I was looking at videos from the early 00s and I read some comments about the music videos being very dated and cheap. If you look at Aaliyah's "More than a woman"  video or Jessica Simpson's  "Irresistible" video, you'll see how futuristic they  look, but now it looks so cheap lol. Maybe I'm just living in the past, but to me it does feel a little "old", since time is moving by so fast.  They still seem modern, but also a little "old school".

I'd say, since the early 00s were still pretty much an extension of the 90s and the 90s are getting older and older looking by the day.

The early 90s are, but I don't know about the early 00s. Too early in my opinion.

Although the economy of that era makes it seem like 2012 is 20 years later!  :D

Retro is a strong word which is more like ~20 years ago but they are old school and dated now. I don't want my high school years to be "retro" yet, but today's kids and high schoolers probably think it is as they already have some teachers my age.  ::)

I wonder what the average person from 2000 would think of the latest iPad tablet computer or brostep?

I would wait another 10-15 years before 2000-2003 becomes retro.

I play music from 1988-2003 at one of my streams, so focussing on 90s music and some older and newer tracks with a similar feel. And I can see the 2000-2001 tracks being judget quite 'normally' by the listeners. No problem, I can play a certain amount of 2000/2001 tracks (if the genres were already existing in the late 90s).

But 2002/2003 can be a problem, even if the tracks are fitting the late 90s tracks. I have to be very careful with them. Outkast is o.k., Beyonce's first solo tracks are on the edge.

So, I conclude 2000/2001 has got a slight retro feel already, but the years after that not really yet. 2002/2003 clearly belong to the 00s, and will become retro during a future 00s comeback, I guess. But it's way too early for a 00s comeback now. I've got another stream, especially for 00s music, and I see it's way more difficult to attract listeners with that one.

Some REALLY campy 2002/2003 tracks, like Special D - Come with me, are already retro, though. But only thát kind of music. In a 'it's so corny it's good' way. Dance music gets old way faster than other styles.

Why 2000 - 2003?

Why 2000 - 2003?


Why anything?

Speaking from a 22 year old college student perspective, 2000 is definitely counted as retro now by college goers, if only because it's a major part of their childhood so it has the nostalgic factor.  It's nostalgic in a different from earlier years in that the "retro coolness" is largely restricted to childhood things that people personally have memories of, rather than the era as a whole.  The early 90s are definitely "retro cool" in that it's an era that most have little to no personal memory of, but can still think is cool. 

2001 onwards is not "retro" though except for very early 2001.  Certain things about this era just give it a "newer" feel that makes it outdated, but not necessarily retro.  While a year like 2000 is a year that is dated, but still has a great deal of nostalgic value to some that makes people like it, a year like 2002 appears just plain dated.

I still think anything that has a connection to the Internet is not considered "retro" and still modern. I'm almost 27 now and looking at my high school yearbooks does make me wonder a bit about how trends have changed. Sure, MP3s were around, but the CD was still the most popular way to purchase music (less so in 2002 and 2003 with the rise of iTunes). VHS was already pretty much a thing of the past, or on it's final legs with DVD by then the predominant way to buy movies. Movie posters/trailers of that era (especially 2002 and 2003) don't look much different from today's. For more information on what can be retro quicker, check out this thread:

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1276264381.shtml

Trust me, 2000 and early 2001 are much more likely to become retro sooner than late 2001-2003 are, with 9/11 a big paradigm shift. And, Friendster is now completely dead since I posted that tidbit on technological dateness two years ago!

I still think anything that has a connection to the Internet is not considered "retro" and still modern. I'm almost 27 now and looking at my high school yearbooks does make me wonder a bit about how trends have changed. Sure, MP3s were around, but the CD was still the most popular way to purchase music (less so in 2002 and 2003 with the rise of iTunes). VHS was already pretty much a thing of the past, or on it's final legs with DVD by then the predominant way to buy movies. Movie posters/trailers of that era (especially 2002 and 2003) don't look much different from today's. For more information on what can be retro quicker, check out this thread:

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1276264381.shtml

Trust me, 2000 and early 2001 are much more likely to become retro sooner than late 2001-2003 are, with 9/11 a big paradigm shift. And, Friendster is now completely dead since I posted that tidbit on technological dateness two years ago!


I'm almost 25 and I can agree that 2000 seems a lot older than 2001-2003...especially 2003 which doesn't really seem that old. Granted I'm still nostalgic about the early '00s even though I don't really see it as retro, it's still an era gone by that's fairly dated now and because I thought it was a hell of a lot better than the late '00s.  ;D

Trust me, 2000 and early 2001 are much more likely to become retro sooner than late 2001-2003 are, with 9/11 a big paradigm shift.


That's a good one, 9/11. Maybe, people don't want to hear much 2002/2003 music at GV (even if there's a slight late 90s sound in it), because of 9/11 memories.

I didn't think about that when I was making the format, though.

The music definitely seems dated.  The rest of pop culture really still has a lot of similarities to that era.  For instance, I still dress and style my hair the same now as I did then and I am still in style.

Well back then you had The Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Brittney Spears,Christina Agulera and Ricky Martin top the charts.

Well back then you had The Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Brittney Spears,Christina Agulera and Ricky Martin top the charts.

Yes, and don't forget Limp Bizkit (nu metal), Creed (post-grunge) and Blink-182 (pop punk).
They sound completely outdated nowadays.
Early 2000s is already a nostalgic era for most kids and teens back then (like me).

BSB, Nsync, and Ricky Martin were not really relevant in 2003 lol. '03 was all 50 Cent, solo Timberlake, Ashanti, Sean Paul, Trapt, Evanescence, Beyonce, Chingy, Matchbox Twenty, Nickelback, Eminem, Lil Jon...03 was like all post grunge and rap. Christina was still strong but her style was much changed (compare Genie in a Bottle to "Dirrty"), same with Britney (who's still fairly popular today). BSB already seemed ancient to me by 2003 tbh. Boy bands were completely dead by early 2002, Nsync's "Girlfriend" was the final song of that era imo.

2003 is dated but not retro. 2003 has more in common with the mid 00s than the early 00s.

Early 03 I would put in the early 00s category. It didn't feel much different from 02 until mid 03 Mid and late 03 I would put in the mid 00s category. I remembered a change for the worse that year. January 03 seemed like a different decade than December 03.

Also a very correct observation. It's also something I noticed, when analysing the behaviour of my listeners.

Especially in the N.e.r.d./Neptunes section. Their hits released on the edge of my format (halfway/late 2003) are considered too 'hip' for people searching for 90s (like) nostalgy. While they are not very different from Britney Spears' Boys (from 2001) or Kelis' Good stuff (from 2000), production-wise. Playing those two is no problem, though. :)

It is! Most music and cars then looked better. Now all cars look the same - large, fugly, oversized headlights and large grilles. I don't like any new car.

Early 03 I would put in the early 00s category. It didn't feel much different from 02 until mid 03 Mid and late 03 I would put in the mid 00s category. I remembered a change for the worse that year. January 03 seemed like a different decade than December 03.


Agree.  '03 was the final nail in the coffin for the boy bands, which had been well past their peak since at least '01.  Hip-hop/rap became significantly edgier, and punk rock pretty much died off and post-grunge ruled rock.  I also remember it was a horrible time for dance music, maybe sort of a backlash against the 90s.  By the end of '03, music stayed pretty much the same until late '06 when more dance oriented hip-hop started replacing snap rap.

I think it is becoming retro, How about the way cellphones looked 10,11,12 years ago?

Also a very correct observation. It's also something I noticed, when analysing the behaviour of my listeners.

Especially in the N.e.r.d./Neptunes section. Their hits released on the edge of my format (halfway/late 2003) are considered too 'hip' for people searching for 90s (like) nostalgy. While they are not very different from Britney Spears' Boys (from 2001) or Kelis' Good stuff (from 2000), production-wise. Playing those two is no problem, though. :)


I think of The Neptunes as being one of the definitive '00s music producers(especially the '01-'03 period).

In fact, it seems to be the act connecting the 90s and the 00s with eachother, in that undefinable transition era.  :)

I think from a person living 200 years from now the 90s, 00s, and 10s will pretty much look the same in their eyes. But from our eyes the 3 decades are as different as can be! It's kinda like how most of us think that the 1800s was pretty much stagnant throughout all 100 years, but the people living during the era can definitely feel the difference!

