad for our current prices!

Allow me to give some more examples, this time of pop culture at large.  I managed to find a "Generation X" message board/usenet forum that had posts from as early as 1993.  One thing I found interesting was that they also complained about the state of modern music, but their complaints were different than ours.  Instead, they complained about how alternative rock was quickly becoming no so alternative (being played on mainstream radio, Post-Grunge emerging, etc.), as well as how rock and rap music had become "too dark" and that they wanted something more cheery and hopeful to emerge.  Also, look at the late 90s "Teen Pop" era.  That era was hated to hell and back at the time by many people.  The boy bands were "talentless hacks who appeal only to teenage girls", the "teen divas" of time were considered to be more reliant on their sex appeal than their music (no doubt this perception was created due to the popularity of Britney Spears), and various other complaints of this nature existed during this era and continued to exist even after the era ended.  Its only been recently that I've seen nostalgia about the Y2K era (even from myself, though I didn't truly hate the era like some did) really begin to emerge and people talking about how things were "better" then, even though many music critics at the time would've called that blasphemy.

Oh yeah, I saw a book on the 1970s in my local library that was written in 1980.  It described the 70s as being the "ten years we lost faith in just about everything."  

So, what do you think?  I notice we complain a lot about the 00s, how things were "better" in the past, etc.  Yet I see people in my "90s archives" complaining about the state of things as well.  Also, I've noticed that it used to be that the 1999-present era was hated, with 1998 being the last good music year and 1999 being considered the year music became crap.  That perception was around 2005-ish.  Now, many people seem to think it was 2003 that ruined music, with 2002 being the last good year.  As we grow further away from those years and they become less "current", they seem to be more well regarded.  Is it just natural for us to hate on whatever is most current?  It sure seems that way.

EDIT: Sorry about the length.  Hopefully people will read it.

I think you make some excellent points. I've thought about this quite a bit, and I'll admit sometimes I've been guilty of it myself to an extent over the years, about ripping on current stuff in favor of the past. Aside from the memories and sentimental connection we have to it, the bigger reason might have to do with when we're no longer saturated with something, it suddenly doesn't seem so bad. Yet when it's all around us, we long for something different. I know what you mean with all those in the present examples too. Lots of people ripped on boy bands and early Britney Spears in 1999 for being talentless and too sexual, etc.

This is one reason I've always found old interviews and magazines to be fascinating and exciting, because it gives a glimpse into people's mindset at the time something was going on. For instance, I've watched several videos and clips of the campaign against "profane/explicit" music led by Tipper Gore and other Washington wives known as the PMRC. They targeted pop and especially heavy metal as it was mainstreamizing. I'd really recommend them if anyone has the time (they're still on YouTube last I checked). It's an interesting time capsule and I personally liked hearing what Frank Zappa had to say, he's a pretty insightful guy. Anyway, in quite a few of them, the concerned mothers and politicians went into detail about how perfect and innocent the '50s and '60s were, and how wretched the at the time present of 1984 and '85 was, with music being a blight on the lives of kids with its explicit sexuality and violence. In fact, they probably criticized it more than the older, classic rock generations do with modern hip hop music today.

On that note, I think another reason people look to the past in favor of the present, is because anything controversial tends to fade. I suppose once people see that it really wasn't a big deal, it's perceived as nonthreatening and no big deal. But when it's new and in our faces for the first time, we don't know. For instance, the irony is, I bet if we asked one of those Washington PMRC people today, they would probably think mid '80s pop was no big deal (at least in comparison to back then).



For the heck of it, this is roughly what the "crappy current period" seemed to be from a current perspective through the years (I agree with your assessment, btw):

-Most of the Eighties period: 1983+ (when the MTV sound generally overtook singer songwriter and any remaining Disco or Seventies-like music)
-1990: 1986 (the very earliest rap and alternative rock, as well as hair metal and hip hop-influenced dance pop like early Paula Abdul)
-early-mid '90s: 1991 (the beginning of grunge seemed to be a rough starting point for a long time)
-1999: 1993 (when gangsta rap and alternative completely erased the '80s sound)
-early '00s: 1997 (beginning of teenpop, and decline of some classic '90s music)
-mid '00s: 1999 (Britney, oversaturation of boybands, beginning of Eminem and Jay Z, etc)
-now in 2007: 2003+ (decline of variety of pop music in general, and more hip hop oriented)