I think from a person living 200 years from now the 90s, 00s, and 10s will pretty much look the same in their eyes. But from our eyes the 3 decades are as different as can be! It's kinda like how most of us think that the 1800s was pretty much stagnant throughout all 100 years, but the people living during the era can definitely feel the difference!

True, a decade is too short time period in the long term.
Now, when I think about it, decades started to look more different from one another with the invention of the camera. People could actually see the trends captured on video. So in this information era people after 100 years can still see all of the pop culture of today the way it is (not romanticized).

I think from a person living 200 years from now the 90s, 00s, and 10s will pretty much look the same in their eyes. But from our eyes the 3 decades are as different as can be! It's kinda like how most of us think that the 1800s was pretty much stagnant throughout all 100 years, but the people living during the era can definitely feel the difference!


I hope you know fashion DID change in periods like the 1600s, we literally don't really realize the details because we are looking at it through a modern context, I would say if fashion was very different 500 years from now a person would probably have a hard time distinguishing most of the mid/late 20th century decades from from one another, it's been working with the same overall fashion template(shirts, jeans, coats, sneakers, vests, ect.), even the freaking hair styles are NOT unique to decades like the '70s or '80s(big hair was in centuries before, long sideburns are so 19th century). We have been conditioned by movies, tv, ect. to recognize these differences beginning around the 1950s and they are based on exaggerations. For example, if a kid in 2040 said everyone dressed so emo(I'm talking bout guyliner, scenester fringe hairstyle, hoodie, tight pants, brooding demeanor, the whole deal) in the '00s would that line up with your actual experience living through the '00s(if anything alot of younger people were dressing in hip-hop fashion during most of the '00s)? So the fashion and stylistic differences that a person will notice will depend on how close they are to the time period, if we're too far away(a couple of centuries) and fashion is very different then even most of the 20th century decades will start to blend in with each other, I have hard time telling the 1930s and 1940s from the 1920s to be honest.

I think with what most people wear in casual situations, it's been t-shirts, jeans, sneakers, skirts, and jackets since the '70s, before then(even through most of the '60s), most people dressed more conservatively.

I would say that the early 2000s are more different than today than some people on here like to say, even though they're not THAT old. Even 2004-2005 is definitely dated. I think there's a trend to not want to admit anything 21st century is getting old, but the first few years are now. So even if I don't really think it's retro quite yet, saying it's exactly like today is untrue.

Yep, Emman is totally right! BTW, I wonder why do the otherwise eclectic 80's are over-simplified by modern-day pop culture? Far more girls didn't have a side pony tail than those who had and most people back then didin't go out dressed like pop stars. How do I know? My mom told me! ;) The 80's were much more than side ponytails, rock dudes and chicks and stoners. A lot of people have wrong and simplified concepts of the past. Not every 70s guy had an afro and not every 50s young guy was a greaser. It's sad seeing some subcultures altering people's concept for a whole decade.

I'd say maybe 2000-2002 is dated, but 2003 certainly isn't. The start of 2003 marked the end of the millenial culture, which was a culture spawned from the tail-end of the 90s. I think things stagnated around 2000-2002 and we had mainly late 90s technology, but after that things became more modern. Imagine being back in the year 2000, and then looking at what things will be like in the early 10s, you'll hear autotuned music, see slim computers, and reality TV, and an awful pop culture. It'll seem like a different world. I'm being slightly biased towards the early 2000s since I loved this time but culture has changed a lot in the nine years since 2003.

No.  It isn't.

No, it is too early to be retro.

No, it is too early to be retro.



right you'd have to wait 5-10 more years.

Like other people have said, it's not retro yet.  It is starting to get a little dated though.  I'd agree that it takes about 20 years for a time period to become retro.  A lot of artists from that time (Brittney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Eminem, Ludacris) are still popular.  Even athletes like Kobe Bryant and Tom Brady are still performing at a high level.  So no it's not retro, it's just been a while.

right you'd have to wait 5-10 more years.
Vintage retro is a wait of least 15 or 20 years.

Vintage retro is a wait of least 15 or 20 years.


About 2020 or later.

About 2020 or later.


I have lots of early 2000's stuff from my teenage days still in my room. Can't believe that this stuff will be retro some day  ;D...

But ok, when I really think about it and watch the big size of my 2003 DVD-Player with limited functions, there is something true about it!

I don't think culturally is retro yet. especially 2003 still feels quite contemporary to me and thats coming from a 1994 born kid!!!

But 2001 and before, thats definitely dated!!! late teens and early 20s generations (college kids in general) will definitely consider their childhood as retro to their own definition including myself. It shouldnt be retro in general yet until at least 10 years from now. But GOSH i miss those times... 2002 is already 10 years ago which kinda freaks me out. Oh and anyone born in the late 1990s are now entering high school. 2000s kid already dominate middle school and that is scary!! (high school already for Australia since we don't have middle school)

In what way would 2000-2003 be retro?  ???

I'd say maybe 2000-2002 is dated, but 2003 certainly isn't. The start of 2003 marked the end of the millenial culture, which was a culture spawned from the tail-end of the 90s. I think things stagnated around 2000-2002 and we had mainly late 90s technology, but after that things became more modern. Imagine being back in the year 2000, and then looking at what things will be like in the early 10s, you'll hear autotuned music, see slim computers, and reality TV, and an awful pop culture. It'll seem like a different world. I'm being slightly biased towards the early 2000s since I loved this time but culture has changed a lot in the nine years since 2003.


Umm I think 2003-2005 is a bit dated, not that old but certainly a difference. Hip-hop/r&b completely dominated that era while rock was still a bit popular whereas today is totally dance pop/house leaning, fashion was definitely baggier while today is the whole "skinny jeans" thing, hardly anybody had a "smartphone" it was all flip phones. It's important to note the difference between dated and retro, even 2007 is SLIGHTLY dated if you look back and study the differences. I'd say retro is something that's been dated for a long while and that's actually coming back in style and influencing modern fashion (today that would be the late '80s - early '90s).

Well the 90s are certainly retro. It is definitely "old", both early and late 90s. That's why people nowadays say music or fashion look 90s and all. It is considered very different and old as compared to now. Now the question is if the early 2000s, like 2000-2003, blend in or associate with the 90s. If so than it would be considered retro along with the rest of the 90s and it would be considered old if you consider the style and culture similar to the 90s. I find the 2000s is a funny decade because it doesn't have that unique decade feel with culture like how the 80s and 90s were. Like you can totally tell the difference between the 80s and 90s but in the 2000s, the 90s stretch into early in the decade, then later on in the decade it blends in and stretches into the 10s. So it makes it kinda weird then. I remember people in 2002 went like" Oh that's so 90s" but people now in 2012 don't really see something unique or different about the 2000s. Either way personally I feel the 2000-2003 is considered retro and I find it was along time ago. I found the music much more different. Technology much less advanced. So that's what I think. But ti depends really......

Well the 90s are certainly retro. It is definitely "old", both early and late 90s. That's why people nowadays say music or fashion look 90s and all. It is considered very different and old as compared to now. Now the question is if the early 2000s, like 2000-2003, blend in or associate with the 90s. If so than it would be considered retro along with the rest of the 90s and it would be considered old if you consider the style and culture similar to the 90s. I find the 2000s is a funny decade because it doesn't have that unique decade feel with culture like how the 80s and 90s were. Like you can totally tell the difference between the 80s and 90s but in the 2000s, the 90s stretch into early in the decade, then later on in the decade it blends in and stretches into the 10s. So it makes it kinda weird then. I remember people in 2002 went like" Oh that's so 90s" but people now in 2012 don't really see something unique or different about the 2000s. Either way personally I feel the 2000-2003 is considered retro and I find it was along time ago. I found the music much more different. Technology much less advanced. So that's what I think. But ti depends really......


Decade distinctions become clearer with time.  Back as recently as 2006, people were saying the 2000s were just an extension of the '90s and there were no real cultural changes, but looking back the 2000s were quite different from the '90s.  I can already see quite a bit of cultural differences between today and most of the 2000s (pre-2008). 

Well the 90s are certainly retro. It is definitely "old", both early and late 90s. That's why people nowadays say music or fashion look 90s and all. It is considered very different and old as compared to now. Now the question is if the early 2000s, like 2000-2003, blend in or associate with the 90s. If so than it would be considered retro along with the rest of the 90s and it would be considered old if you consider the style and culture similar to the 90s. I find the 2000s is a funny decade because it doesn't have that unique decade feel with culture like how the 80s and 90s were. Like you can totally tell the difference between the 80s and 90s but in the 2000s, the 90s stretch into early in the decade, then later on in the decade it blends in and stretches into the 10s. So it makes it kinda weird then. I remember people in 2002 went like" Oh that's so 90s" but people now in 2012 don't really see something unique or different about the 2000s. Either way personally I feel the 2000-2003 is considered retro and I find it was along time ago. I found the music much more different. Technology much less advanced. So that's what I think. But ti depends really......


It's not quite 90s fashion of influence yet. 2012 still retains the late 80s retro feelings. The real 1990s kind of began after 1991 and early 1990s fashion are quite distinct to the middle and definitely end of the decade, 1990s saw a huge transition of fashion for sure. From the early 1990s thats all puffy and baggy with flashy colours. To grunge/Jean dominated fashion and very casual looks of the 1990s with the horrible bowl haricut and hoodies jacket and those oversized shirts, into the sleek futuristic late 1990s with latex and strechy materials with good balance of jeans and shirts which kinda look pop punk sensibility or boy/girl band freshness and spiky hairsyles.... which in terms of fashion sense, the retro predictions will not revive this for at least another few years. It's just starting however...

but yes early 2000s are starting to become a distant pass by day, and 2000s is starting to become more distinct culture by years to come. For me, If I have to describe 2000. Its definitely a maturing decade. Away from the fiery 1990s. Where things starts to settle down. With the rise of technology everywhere and globalisation having its full effects. Ironically disasters and envrionmental concerns also started to grow. But early 2000s was a different world to are now. At least it's started to look different day by day.... but not quite retro

Nothing from the early '00's is already retro. Technologically speaking, 2000 has more in common with 2012 than 2000 with 1988.

Nothing from the early '00's is already retro. Technologically speaking, 2000 has more in common with 2012 than 2000 with 1988.


that is true... computer wasn't widely available in 1988 compared to 2000. Certainly web chatting and email exist in 2000 so thats another point.

But 2000 IS the early days of modern internet..... in at least 5 years... all these old WWW of late 90s and 2000 will become a retro feature of the everchanging internet

We can definitely say that the 1990's are 20 years old but as for the 2000's we can wait another few years before the 2000's become retro.

that is true... computer wasn't widely available in 1988 compared to 2000. Certainly web chatting and email exist in 2000 so thats another point.

But 2000 IS the early days of modern internet..... in at least 5 years... all these old WWW of late 90s and 2000 will become a retro feature of the everchanging internet


In 1988 we were using these computers. http://www.coolcopyright.com/images/cases/1998computer.jpg

In 1988 we were using these computers. http://www.coolcopyright.com/images/cases/1998computer.jpg


I have seen them being used in real life when I was younger. Those types are not user friendly XD and in a sense make me feel constricted in how I use computers

Eh, it's more nostalgic than it is retro. I would say anything that's made from 1995 and below would be more retro.

No I don't think it is, it's been only 9-12 years ago. Not many years have gone by yet for that particular time period to be called retro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uaPs8sxqB0

god... this song still feel like it was just yesterday

this will freak me out if this turns out to be retro

back in 2000  :D

In 2002, Didn't people consider the early 90s retro? like 1990-1993? Or was it still considered "modern" in 2002? I don't really remember people's perception cause I was only 7.....

In 2002, Didn't people consider the early 90s retro? like 1990-1993? Or was it still considered "modern" in 2002? I don't really remember people's perception cause I was only 7.....


I was 16 in 2002 and the early 90's didn't feel that old (or retro) back then. I think that was still a time when any year that began with 199X felt pretty new - at least to me. In 2002 the early 90's felt like the late 90's and early 00's do today.

...just like late '80's movies that felt still pretty recent in like 1999... 10 years is nothing!

I was 16 in 2002 and the early 90's didn't feel that old (or retro) back then. I think that was still a time when any year that began with 199X felt pretty new - at least to me. In 2002 the early 90's felt like the late 90's and early 00's do today.

...just like late '80's movies that felt still pretty recent in like 1999... 10 years is nothing!

Yeah I guess we'll have to wait a few years for that to happen. Though to me, the early 2000s feels very nastolgic.

In 2002, Didn't people consider the early 90s retro? like 1990-1993? Or was it still considered "modern" in 2002? I don't really remember people's perception cause I was only 7.....


The 90s were a very changeful decade, much moreso than the '00s.  The early '90s was before the digital revolution so that seems like an entirely different lifetime.  The late '90s, however, don't seem that old even today.

In 2002, Didn't people consider the early 90s retro? like 1990-1993? Or was it still considered "modern" in 2002? I don't really remember people's perception cause I was only 7.....


I don't think so.

people use to think early 1990s was tacky and cheesy in fashion sense back in early 00s for what I can remember, not sure about music though

same phenomenon today with early 00s

people use to think early 1990s was tacky and cheesy in fashion sense back in early 00s for what I can remember, not sure about music though

same phenomenon today with early 00s


...because the early 90's really were like that!

I don't think it's the same phenomenon today with the early '00's, because fashion was not very different from today.

...because the early 90's really were like that!

I don't think it's the same phenomenon today with the early '00's, because fashion was not very different from today.


Huh? Fashion is very different today. Early 00s fashion was extremely casual and plain. Today it's not.

And from what I remember, the early 90s already seemed extremely dated and old in the early 00s.

I kinda think 2002 fashion seems to have much more in common with 2012 than 1992.... 1992 seems like a world apart from 2002 and 2012 in terms of clothing and fashion. But Music however, seems like 2002 has much more in common with 1992 than 2012. The music from 2002 and 1992 seem to be more similar than 2012. 2012 pop music seems like a world apart form 2002 and 1992. The whole electro pop era started in 2008-2009 so the music has changed a lot since 2002. So I think it's fair to say that 2002 is in the middle and has stuff in common with both decades. Now saying if 2002 and the early 2000s is retro is another thing because I still can't seem to point out the culture distinction in the 00s from the 10s so far. But 90s seems like a no brainier. I do too think we have to wait a few more years.

Huh? Fashion is very different today. Early 00s fashion was extremely casual and plain. Today it's not.


It's not very different. I have a lots of stuff from the early 2000's in my closet which I can still wear without any problem... unlike the teen stuff my sister had in the early '90's which was very dated by 2000. It's like it is.. it is still very difficult to identify the year of a movie (by fashion) whether it was produced in the early 2000's or today. The only possiblity to do so is to look closer at the technology (cell phones, computers)... but fashion? No way - the differences are too small!

When I think of a TV from this era, I think of the last generation of CRTs rather than Plasma/LCDs as those were a status symbol at the time. It has a steel-covered exterior with curvy lines as opposed to the black ones of the '90s. Commercials from this era sort of have a mix of today's style with '90s styles still around, and most commercials of the early '00s were still not HD. Also, many people still only had regular cable in stead of digital cable/FIO/satellite, and while satellite dishes were common on rooftops, you'd still see some antennas here and there (unlike rarely today since SDTV is dead).

The difference between 2002 and 2012 is much less superficial than that of 1992 and 2002. The zeitgeist has changed drastically since 2002 due to one massive factor: the internet. We went through a massive financial crisis. We fought a war in Iraq. Terrorism is a joke. The president of the united states is black. Gay culture is fashionable now.

The whole era from 2000-2003 was dominated by Neptune's style hip-hop/pop from Snoop Dogg, Mario, Justin Timberlake, Nelly, Britney Spears, etc... Pop music today is a lot less soulful, a lot less hip-hop, and a lot more synthetic sounding, like it was in the mid 80s. Gangsta rap is totally completely dead, and rap has lost its associations with the "ghetto" and is now a style of vocal delivery. White people use it too now. And the whole swag genre has arisen, with Wiz Khalifa, Mac Miller, Odd Future, Lil B, Kreayshawn, Drake, etc...