Hmm...I'm going to have to see if I can find those videos sometime.  I love stuff like that too.  Thats another theme: the existence of a "more innocent" time that really doesn't exist.  Its always funny to hear people describe a certain time period as innocent, then you go and watch videos from that time period, you find people saying that another time period was actually innocent while the then-current one is not.  My mom has an innocent image of the 70s (just like I have an innocent image of the 90s), but when you see a book on the 70s that was writen in 1980 describing the decade as the "ten years we lost faith in just about everything", then it makes you wonder if it really was as innocent as you, or someone else, think it is.

You know, it makes me wonder what this board, and other boards, will be like in the future if this theory holds up.  As you've pointed out, 2003 is clearly the current "border year" (border between "good" and "bad")  I think it will probably remain that way for a while, but by 2010, I think 2006 or 2007 will be the new "border year" due to the rise of Dance-Pop like Justin Timberlake, the general "Timbaland" feel, the decline of Emo (past its peak and the Pop-Emo of Fall Out Boy and stuff like that seems more popular than "real Emo" now), and the prominence of Snap music (people online are already saying that even though Lil' Jon was terrible, even he was better than Snap music.  So, its kind of already happening...except they still think Lil' Jon is terrible.  Not exactly at the "good nostalgic" level yet.).  People will be hating on 2010 while insisting that the music of, say, 2005 was still at least somewhat decent, like people now do with 2002.

That will be a weird day when that happens.  We think it won't happen, but I still remember when people were calling the 00s an unoriginal "90s Part II" (the 1999 part of the 90s by the way) in the year 2004 (nowadays, most people wouldn't even consider 2004 to be "90s Part II") and talking about how the year 1999 ruined mainstream music.  Those two perceptions seem to have changed slowly over time.  The last time I saw someone call the 00s a "90s Part II" was sometime in 2006 and they weren't taken seriously at all. Things slowly change.  It will happen again and before you know it, we'll be remembering 50 Cent on the brand new 00s section on the forums.

Allow me to give some more examples, this time of pop culture at large.  I managed to find a "Generation X" message board/usenet forum that had posts from as early as 1993.  One thing I found interesting was that they also complained about the state of modern music, but their complaints were different than ours.  Instead, they complained about how alternative rock was quickly becoming no so alternative (being played on mainstream radio, Post-Grunge emerging, etc.), as well as how rock and rap music had become "too dark" and that they wanted something more cheery and hopeful to emerge.  Also, look at the late 90s "Teen Pop" era.  That era was hated to hell and back at the time by many people.  The boy bands were "talentless hacks who appeal only to teenage girls", the "teen divas" of time were considered to be more reliant on their sex appeal than their music (no doubt this perception was created due to the popularity of Britney Spears), and various other complaints of this nature existed during this era and continued to exist even after the era ended.  Its only been recently that I've seen nostalgia about the Y2K era (even from myself, though I didn't truly hate the era like some did) really begin to emerge and people talking about how things were "better" then, even though many music critics at the time would've called that blasphemy.


So, what do you think?  I notice we complain a lot about the 00s, how things were "better" in the past, etc.  Yet I see people in my "90s archives" complaining about the state of things as well.  Also, I've noticed that it used to be that the 1999-present era was hated, with 1998 being the last good music year and 1999 being considered the year music became crap.  That perception was around 2005-ish.  Now, many people seem to think it was 2003 that ruined music, with 2002 being the last good year.  As we grow further away from those years and they become less "current", they seem to be more well regarded.  Is it just natural for us to hate on whatever is most current?  It sure seems that way.

EDIT: Sorry about the length.  Hopefully people will read it.
Well I am a borderline Gen X/Gen Y born in 1979 and yes I have more of a hatred for 1999-2000(teen-pop) than the 2001-mid 2005 era(musically) and I do like the 2001-mid 2005  era alot better than the 1999-2000 era. I don;t understand how a song like "CranK That" and "Laffy Taffy" can go to Number 1 I mean is that even music? I really like the 1994-1996 era of music  and 1997 and 1998 were good too. The 2001-mid 2005 had some good stuff too but not as good as the 1994-1998 era. I just don't like the gimmicky hip-hop singles like I was too reffering too before. So bottom line is I can't stand the teen-pop era of 1999-2000 and the snap rap stuff of late 2005/early 2006 and that type of music has regain domiance in 2007 with "This Is Why I;m Hot". I mean some of the rap stuff infused with dance like "Whine Up" we had similar type of music like that in the early 90's so a song like that doesn't bother me too much.