Teen fashion is hugely different. I know this from first hand experience. I was 10 in 2002 and i've seen how it all changed. Back then, the MAINSTREAM fashion was baggy jeans or cargo shorts, ankle socks, and t-shirt with a surfer necklace. Now, t-shirts are a lot smaller, pants are tighter, cargo shorts are out (i see them go up to mid thigh at the highest on my college campus), sperry's are ubiquitous, high socks are the norm.

There will always be wierdo fashions like hippies, punks, goths, emos, hipsters, etc.

Well said. I wanted to give karma because of that reply, but you seem unregistered.

That era will be considered retro within the next 5-10 years, It still in a way feels too soon to be called "retro".

2002 in general had more in common with 2012 than 1992
fashion 2012 was little different(was very baggy) but the templates are almost the same,straight hair in women
music 1992 grunge and gangsta were still influetial then
television 2012 reality tv,medical drama,csi type shows
videogames 2012 3-d games,online gaming,gta popularity
movies 2012 superhero movies,remakes,frat pack

1992 was very old in 2002

The 2000-2004 time frame had better music. I miss songs like:

'Crazy In Love' (Beyonce)
'Rock Your Body' (Justin Timberlake)
'I Begin to Wonder' (Dannii Minogue, yep Kylie's little sis)
'Intuition' (Jewel)
'Fighter' (Christina Aguilera)

They don't do them like they did then.

I'd say maybe 2000-2002 is dated, but 2003 certainly isn't. The start of 2003 marked the end of the millenial culture, which was a culture spawned from the tail-end of the 90s. I think things stagnated around 2000-2002 and we had mainly late 90s technology, but after that things became more modern. Imagine being back in the year 2000, and then looking at what things will be like in the early 10s, you'll hear autotuned music, see slim computers, and reality TV, and an awful pop culture. It'll seem like a different world. I'm being slightly biased towards the early 2000s since I loved this time but culture has changed a lot in the nine years since 2003.


Reality television? Survivor aired in 2000.

2002 in general had more in common with 2012 than 1992
fashion 2012 was little different(was very baggy) but the templates are almost the same,straight hair in women
music 1992 grunge and gangsta were still influetial then
television 2012 reality tv,medical drama,csi type shows
videogames 2012 3-d games,online gaming,gta popularity
movies 2012 superhero movies,remakes,frat pack

1992 was very old in 2002


While I agree that 2002 is possibly still closer to 2012 than 1992, 2002 is more different to 2012 than you might think. For example, where was Youtube, Facebook, Twitter in 2002? Even in reality television, things have changed. Compare Survivor: Marquesas to Survivor: One World, attitudes were a lot different too.

IMO

2008 onwards = Recent
2007 back to 1998 = Dated
1997 back to 1983 = Retro
1982 back to 1963 = Vintage
1962 back to 1913 = Golden Oldies
1912 and earlier = Antique

IMO

2008 onwards = Recent
2007 back to 1998 = Dated
1997 back to 1983 = Retro
1982 back to 1963 = Vintage
1962 back to 1913 = Golden Oldies
1912 and earlier = Antique

Yeah I pretty much agree. It's crazy how dated 2007 seems to me even now. It's like it's a different time.

I think it's:

2012-2008 = recent
2007-2002 = somewhat dated
2001-1998 = dated
1997-1994 = 'old school'
1993-1989 = somewhat retro
1988-1970 = retro
1969-1945 = vintage
1944 and before = antique

I think it's:

2012-2008 = recent
2007-2002 = somewhat dated
2001-1998 = dated
1997-1994 = 'old school'
1993-1989 = somewhat retro
1988-1970 = retro
1969-1945 = vintage
1944 and before = antique


I respect your opinion, but do people really think of something that is only 70 years old, if even that, as an antique? Most people call grandfather clocks antiques because a lot are around 150 years old. The film "Gone With The Wind" from 1939 is definitley at least one of the golden oldies but would you call it an antique yet? Though I do agree that certain 1994-1997 films such as "The Lion King" or "Dunston Checks In" feel significantly less old than "Home Alone" or something like that.

The late-2000's: Barely dated
Mid-2000's: Very mildly dated
Early-2000's: Kind of dated
Late-90's: Dated
Mid 90's: Getting quite dated
Early 90's: Feels like a different world. Especially 1990-1992.

I tend to think of stuff from the mid/late 80s and early 90s as retro right now.
Things from the mid-90s to the mid-00s are simply dated.
"antique" I would say has to be stuff from the 1920s and earlier.

Typical looks that were popular for guys in the early and mid 00s would have been like khaki shorts (replacing jean shorts of the 90s), white basketball shoes, preppy t-shirts, shell necklaces, longer wavy/shaggy hair (called a "wings" haircut, apparently...definitely popular around '05/'06), etc. I tend to think of a lot of that stuff as kind of dated now.

I still remember around May 2005 when my friend started wearing plaid shorts, I thought they were sooo weird looking back then as he was the first person I ever saw wear them. He assured me that within a year they would become a trend. I myself never owned a pair until 2011.

Fashion between 1998 and now is so plain that I have a hard time seeing it becoming retro like 70s, 80s, and early to mid 90s fashion. When I think of early 2000s fashion it seems really close to today, just that it was a little more casual and baggy.

1997 is the most recent year that feels like it's on the verge of being retro, with the fashion, music, and technology differing really visibly from what we have now.

Fashion between 1998 and now is so plain that I have a hard time seeing it becoming retro like 70s, 80s, and early to mid 90s fashion. When I think of early 2000s fashion it seems really close to today, just that it was a little more casual and baggy.

1997 is the most recent year that feels like it's on the verge of being retro, with the fashion, music, and technology differing really visibly from what we have now.


AGREED! I definitley liked the natural casualness of the early 2000s.

In response to this thread, I'd say it goes like this:

2000: Retro, falls in the late 90s era in many ways.  The "retro factor" is definitely not as high as say 1995, but it's gotten to the point that I'd say it counts as retro.
2001: Half retro half dated.  Many of the things that would start to define the 00s were coming into prominence by the end of the year, though they wouldn't really kick off until 2002 and 2003.
2002: Dated.  Enough time has passed that it has some nostalgia value for people who lived through that time, but it hasn't achieved "retro-cool" status yet and I don't think it will until several more years pass.
2003: Also just dated.  Basically see my description of 2002.

As for previous decades, I definitely think that fashion circa late 90s started to get more plain.  Watching a movie like American Pie, the fashion doesn't seem particularly nostalgic as just dated.  Not something someone would wear to a nostalgia or retro themed party. 

As for previous decades, I've always felt that things started to look more "modern" around the late 80s.  Stuff like computers appearing with regularity in movies (even if extremely, extremely outdated), Hip-Hop finding mainstream acceptance, Nintendo reviving and kickstarting the "modern" video game industry, the winding down of the Cold War, etc. always gave that era a feeling of being a "beta version" of the modern world to me.

In response to this thread, I'd say it goes like this:

2000: Retro, falls in the late 90s era in many ways.  The "retro factor" is definitely not as high as say 1995, but it's gotten to the point that I'd say it counts as retro.
2001: Half retro half dated.  Many of the things that would start to define the 00s were coming into prominence by the end of the year, though they wouldn't really kick off until 2002 and 2003.
2002: Dated.  Enough time has passed that it has some nostalgia value for people who lived through that time, but it hasn't achieved "retro-cool" status yet and I don't think it will until several more years pass.
2003: Also just dated.  Basically see my description of 2002.


I agree with your list but it depends how you define retro. Late 90s retro is not the same as 80s retro but if you go back they will all look really old so you're right late 90s and 2000/2001 can be considered retro. Everything else to like 2008 is considered old to me like a different time. 2007 feels like a different era than now and I think that's the last year that has become truly dated for me.

I agree with your list but it depends how you define retro. Late 90s retro is not the same as 80s retro but if you go back they will all look really old so you're right late 90s and 2000/2001 can be considered retro. Everything else to like 2008 is considered old to me like a different time. 2007 feels like a different era than now and I think that's the last year that has become truly dated for me.