As for 2003 ruining music that was the year 50 Cent became really popular and hip-hip became the mainstream trend and has been dominant on the charts with each passing year with the exception of 2006.

As for the Y2K era now being viewed as better now than its was then well I don;t think that people's view of the music scene has changed from back then( I could be wrong though.) The state of our country(the US)was better than I mean the economy was booming and everybody had money. We also didn;t have a tragedy like Sept 11th to deal with back then.

That will be a weird day when that happens.  We think it won't happen, but I still remember when people were calling the 00s an unoriginal "90s Part II" (the 1999 part of the 90s by the way) in the year 2004 (nowadays, most people wouldn't even consider 2004 to be "90s Part II") and talking about how the year 1999 ruined mainstream music.  Those two perceptions seem to have changed slowly over time.  The last time I saw someone call the 00s a "90s Part II" was sometime in 2006 and they weren't taken seriously at all. Things slowly change.  It will happen again and before you know it, we'll be remembering 50 Cent on the brand new 00s section on the forums.


I know what you mean. Look at this board's archive section from like 2002 or 2003 and there was a lot of people saying that 2003 still feels like the late 90s now no one really says that here anymore. Yes, once in a while I'll come across a thread on some other message board talking about how good the 80's or 90's were compared to now with some out of touch person saying like music hasn't been good since '98 and act like teen pop is still popular or something like that, I just roll my eyes. As for the 1999-2002 era I still have a very bitter taste in my mouth from the pop culture of that time. I mean, to me it just looks stupid, cheesy, and dated. But then again people used to say that about the 80's but now look how much respect they get!

Yes always there's some people that complain about current stuff because people a lot of times have a rosy view of the past when in a lot of cases the past wasn't any better. Most radio pop hits over any era haven't been filled with the highest quality music anyway, but as I've stated over and over again music isn't all about quality, if something sounds good to somebody even though it sucks in reality, it's still good to them. So when people go to the "oh but they are much better musicians and so talented, etc.", something doesn't have to be filled with quality and depth to be enjoyable. There's so many ways to get music and other entertainment nowadays that did not exist in the past. And this era will get old too and then it will all of a sudden seem better simply because people will be nostalgic for what no longer exists. I like different music for different reasons, some music I like for it's quality and talent displayed, other stuff I like it simply because it's catchy and pure entertainment.

A lot of people are definitely nostalgic.

I try to be somewhat objective in my view of media.  For the most part, I find that movies are generally getting better with time.  A lot of the imdb snobs obsess over films like The Godfather, but honestly, I've enjoyed more recent films a lot more than many of the classics.  I think "Lord of War" will likely be seen as a future classic, for example.  The same goes for the Bourne series.

As for music, I think there are a lot of legitimate complaints about what's now on the radio.  I mentioned in another thread that the choices we have for music over traditional airwaves have greatly decreased due to corporate consolidation.  Nowadays, satellite radio is picking up the slack.  Forget FM, say hello to internet radio and things like XM and Sirius.

Still, even the music industry itself would seem to be the problem.  One of the few genres not affected by the lack of progressive talent searching is techno, since a lot of techno artists produce and distribute their own work over the net.  By the time someone like Tiesto lands a major record deal, he or she has already proven himself in the club scene.  Hence, I think this decade will be mostly remembered for its contributions to electronic music, since most of the rock and hip hop has been crap and highly manufactured by studio executives and wholly forgettable shows like American Idol.

Video games are definitely way better now than anything that came out in the 80s and 90s.  Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either ill-informed or just lame.

All that aside, anyone who tries to be objective about the past must also admit that previous decades had plenty of lameness to accompany the cool.  For every Pink Floyd, U2, and Radiohead, there have always been Osmonds, Laupers, and Morrissettes.