Basically. It depends on the person. Personally, I don't consider 2000-2003 retro at all. I just consider it...well, old or older. I remember some months ago I was listening to a song on YouTube that came out in 2007 and someone left a comment calling the song "old school". I thought, "How can a song that only came out 5 years ago be considered old school? It's not THAT old!" When I think of "old school", I think of anything from the mid 90's (or maybe even late 90's) and before.

It honestly just comes down to the person.

Basically. It depends on the person. Personally, I don't consider 2000-2003 retro at all. I just consider it...well, old or older. I remember some months ago I was listening to a song on YouTube that came out in 2007 and someone left a comment calling the song "old school". I thought, "How can a song that only came out 5 years ago be considered old school? It's not THAT old!" When I think of "old school", I think of anything from the mid 90's (or maybe even late 90's) and before.

It honestly just comes down to the person.


Not only that, but the older you get, the higher your standards for what is "old" is likely to be. For example, an 11 year old may think the time when they were 5 years old is a "long time ago" because most of the memories are from since then. But a 17 year old is less likely to think that the time they were 11 was a "long time ago".

But a 17 year old is less likely to think that the time they were 11 was a "long time ago".


I don't know. There is also a big difference in being a kid or an older teen. That's the basic reason why I am always making a strong distinction between the late 90's and the early 00's. I was 15 in 2001 and even 1998 - when I was 12 - was quite far away.

I think the "higher standards" you mentioned begin a bit later - probably when you hit your mid-20's. When I was 20 in 2006, 2001 felt longer ago than 2007 feels to me today.

I'd say

2008-2012: basically one in the same
2003-2007: a while ago, but not really 'dated' imo
1998-2002: starting to get dated
1993-1997: dated
1982-1992: retro
1960s-1981: classic (in a "classic rock" sense)
1930s-1950s: vintage
1920s are earlier: antique

It's not "retro" but it is pretty old now .Even 2004 and 2005 is pretty old now to me. I mean even 2004 is almost a decade ago now (crazy isn't it?).

It's not "retro" but it is pretty old now .Even 2004 and 2005 is pretty old now to me. I mean even 2004 is almost a decade ago now (crazy isn't it?).


And 2003 is only months away from being a whole 10 years ago. That alone, is shocking.

Just think in 2004 flip phones were considered high end tech! Nobody was browsing the internet on their cell phones in those days, now you got 5 inch screen phones that replace computers most of the time for lots of people, that have access to constant broadband internet connection that is faster than almost everybody had in their HOMES in 2004. Hardly anybody had an HDTV yet either, they were definitely around but most people didn't make the move until HD content was widely available and the sets were cheaper (late 2000s). Hell, a lot of people were still on dial up in 2004!

Hell, a lot of people were still on dial up in 2004!


Exactly. I was changing to broadband in late 2004. However I had digital dial-up (or whatever it is called in English) before.

Imo,

2008 - 2012 - Current
2007 - 1999 - Somewhat dated but some elements relevant today.
1998 - 1981 - Old School
1980 - 1960 - Classic Retro
1950 - 1920 - Vintage
1919 - before - Antique

Just think in 2004 flip phones were considered high end tech! Nobody was browsing the internet on their cell phones in those days, now you got 5 inch screen phones that replace computers most of the time for lots of people, that have access to constant broadband internet connection that is faster than almost everybody had in their HOMES in 2004. Hardly anybody had an HDTV yet either, they were definitely around but most people didn't make the move until HD content was widely available and the sets were cheaper (late 2000s). Hell, a lot of people were still on dial up in 2004!


I know right? I know my family was still using dial-up at the time. Hell, we were still using dial-up until 2009 now that I think of it! And it's crazy how much technology has changed in the past 10 years. I remember when this was the hottest thing to have in 2004/2005:

http://www.mobilegazette.com/media/three-phones/motorola-razr-v3.jpg

Had that exact same phone in high school.

I know right? I know my family was still using dial-up at the time. Hell, we were still using dial-up until 2009 now that I think of it! And it's crazy how much technology has changed in the past 10 years. I remember when this was the hottest thing to have in 2004/2005:

http://www.mobilegazette.com/media/three-phones/motorola-razr-v3.jpg

Had that exact same phone in high school.


I remember the RAZR was 500 DOLLARS (on contract) when it first came out in 2004. So crazy.  :o

Ahhh I loved my razr. I had a red one that I got in summer '07. Their popularity was starting to die down by then, cus I'm pretty sure it was either free or really cheap with my contract renewal. *Sigh* The phone I got after it was a piece of sh*t, so I tended to miss it until I got my smartphone last year. Hmm this is giving me a new thread idea :D

Ahhh I loved my razr. I had a red one that I got in summer '07. Their popularity was starting to die down by then, cus I'm pretty sure it was either free or really cheap with my contract renewal. *Sigh* The phone I got after it was a piece of sh*t, so I tended to miss it until I got my smartphone last year. Hmm this is giving me a new thread idea :D


Yeah by 2007 the market was literally saturated with different editions of the RAZR and of course that same year the iPhone would be released and completely change the market. I got my RAZR in like 2006 and I think it was around $150-$200 at that time.

And 2003 is only months away from being a whole 10 years ago. That alone, is shocking.


where'd these years go?  :o

I know right? I know my family was still using dial-up at the time. Hell, we were still using dial-up until 2009 now that I think of it! And it's crazy how much technology has changed in the past 10 years. I remember when this was the hottest thing to have in 2004/2005:

http://www.mobilegazette.com/media/three-phones/motorola-razr-v3.jpg

Had that exact same phone in high school.


Now you have Blackberries and Ipods.

And 2003 is only months away from being a whole 10 years ago. That alone, is shocking.


It is shocking to think that 2002 is now 10 years ago, and that we just had our 11th anniversary of 9/11. Kind of a scary thought how this last decade flew by, and I think it will just get faster I as I get older.

It is shocking to think that 2002 is now 10 years ago, and that we just had our 11th anniversary of 9/11. Kind of a scary thought how this last decade flew by, and I think it will just get faster I as I get older.


11 years went by so damn fast I remember like it was yesterday.

Fashion between 1998 and now is so plain that I have a hard time seeing it becoming retro like 70s, 80s, and early to mid 90s fashion. When I think of early 2000s fashion it seems really close to today, just that it was a little more casual and baggy.

1997 is the most recent year that feels like it's on the verge of being retro, with the fashion, music, and technology differing really visibly from what we have now.


I actually think 2012 fashion is vastly different from the fashion of 1998 or the early 00's. Sure there's still a lot of people who dress that way to an extent but I think throughout the modern era there's been a fairly common fashion of t-shirt + jeans and many people with the typical straight or short hair.

Someone like Cher Lloyd would look totally out of place in any year prior to 2008.

I actually think 2012 fashion is vastly different from the fashion of 1998 or the early 00's. Sure there's still a lot of people who dress that way to an extent but I think throughout the modern era there's been a fairly common fashion of t-shirt + jeans and many people with the typical straight or short hair.

Someone like Cher Lloyd would look totally out of place in any year prior to 2008.


This is I agree on. While 1997 is probably the last year where you can easily find differences in fashion, there are items that people could wear today that were popular in 1998 and 1999 for that matter that would seem just plain alien to someone born in the 2000s.

I actually think 2012 fashion is vastly different from the fashion of 1998 or the early 00's. Sure there's still a lot of people who dress that way to an extent but I think throughout the modern era there's been a fairly common fashion of t-shirt + jeans and many people with the typical straight or short hair.

Someone like Cher Lloyd would look totally out of place in any year prior to 2008.


Clothing has definitely changed more than hairstyles. I think the trendy hairstyles of 1998 are roughly the same as today. And for 14 years you'd expect the differences in clothing trends to be bigger, I think 1984 to 1998 is a huge difference in styles while 1998 to 2012 is really minor in comparison.