I'd just thought I'd post a link to a nice little time capsule that showcases how much the Y2K era was hated.

http://www.jumptheshark.com/topic/Total-Request-Live/Total-Request-Live-General-Comments/2020&start=90

Starting on page 7, be sure to read page 8, 9, and even all to to page 12 if you feel like it.  Unfortunately, the comments don't have accurate dates due to their new layout, but from the content in the comments, its obvious when they were made.  This is a good example of how HATED the Teen Pop era was.  It also contains tons of dated moments, such as people praising bands like Limp Bizkit (why?) and Korn for being great, original bands that should be more popular than the boy bands.  Also, people hoping for another "rock revolution" or a "Kurt Cobain or Eddie Vedder for our generation"...I wonder how they feel all these years later.

Its strange...I remember when this website first came out and many of those first comments seem so dated now.  Its hard to believe.

In any given pop culture era, arts & entertainment from previous eras appears to be higher quality.  This is simply because time has filtered out much of the forgettable drek. 

Thus, it's easy to assume in 1940 everybody was reading Hemingway, Faulkner, Sinclaire Lewis, and F. Scott Fitzgerald.  Not necessarily.  Ride the streetcar and you were more likely to see folks engrossed in 10-cent pulp adventure and romance paperbacks by writers-on-contract who nobody remembered ten years later let alone sixty years!
::)

Good stuff, sonikuu. I read through some of those posts and immediately felt like I was back in 1999! I was in eleventh grade in the beginning of the year when stuff like Britney and TRL really began taking off, so I can remember what people's mindsets were. Lots of people hated it with a passion. I'd actually say that was even more than emo, crunk and gimmicky dance songs are now. I was okay with teenpop, although not a fan per se (aside from a couple Backstreet Boys songs, although I'd have been hard pressed to admit it at the time ;D ), but I thought most nu metal like Limp Bizkit was cheesy. Same with Ricky Martin. I assumed that stuff would date very quickly, and I wasn't even sure how anyone could take someone like Fred Durst seriously.

One glaring difference that I've honestly noticed, though, is the lack of more ballads or adult-oriented pop music for the last four years or so. There were always cheesy or lame songs in every era, but they were more avoidable because there was alot of variety on the pop charts going on at the same time. This seems to have only existed in small amounts since 2002 or '03, maybe because most music has a hip hop element.

All throughout the '90s, there was stuff that fit the oldies bill like Michael Bolton, Boyz II Men and the adult contemortary era of Rod Stewart/Eric Clapton/Bryan Adams and such. There wouldn't really be a market for that now.

Good stuff, sonikuu. I read through some of those posts and immediately felt like I was back in 1999! I was in eleventh grade in the beginning of the year when stuff like Britney and TRL really began taking off, so I can remember what people's mindsets were. Lots of people hated it with a passion. I'd actually say that was even more than emo, crunk and gimmicky dance songs are now. I was okay with teenpop, although not a fan per se (aside from a couple Backstreet Boys songs, although I'd have been hard pressed to admit it at the time ;D ), but I thought most nu metal like Limp Bizkit was cheesy. Same with Ricky Martin. I assumed that stuff would date very quickly, and I wasn't even sure how anyone could take someone like Fred Durst seriously.

One glaring difference that I've honestly noticed, though, is the lack of more ballads or adult-oriented pop music for the last four years or so. There were always cheesy or lame songs in every era, but they were more avoidable because there was alot of variety on the pop charts going on at the same time. This seems to have only existed in small amounts since 2002 or '03, maybe because most music has a hip hop element.

All throughout the '90s, there was stuff that fit the oldies bill like Michael Bolton, Boyz II Men and the adult contemortary era of Rod Stewart/Eric Clapton/Bryan Adams and such. There wouldn't really be a market for that now.


First, about the "Y2K era."  I think that, despite the amount of hate it got at the time, it was in many ways the last time that the music industry really thrived.  Since then, the industry has been plagued with lessening profits, declining sales, etc.  Backstreet Boys sold over 1 million albums in one week and NSync sold over 2 million in one week.  That will never be achieved again.  Also, the Y2K era was the last time music garnered any controversy, with people like Eminem and Marilyn Manson (remember, soccer moms blamed him for Columbine because the shooters listened to his music) receiving all sorts of controversy.  You really don't see controversial music these days.  Sure, a lot of people don't like Rap, but you don't see a moral outcry like Gangsta Rap got in the 90s.  This decade has seen controversy over video games (violence, Grand Theft Auto), books (Harry Potter, Da Vinci Code), and movies (Passion of the Christ), but music, historically one of the most controversial areas of pop culture, has been conspicuosly void of controversy in recent years.

After the Y2K era, downloading started to take a toll on the music industry, variety began to lessen (2003-2004 were in particular guilty of completely oversaturating Rap music), and people began to segment themselves as the internet and downloading introduced people to new music in ways that didn't require the traditional media of MTV and radio stations.  As such, the music "culture" became less unified as people no longer needed to get all their music from traditional sources, but could seek it out on their own online.

Now for your observance of there being less adult-oriented music these days, I think that is true.  In some ways, I think the fault for this lies with online downloading.  Legal downloading is now counted when determining the places of singles in the Top 40 and, obviously, has a significant impact on it.  Now, think: who is more likely to download a song from itunes?  A 30 year old or a 16 year old?  Most likely, it is the 16 year old.  As such, music tailored towards them dominates the Top 40.  Downloading can also be "blamed" for the lessening of rock on the Top 40, as I notice that rock fans tend to have a greater propensity to download illegally than to download legally like other people.

I think that as the age of those who are "technologically oriented" increases, music aimed at adults may begin to appear again.  Heck, 2006 in many ways was a very laid back, adult year, with stuff like "How To Save A Life", "Chasing Cars", "Bad Day", and stuff like that being huge hits.  We still have a long way to go though before music can become more varied like it was in 2000 which, despite the hate, had tons of variety.

#1 hits of 2000: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mmIEapt9bM (include some #1 Airplay, but not all, those are on Biggest Songs of 2002 That Didn't Reach #1)

Teen Pop (NSync, Christina Aguilera), Latin Pop/Rock (Santana, Enrique Iglesias), Rock (Creed, Matchbox Twenty, Vertical Horizon), traditonally popular artists (Madonna, Janet Jackson), and even a Country song (Lonestar - Amazed) all hit number one in 2000.  For all the hate 2000 got at the time, and still gets by some people, it was much more varied than today.

^ I completely agree with all of that. Another way you can tell that the industry sort of petered out in comparison, is that Y2K was also the last time music videos were really popular as an art form. In fact, I think they even had something of a resurgence. Even if it wasn't quite to the level of the early MTV era, they were still really popular again. You don't really see this now, and most of the current ones are more run of the mill, without the traditional extras (i.e. intros and outros, dialogue and other action thrown in, a different mix of the song). That includes anything controversial too.

Speaking of controversy, I've noticed that too, especially in music. I used to think it was just because most things had gone as far as they could in the mainstream without being able to absolutely shock anyone by the late '90s. South Park, Eminem, Jerry Springer, etc. I remember shock rock being pretty controversial to Middle America and people like housewives anyway, but it really kicked into overdrive after Columbine (btw, I think the reason stuff like this traditionally happens is because whenever there's a tragedy, people want to blame it on the easiest target. Even if their anger and sadness is understandable, that's usually not productive imo).

Good point about downloading affecting the types of music in the mainstream, I'd agree with this too. I do think hip hop fans download legally more often because the albums are usually driven by the singles, which is all they would want anyway, most likely. Whereas rock fans usually tend to want the entire albums. 2006 did seem like a semi return to AC-esque pop/rock, even if not in a full blown way, but it's probably in its early stages.

Overall I'd say 1997 was the first "internet year", and that's been almost eleven years now (a little scary and hard to believe!), so I think as it gets more and more mainstreamized, and its core fanbase gets older, downloading could be something that starts filtering down to more age groups.

Well it's true that people always complain, but 2000s suck more than the 1990s in many things - bad music, bad movies. The only years I like about this decade are 2000 and 2001 (but before 9/11). And the US president now sucks more than the US president Clinton, but this is only my opinion. When Bush goes away (in 18 months or something?), I hope the next president will be better than him. I've read this in a forum: "Bush just brought bad luck not only to the US, but to the whole world too." Unfortunatelly there is a similar thing...

 Downloading can also be "blamed" for the lessening of rock on the Top 40, as I notice that rock fans tend to have a greater propensity to download illegally than to download legally like other people.