There is something very distinctive about women's fashion from around '09-'12, like they wear more elaborate patterns and designs in their dresses, shirts and leggings, here are some examples

http://celebshut.com/wp-content/uploads/celebrities/britney-spears/2012-fox-upfronts-party-in-new-york/britney-spears-2012-fox-upfronts-party-in-new-york-02-520x383.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02313/X-factor-2_2313141b.jpg

http://static.unrealitytv.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tulisa-x-factor-2012.jpg

This stuff will probably SCREAM early 2010s in the future.

http://blog.timesunion.com/vinoteca/files/2012/06/bra-straps-1-399x600.jpg

and I also see women wear shirts with their bra straps sticking out, now what kind of fashion statement is that?  ::)

http://blog.timesunion.com/vinoteca/files/2012/06/bra-straps-1-399x600.jpg

and I also see women wear shirts with their bra straps sticking out, now what kind of fashion statement is that?  ::)


I don't think that's as new as you might think

While "retro" is still too strong a word for 2000-2003, the original The Sims and the expansion packs came out in those years, and let's be honest, they are a different world to The Sims 3. Video games that came out early in the 2000s genrally look a LOT different to the ones from 2008ish onwards

Clothing has definitely changed more than hairstyles. I think the trendy hairstyles of 1998 are roughly the same as today. And for 14 years you'd expect the differences in clothing trends to be bigger, I think 1984 to 1998 is a huge difference in styles while 1998 to 2012 is really minor in comparison.


Actually there's a lot of 90s hair I find extremely dated, like the bowl cut for instance.

Actually there's a lot of 90s hair I find extremely dated, like the bowl cut for instance.


This is very true, the bowl cut is extremely dated ROFL. I remember a bunch of kids had that in elementary and middle school.  ;D

This is very true, the bowl cut is extremely dated ROFL. I remember a bunch of kids had that in elementary and middle school.  ;D


and to look like Justin Bieber.

Actually there's a lot of 90s hair I find extremely dated, like the bowl cut for instance.


That's more mid 90s than late 90s I think. By 1998 that wasn't really in style. Early to mid 90s hairstyles are definitely really dated.

That's more mid 90s than late 90s I think. By 1998 that wasn't really in style. Early to mid 90s hairstyles are definitely really dated.


Well what about the frost trips? That extended into the early 00s and that's really dated.

That's more mid 90s than late 90s I think. By 1998 that wasn't really in style. Early to mid 90s hairstyles are definitely really dated.


It's a bit late '90s too, though by '99 I'd say it was losing popularity, but '97 and '98 still had bowl cuts in my school at least. Though yeah I'd focus it on mid '90s overall.

Well what about the frost trips? That extended into the early 00s and that's really dated.


Not true, a lot of people still travel to cold places, such as people who like snowboarding.

Not true, a lot of people still travel to cold places, such as people who like snowboarding.


He's talking about the hairstyle(usually on young men from about '99-'03) that's short and spiky with dyed blond tips at the ends

Also I was watching a show on MTV reflecting on the 10 years of TRL and one guy was making fun of Justin Timberlake's dated '90s hair:

http://style.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2-jt-november-1998.jpg ;D

I think the standard you guys have been using for "retro" is a little too recent. But that's just me. Here's how I look at it:

Present - 5 years ago: Contemporary
5 years - 15 years ago: Dated
15 years - 30 years ago: Old School
30 years - 50 years ago: Retro
50 years - 100 years ago: Vintage
+100 years ago: Antique

I think the standard you guys have been using for "retro" is a little too recent. But that's just me. Here's how I look at it:

Present - 5 years ago: Contemporary
5 years - 15 years ago: Dated
15 years - 30 years ago: Old School
30 years - 50 years ago: Retro
50 years - 100 years ago: Vintage
+100 years ago: Antique


So by this(my interpretation, made some minor changes)

the late '00s-present - contemporary
the late '90s-mid '00s - dated
the late '80s- mid '90s - old school
the late '60s- mid '80s - retro
the early 1910s-early/mid '60s - vintage
the 1900s and before - antique

So by this(my interpretation, made some minor changes)

the late '00s-present - contemporary
the late '90s-mid '00s - dated
the late '80s- mid '90s - old school
the late '60s- mid '80s - retro
the early 1910s-early/mid '60s - vintage
the 1900s and before - antique


Why not a category for golden oldies?

1912 and before: Antique
1913-1962: Golden Oldues
1963-1982: Vintage
1983-1997: Retro
1998-2002: Old School
2003-2007: Dated
2008-today: Recent

Why not a category for golden oldies?

1912 and before: Antique
1913-1962: Golden Oldues
1963-1982: Vintage
1983-1997: Retro
1998-2002: Old School
2003-2007: Dated
2008-today: Recent


LOL I'm sorry about those time periods, IMO are too recent to be old school or dated. IDK, I was in middle/high school back then in 03-07

LOL I'm sorry about those time periods, IMO are too recent to be old school or dated. IDK, I was in middle/high school back then in 03-07


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13EifDb4GYs - this was popular in 2000 and would be considered 'normal' for a 2000 song. Would you think it would be 'normal' alongside Lady Gaga and Rihanna songs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13EifDb4GYs - this was popular in 2000 and would be considered 'normal' for a 2000 song. Would you think it would be 'normal' alongside Lady Gaga and Rihanna songs?


The 1:50 - 2:11 part sounds like it could of been from 1996 or something, at least IMO.

1999,2000 and 2001 music had its own distinct feel. It was neither really 90's nor 2000's. I will always associate that music with my early-mid teens.

I consider anything before 1995 retro. I think 1994 is the last year that feels retro because it was pretty much still pre-Internet, Saved by the Bell had just ended, Full House was still on the air and there was still a bit of 80's neon fashion left over, things still looked very 'real' and somewhat excessive too, the sleek sterile contemporary look didn't really begin to take over until the late 90's. Even gangsta movies like Don't Be A Menace and Nothing But Trouble have a very retro feel.

1995 through early 2001 isn't exactly contemporary to today, but I wouldn't say it's old enough to be retro, in certain contexts it could overlap with 2012 but in general I'd say it's slightly dated but not truly classic yet. Mid 2001 - 2003 is just very slightly dated, the music was pretty different and so was some of the technology but if I woke up in 2002 I think I wouldn't really notice much difference outdoors from 2012, it would only hit me when I tried to buy alcohol and saw you had to be born in 1981 or earlier or when I went online and realized YouTube and Facebook weren't there and service was extremely slow.

I woke up in 2002 I think I wouldn't really notice much difference outdoors from 2012, it would only hit me when I tried to buy alcohol and saw you had to be born in 1981 or earlier


I was allowed to buy alcohol in 2002 :-)

I woke up in 2002 I think I wouldn't really notice much difference outdoors from 2012, it would only hit me when I tried to buy alcohol and saw you had to be born in 1981 or earlier or when I went online and realized YouTube and Facebook weren't there and service was extremely slow.


What about the small (if even existent) number of 10 year old girls walking around with purses and make-up or at least being "older" than they actually are? At least where I live, in the mid-2000s onwards, a lot of girls wanted to 'grow up too fast'. Nowadays 'suggestive' child modelling paegants are unconveniently common, in 2002, I think a few existed but it wasn't really heard of.

What about the small (if even existent) number of 10 year old girls walking around with purses and make-up or at least being "older" than they actually are? At least where I live, in the mid-2000s onwards, a lot of girls wanted to 'grow up too fast'. Nowadays 'suggestive' child modelling paegants are unconveniently common, in 2002, I think a few existed but it wasn't really heard of.


That's probably been going on forever. There's always been idiotic parents who let their daughters act like that.

I was allowed to buy alcohol in 2002 :-)


How old were you then? ???

How old were you then? ???


16.

Legal age for buying light alcoholic beverages (especially beer) over here in Germany.

I was just getting into work the other day and I heard a 50 Cent Song from 2003 booming out of somebody's car and it felt retro or classic to me.

I was just getting into work the other day and I heard a 50 Cent Song from 2003 booming out of somebody\'s car and it felt retro or classic to me.


It\'s dated at least, that\'s for sure. And being only months away from 2013, 2003 is nearly 10 years ago. In other words, nearly ready to be promoted to the next level of \'old\'.

Anything before about 2008 (especially before 06) is definitely noticeably dated to me now.

By next year 2013 will make it 10 years for 2003.

Anything before about 2008 (especially before 06) is definitely noticeably dated to me now.