Yeah but even when rock was still popular 1992-1996 and maybe even 2001-2002 before 50 Cent came out in 2003 Rock music did not litter the Billboard Hot 100 the way ballad songs did during the 90's. I think the last time rock was really popular on the Billboard Hot 100 was when Hair Metal was the "in trend" for rock music in the late 80's/early 90's.

^ I completely agree with all of that. Another way you can tell that the industry sort of petered out in comparison, is that Y2K was also the last time
Good point about downloading affecting the types of music in the mainstream, I'd agree with this too. I do think hip hop fans download legally more often because the albums are usually driven by the singles, which is all they would want anyway, most likely. Whereas rock fans usually tend to want the entire albums. 2006 did seem like a semi return to AC-esque pop/rock, even if not in a full blown way, but it's probably in its early stages.


Hip-Hop was not even that singles driven even 3 years ago as it is now. As far as the A/C pop trend goes I think its dead. I mean rap did have an off year in 2006 but rap was popular this year but still I think interest in Hip-Hop is waning a bit currently and people are getting tired of that gimmicky one hit wonder rap artist stuff. At least glam rap is not the only trend going on in hip-hop right now at least there;s that infusion of dance music going on with hip-hop right now. I mean I may not like the whole dance element being infused with hip-hop but at least its something different than glam rap.

Yeah but even when rock was still popular 1992-1996 and maybe even 2001-2002 before 50 Cent came out in 2003 Rock music did not litter the Billboard Hot 100 the way ballad songs did during the 90's. I think the last time rock was really popular on the Billboard Hot 100 was when Hair Metal was the "in trend" for rock music in the late 80's/early 90's.

Then of course, in the early 90's, "grunge" became popular in the world of rock music. Still, at that time we also had pop ballads, which I primarily listened to at the time.

^ I completely agree with all of that. Another way you can tell that the industry sort of petered out in comparison, is that Y2K was also the last time music videos were really popular as an art form. In fact, I think they even had something of a resurgence. Even if it wasn't quite to the level of the early MTV era, they were still really popular again. You don't really see this now, and most of the current ones are more run of the mill, without the traditional extras (i.e. intros and outros, dialogue and other action thrown in, a different mix of the song). That includes anything controversial too.


Come to think of it, that is true.  I notice than when I watch videos from that era, they are in many ways more impressive than today's videos, simply due to the amount of innovation they have.  Not only do they do all things you mentioned, but I notice a lot more "quick camera shots" (don't know the technical term) and multiple shots from various angles than you see these days.  Videos in those days definitely have something that makes them more flashy than today's videos, but without all the materialism and stuff that makes today's videos flashy.  The last music videos that were truly innovative were Linkin Park's 2001 and 2002 videos, which were characterized by high budget special effects, epic scenes (like one video where half the video is of a futuristic Star Wars style war).  Their 2003 and 2004 videos, except for Breaking the Habit, were a lot more "by the book."

Speaking of controversy, I've noticed that too, especially in music. I used to think it was just because most things had gone as far as they could in the mainstream without being able to absolutely shock anyone by the late '90s. South Park, Eminem, Jerry Springer, etc. I remember shock rock being pretty controversial to Middle America and people like housewives anyway, but it really kicked into overdrive after Columbine (btw, I think the reason stuff like this traditionally happens is because whenever there's a tragedy, people want to blame it on the easiest target. Even if their anger and sadness is understandable, that's usually not productive imo).

Yeah, I think the Y2K era managed to hit a high in terms of mainstream shock and controversy.  One reason I think music hasn't had controversy is due to the fact that a lot of the more controversial stuff can't possibly be mainstream.  Theres a style of Metal music for example that is called Death Metal.  It is all about death, slaughter, and describing those two things in descriptive detail, but the lyrics and their style of music (heavy bass, "growling" vocals, etc.) ensure it will never become mainstream (thank god too, I hate Death Metal).  Stuff eventually gets to the point where it becomes so "hardcore" that it can't possibly hope to become mainstream.  I also think that, in many ways, Columbine kind of scared off some of the controversy over music, as the music industry didn't want to step on anyone's toes after that whole affair.

There has been controversy this decade, but most of it seems to be relegated to the realm of books (like the Da Vinci Code) and especially video games.  Video games have seen more controversy than any other part of pop culture this decade and, coincidentally, it is the only part of pop culture that is thriving like never before, whereas music and movies have seen declining sales and tv shows have seen declining ratings (although I actually like a lot of today's tv.  Its better than the reality tv saturation period of 2001-2004 at least.).   I think controversy is, in many ways, what helps fuel an industry and helps it thrive, what with all the buzz and press the controversy creates.  That is why video games, the most controversial area of pop culture this decade, is at its peak in terms of popularity and profitability while other areas have seen a decline in popularity and profitability.  I hear books are doing very good too in terms of sales too, though not nearly as well as the video game industry is.  

Right now, the video game industry is widely regarded as being one of the only areas of pop culture left that still sees controversy regularly and still sees constant scrutiny by the government and overprotective parents alike.  Its no wonder that video games now make more money than the movie industry.  Its because the industry is still one of the last areas left that resembles the unified, varied, and in many ways controversial aspect of pop culture that has declined in recent years.  People are naturally drawn to that, I think, and that is why the video game industry is doing so well.  Think about it: has any movie or band/rapper caused as much controversy in the past three years as Grand Theft Auto and the violent video game debate has?  Not really.  Passion of the Christ caused a lot of controversy, but it only lasted a few months, whereas the violent video game debate has been ongoing for several years.

Of course, the question remains: where do we go from Grand Theft Auto?  Will video game controversy eventually fade as well?  Well, a game called Manhunt 2 was released a couple weeks ago that was originally an Adults Only (NC-17) game that had to be toned down for the market.  Religious people are speaking out against it and stores like Target have outright boycotted the game, as well as a couple countries (I think Australia has banned the game completely).  So, with this in mind, I think that for the time being, video games will continue to remain the "final frontier" of controversy and liveliness that used to characterize all of pop culture.  As long as they can continue to carry on what pop culture used to be like, I think video games will continue to see their profits and popularity increase.  As I said earlier, people are just naturally drawn to a unified, varied, yet controversial pop culture that, for the moment, mostly exists only in the realm of video games.

Rap is dead period, there is nobody on the charts or even remotely known that is any good at all (except Kanye I guess but he is overrated). One day it could rise again but it sure as hell doesn't feel like it. There is some decent R&B (not necessarily at the top of the charts but somewhat "out there" at least) and ok (albeit very disposable) pop/dance out there. There's some good (non-emo) rock that I hear on the alternative stations here and there (again not really topping the hot 100, but "out there" and getting a bit of airplay on certain stations). I liked a bit of rap a couple years ago (never was my favorite really though), however now it has devolved from "mediocre" into worthless gimmicky ringtone junk.

Rap is dead period, there is nobody on the charts or even remotely known that is any good at all (except Kanye I guess but he is overrated). One day it could rise again but it sure as hell doesn't feel like it. There is some decent R&B (not necessarily at the top of the charts but somewhat "out there" at least) and ok (albeit very disposable) pop/dance out there. There's some good (non-emo) rock that I hear on the alternative stations here and there (again not really topping the hot 100, but "out there" and getting a bit of airplay on certain stations). I liked a bit of rap a couple years ago (never was my favorite really though), however now it has devolved from "mediocre" into worthless gimmicky ringtone junk.


Yes, Rap has gone from mediocore in 2005 to utter crap in 2007.  In fact, the term "ringtone junk" is pretty accurate, as several message boards I go to have decided to call the new brand of Rap "ringtone rap" (obviously a negative term, not the actual term for the style of Rap music) because of the fact that it seems tailor made for ringtones.  Its usually the same phrase over and over again, its usually featured prominently in random ringtone commercial (dial 1338 for "Party Like A Rockstar"!), and like ringtones in general, they are very gimmicky and tend to fade quickly, which is why most of these rappers are one hit wonders.