Agreed. I just have to take my DSLR camera from early 2007 which is actually a late 2006 model. That thing is SO dated in comparison to modern cameras, that I am not far away from 'crying' since it was so expensive back then  :-\\  ;)
The good thing is, that it still produces good quality pictures for today's standard - but as always - it could be better.

2002-2003 was partially an early transition year into the mid 00s. But the former part of 2003 was still kinda stuck in 2001-2002. 2003 brought a lot of things that defined: Late 04 to  07
Anyways early 2000 to early 2003 is dated now for the following reasons.

Here's why

Dial-up was the common thing (People were still using floppies and Zip Disks next to the new usb which wasn't that common yet and was very awkward to use – 2000-2002
Digital Downloading was limited (Barely any movies, shorter clips than today, and only a certain number of albums could both legally or illegally downloaded) -2003
Minidisc and mp3 players were in the midst of  competing with Cd players -2001-2002
A lot of People still felt afraid to use their credit card online- 2000-2001
Cassettes still had a decent sized market; Promotion, mix tapes, and played in cars and boom boxes – 2000-2001
Most video clips were slow, streaming or below standard resolution. 2000-2002
CRT computer screens were mainly common -2000-2003
Curtains or comb over hairstyles, flannel shirts, circular metal rimmed glasses, and acid wash regular jeans, JNCOs type of baggy jeans and other leftover 90s clothes weren't seen as completely dated – 2000-2001
Lack of as many online large archival database sites for searching information. 2000-2002
Fan Pages and Webrings were still pretty popular and there were more BBSs running than now - 2000
MTV acknowledged and covered more rock music beyond the charts (nu-metal, rage rock, industrial, pop punk) and was still viable (however horrible it was) medium for listening/discovering music- 2000
VHS was still accepted as video medium and was seen as useful for certain things. 2000-2003
Overhead Projectors and film slides/negatives were still professionally and commonly used in many fields. Slides and Polaroids were still popular 2000-2003
Digital Cameras were still new and seen as the next takeover – 2000-2003
Cell Phones were a little bigger more basic and becoming completely common – 2000-2002
A lot of super tacky graphic design art ex.clip art was still considered passable – 2000-2003
8 Bit original and pocket game boys could be seen and used – 2000-2002
Flat Screen TV’s weren’t even conceivable – 2000

Anything before about 2008 (especially before 06) is definitely noticeably dated to me now.


I was just thinking about that now that I'm watching the first season of "How I Met Your Mother", which was 2005. People still had flip phones to send each other pics (the days before smartphones). I also noticed how people dressed in 2005 was different from now.

It feels pretty "retro" to me now, even though I guess I could see how, if you were older, you might scoff a little at the idea of anything in the 2000's being seen as old in any way.

I'm just basing this off my own experiences at the time. I was in high school from 2001-2005, and the internet was nearly a non factor for most students at my school. Some kids might email each other occasionally, or chat on AIM every once and a while, but that was about it. Come to think of it, there was less to do on the 'net as a whole back then. I would say that even in my senior year, only about 30% of my classmates had cell phones. We actually still had pay phones at our school, and they were pretty consistently in use during lunch and break time. MP3's were just starting to catch on a bit when I graduated, but most kids still had CD players. Obviously, that's mostly focusing on the area of technology, but that's where I think the biggest changes since then have occurred.

Again, if you're somebody that didn't even use a computer or listen to a CD until you were 30 then those would probably seem like pretty insignificant evolutions, but I think things have changed enough now for the early 00's to feel suitably "retro".

Retro is a bit of an overstatement, I consider retro more or less a full biological generation removed. I wouldn't even consider the late 80s completely retro yet though they're very close, IMO retro means 25 to 50 years ago more or less though 20-25 years ago is borderline retro.

I would consider 'retro' things to essentially be things that the parents of young people in their teens and 20s grew up with and that their children perhaps caught a glimpse of in their early childhood. A biological generation is on average roughly 30 years so I'd say the 'focus' is always on 30 years ago, 20 is really just when a time starts to become 'retro'.

1989 is still recent enough that young people in their 20s/early 30s are pretty familiar with what was popular then, even if they were born a couple years later. For example I was born in 1990 but I still grew up with Ninja Turtles and the Beastie Boys, 1989 really belongs to my generation as much as it belongs to my parents so I would say it's on the border of being retro but still has a couple years before it's full-fledged.

Realistically I still think the focus of retro is around 1983, so 2000-2003 isn't even close. Let's talk again in 2028 when maybe the early 2000s will start seeming truly retro.

Now is the early 2000s outdated, and slightly different from today? Of course. The vast majority of that era's pop culture has not survived, and I don't hear Craig David and Sisqo pumping out hits in 2012.  ;D

The way I see it:

'Back in the day' - any time from when before the current trends started backwards to about 25 years ago, so roughly anywhere from 1988 to 2005

'Retro' - what the parents of current teenagers and 20-sometimes grew up with - roughly 1963-1987 or so

'Vintage' - what the grandparents of current teenagers/20s grew up with - roughly 1920-1962 or so

'Antique' - what dead people grew up with so basically pre-1920

1989 is still recent enough that young people in their 20s/early 30s are pretty familiar with what was popular then, even if they were born a couple years later. For example I was born in 1990 but I still grew up with Ninja Turtles and the Beastie Boys, 1989 really belongs to my generation as much as it belongs to my parents so I would say it's on the border of being retro but still has a couple years before it's full-fledged.


I agree with much of your post about what constitutes "retro", but I particularly like this point about considering years around your birth as part of your "extended time" even if you were either very young, or not even born yet. Like, my Grandmother was born in 1940, and she has always considered herself as having "grown up" in the 40's, even if she was only 9 years old when they ended. Likewise, my Mom was born in 1968, and she considers hippie era music as stuff that she "grew up" listening to, even though she was obviously very young at that time.

As for me, I started getting heavily into current music and trends up around the time I turned 9 in 1996, so I've always considered the 90's as sort of an extended part of "my time", even if I am clearly an 00's teen and only got into some early 90's stuff later on. I think, in this way, the 90's "belong" at least a little bit to Gen Y even though we didn't start to take the reigns pop culturally until later in the decade.

Gameboy (the original of course) and SuperNintendo are the 'newest' gadgets I would already consider 'retro' by now. That's stuff I grew up with, but since this is partly over 20 years ago, why shouldn't I consider 'my stuff' already retro? It looks really really outdated and in times of tablet computers and smartphones it's just very primitive technology.

The early 2000s aren't retro yet. To many stuff of that time is still in regular use - especially in my household. I have a microwave oven from 2000, a clock from 2002, a DVD player from 2003, a TV set from 2004, an electronic weather station from 2003, a calculator from 2000... and everything still works perfectly. The time is nothing more than just dated. That's it.

Gameboy (the original of course) and SuperNintendo are the 'newest' gadgets I would already consider 'retro' by now. That's stuff I grew up with, but since this is partly over 20 years ago, why shouldn't I consider 'my stuff' already retro? It looks really really outdated and in times of tablet computers and smartphones it's just very primitive technology.

The early 2000s aren't retro yet. To many stuff of that time is still in regular use - especially in my household. I have a microwave oven from 2000, a clock from 2002, a DVD player from 2003, a TV set from 2004, an electronic weather station from 2003, a calculator from 2000... and everything still works perfectly. The time is nothing more than just dated. That's it.


Yeah, I would say 1992 is the most recent year that is arguably retro, though I see 25 years as a more meaningful benchmark than just 20, because really, I'm not even 23 yet and I can basically remember 20 years ago, so 20 years doesn't seem like as much time to me as it used to.

And yes, a lot of early 2000s technology is still fairly passable.

I was just watching Bowling for Columbine, from 2002 and it definitely looks outdated. Could easily be from 1995 or something.

I was just watching Bowling for Columbine, from 2002 and it definitely looks outdated. Could easily be from 1995 or something.


That's probably due to the way how the movie was produced. "Super Size Me" (2004) is similar and it's also behind its time.

That's probably due to the way how the movie was produced. "Super Size Me" (2004) is similar and it's also behind its time.