In my opinion, Rap has followed a course similar to the hair bands.  You had the beginnings of the "Glam Rap" movement in the late 90s/early 00s with stuff like Puff Daddy and even Jay-Z (remember "Big Pimpin") and Sisqo (Thong Song).  This was akin to the mid 80s period of Hair Metal: it was in existence and was one of the more popular, if not the most popular, brand of its genre (Hair Metal for Rock, Glam Rap for Rap), but it didn't have a huge amount of chart presence on the Top 40.  2003-2005 is probably to Glam Rap what the late 80s were to Hair Metal: a time of suddenly increased relevance and presence on the charts, mostly because of one smash hit album (Bon Jovi - Slippery When Wet and 50 Cent - Get Rich Or Die Trying), and this increased presence led to the genre's peak.  During this peak, however, there was an increased cheesiness to both genres, as both began to become gimmicky and over-saturated with artists that all sounded alike and were overall just plain unoriginal.  This era for Rap carried over into 2006, although 2006 was in many ways the beginning of a new era for Rap (I call it a transition year).

As for where Rap is today compared to its distant uncle in Rock music?  Well...lets just say that Rap is at the Nelson/Extreme/Mr. Big phase.  Getting to be extremely cheesy, very crappy, starting to get played out, and receiving a growing backlash, yet still very popular on the charts due to the fact that no visible alternative has appeared yet.  In other words, Rap is currently in a state similar to the way 1990 was for Hair Metal.

In my opinion, Rap has followed a course similar to the hair bands.  You had the beginnings of the "Glam Rap" movement in the late 90s/early 00s with stuff like Puff Daddy and even Jay-Z (remember "Big Pimpin") and Sisqo (Thong Song).  This was akin to the mid 80s period of Hair Metal: it was in existence and was one of the more popular, if not the most popular, brand of its genre (Hair Metal for Rock, Glam Rap for Rap), but it didn't have a huge amount of chart presence on the Top 40.  2003-2005 is probably to Glam Rap what the late 80s were to Hair Metal: a time of suddenly increased relevance and presence on the charts, mostly because of one smash hit album (Bon Jovi - Slippery When Wet and 50 Cent - Get Rich Or Die Trying), and this increased presence led to the genre's peak.  During this peak, however, there was an increased cheesiness to both genres, as both began to become gimmicky and over-saturated with artists that all sounded alike and were overall just plain unoriginal.  This era for Rap carried over into 2006, although 2006 was in many ways the beginning of a new era for Rap (I call it a transition year).

As for where Rap is today compared to its distant uncle in Rock music?  Well...lets just say that Rap is at the Nelson/Extreme/Mr. Big phase.  Getting to be extremely cheesy, very crappy, starting to get played out, and receiving a growing backlash, yet still very popular on the charts due to the fact that no visible alternative has appeared yet.  In other words, Rap is currently in a state similar to the way 1990 was for Hair Metal.
I remember "Marty McFly" making the hair metal and 2003+ era of rap comparison like in the beggining of this year on these boards. Anyway so we should call the 2003-2005 era of rap just "Glam Rap"  and  2006+ rap we should call it the "Glam Rap snap era" or the "ringtone era" that you were calling todays current rap music?

^ Yeah I think I remember saying that. I agree with you and Sonikuu's last posts on it as well. Even though it's coincidental, you could make another case for things really changing in 2008/'09 or at least beginning to take a hard shift, when the next president comes into office. Different presidential terms usually do change the face of pop culture, world affairs and just the overall feel of things.

Like we mentioned, gimmicky glam rap is kind of in the burnout, copycat stage that hair metal was in around 1990, when even alot of the original fans weren't so into the new stuff and most people thought it was silly. Yet it was still thriving since there was nothing around to replace it yet.

I think people hate what's current not for the thing itself, but because they think it's only popular because it's new. Like in 1998, liking the Backstreet Boys meant you had no mind of your own, while now it means you have guts!

I think people hate what's current not for the thing itself, but because they think it's only popular because it's new. Like in 1998, liking the Backstreet Boys meant you had no mind of your own, while now it means you have guts!


I never thought of it that way, but I think you might be onto something with that. Like, anyone who enjoys it is merely doing so because they're "following the crowd". I do agree that generally speaking, anything that's about 4 to 12 years old is typically cheesy stuff that people avoid, lol. Even close to twenty years in some cases.

I think people hate what's current not for the thing itself, but because they think it's only popular because it's new.

Yes...and often times when something is "new", there's lots of hype about it, and it gets boring after a while. That's how I see things at the time they're "new"...whether it be a certain song, tv show, movie, or whatever the case may be. I sometimes let the popularity fade away before I check it out. (Probably not a good tactic, but that's what I tend to do sometimes.)