True, some of the clips might have been from 2001 or even the year 2000. But still, it's easy to tell the film didn't come out yesterday if you pay attention, for example one person refers to a 'cellular phone'. 2002 pre-dates the age of widespread high-speed Internet, the texting culture we have today, smartphone apps and social networking. Many of the cars on the street are also of 1980s/early 1990s vintage and even the newer cars look quite a bit older than cars from the past 5 years so the street scenes definitely look dated.

The political climate as well was quite different in 2002.

True, some of the clips might have been from 2001 or even the year 2000. But still, it's easy to tell the film didn't come out yesterday


Yeah, that's true. However I wouldn't say that it looks that much like the mid 90s either. I think it's more or less typical for its time... but still too modern for 90s standards. Even the genre itself.

It's tough for me to think of anything after 1996 as "retro".

But I'm 27, so......

Anything before 1980 is retro to me.

Anything before 1980 is retro to me.


The 70s is closer to vintage now. I mean look at this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/I_can_see_clearly_now_%28Johnny_Nash%29.jpg

It's tough for me to think of anything after 1996 as "retro".

But I'm 27, so......


I think if you're under 30 anything after you turned 10 will seem fairly fresh.

The 70s is closer to vintage now. I mean look at this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/I_can_see_clearly_now_%28Johnny_Nash%29.jpg


Nah, I think 70s and even most 60s is still retro. I mean a 38 year old could remember the 70s a little bit and I'd consider that fairly young. To me 'vintage' implies it's associated with grandparents, I don't think the 70s is quite there yet.

Vintage to me would be like 1930 to 1962, retro would be 1963 to 1994 or so. I'd consider pre-1930 'antique' since the vast majority of people who were 'there' before 1930 are no longer with us.

It's tough for me to think of anything after 1996 as "retro".

But I'm 27, so......


Im 24 ,  1997 and 1998 are retro tho

Anything before 1980 is retro to me.


I would agree with you.

Why not? Let's say someone was born in 1962 and has memories of living through the 70s and items to show for it. They have a baby at age 20 in 1982. Their daughter born in 1982 has a baby at age 20 in 2002. The 10 year old grandchild today can talk to the 50 year old grandmother about what she grew up with in the 70s.


Sure but most grandparents are 50 to 60 years, not just 40 years older than their grandkids. And I meant the grandparents of teenagers and people in their 20s not so much of young children.

I think the mid 80s are retro and anything circa
1988 to 1995 as outdated!

Sure but most grandparents are 50 to 60 years, not just 40 years older than their grandkids. And I meant the grandparents of teenagers and people in their 20s not so much of young children.


You have a point. However you slice it, 20 years is still a considerable length of time.

I think if you're under 30 anything after you turned 10 will seem fairly fresh.


Why only under 30? I don't think that my memories from the mid-late 90s will be any different in 5+ years...

Why only under 30? I don't think that my memories from the mid-late 90s will be any different in 5+ years...


You could be surprised. My late 90s/early 00s memories have already faded a little bit in some spots.

The year 2000 is at least semi-retro now. Seriously, it's not like you can talk to a 14 year old about it. Someone would also probably be at least 20 if they vividly remember it.

The year 2000 is at least semi-retro now. Seriously, it's not like you can talk to a 14 year old about it. Someone would also probably be at least 20 if they vividly remember it.


The year 2000 is 13 years old now.

The year 2000 is 13 years old now.



2003 is now 10

The year 2000 is 13 years old now.




2003 is now 10


And the year 58AD is 1955 years ago.  :D    (couldn't resist)

And the year 58AD is 1955 years ago.  :D    (couldn't resist)


Actually, 2003 is 9 to 10 years old and 2000 is 12 to 13 years old.

Couldn't resist, too ;)

Speaking of 2003, these are the kind of films that are having a 10th anniversary this year:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/EsdlaIII.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Johnny_English_movie.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/Two_fast_two_furious_ver5.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/BruceAlmighty_poster.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Holesposter03.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Finding_Nemo.jpg

2003 is now 10


Wow, time sure does fly.

The year 2000 is at least semi-retro now. Seriously, it's not like you can talk to a 14 year old about it. Someone would also probably be at least 20 if they vividly remember it.


if you want to talk about year 2000 memories, the youngest is probably a person at least 1996 born :p

But to answer the actual topic question... no. It's too early. With 2000-2003 being 10-13 years ago, those years are getting old, but they need a couple more years, at least. I've seen some people say that they don't even believe the late 1990s are retro yet. But of course, your age is a factor when you determine what you consider retro. A 15 year old might think that 10 years makes something retro, while a 35 year old might think that 20 years is more accurate.

But to answer the actual topic question...no. It's too early. With 2000-2003 being 10-13 years ago, those years are getting old, but they need a couple more years, at least. I've seen some people say that they don't even believe the late 1990s are retro yet. But of course, your age is a factor when you determine what you consider retro. A 15 year old might think that 10 years makes something retro, while a 35 year old might think that 20 years is more accurate.


Yeah, it's definitely based on age. Heck, I was still fairly young in the early 00's myself (13 in 2000 and 16 in 2003), and that time has even started seeming somewhat old to me, so certainly if you were like 5-years-old in 2003 it would be hard to look back at that period as a now high schooler and not see it that way.

As usual when discussing these types of topics, I tend to use my own personal experiences as a guide. It was around this time ten years ago that I first starting to think about how the 90's were "getting old". Sometime in the summer of 2003 I remember watching the first TMNT movie, which came out in 1990, for the first time in a while and being shocked at how dated it seemed. I don't think it would be far-fetched to believe that somebody born in 1997 might look at a movie released in 2000 in a similar way.

Sometime in the summer of 2003 I remember watching the first TMNT movie, which came out in 1990, for the first time in a while and being shocked at how dated it seemed. I don't think it would be far-fetched to believe that somebody born in 1997 might look at a movie released in 2000 in a similar way.


It's still pretty hard to get a retro feel about movies since the (especially late) 90s due to the fairly good picture quality.

In earlier times, movies got dated earlier. Improvement of technology and quality made 80s-early 90s movies look much older already in the later 90s.

Today (and already in the early 2000s) we have digital movies and HD. The quality never gets worse...we don't have dust or scratches on the film - we can only guess the release year by looking carefully on fashion trends and technology used in the movie itself. And that's much more challenging.

Wow, time sure does fly.
Tell 'em that is human nature

It's still pretty hard to get a retro feel about movies since the (especially late) 90s due to the fairly good picture quality.

In earlier times, movies got dated earlier. Improvement of technology and quality made 80s-early 90s movies look much older already in the later 90s.

Today (and already in the early 2000s) we have digital movies and HD. The quality never gets worse...we don't have dust or scratches on the film - we can only guess the release year by looking carefully on fashion trends and technology used in the movie itself. And that's much more challenging.


there's a huge picutre quality difference between 1994 TV show and 1997 TV show!!! the shift happened sometime during this time

Speaking of 2003, these are the kind of films that are having a 10th anniversary this year:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/EsdlaIII.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Johnny_English_movie.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/Two_fast_two_furious_ver5.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/BruceAlmighty_poster.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Holesposter03.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Finding_Nemo.jpg


Forgot a major one:

http://www.impawards.com/2003/posters/pirates_of_the_caribbean_ver3.jpg

Speaking of 2003, these are the kind of films that are having a 10th anniversary this year:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/EsdlaIII.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Johnny_English_movie.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/Two_fast_two_furious_ver5.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/BruceAlmighty_poster.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Holesposter03.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Finding_Nemo.jpg
How about?

http://64.19.142.13/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9d/Lord_of_the_Rings_-_The_Return_of_the_King.jpg/215px-Lord_of_the_Rings_-_The_Return_of_the_King.jpg

and

http://64.19.142.13/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0e/Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_movie.jpg/220px-Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_movie.jpg

its still 2 early to be retro

Too early for retro but they sure are super old! Though you can say Diskman's and VHS are pretty retro now.

Though you can say Diskman's and VHS are pretty retro now.


As long as I can still buy new ones they are not retro. I don't know how it is in the US, but over here you still can get empty VHS tapes.

As long as I can still buy new ones they are not retro. I don't know how it is in the US, but over here you still can get empty VHS tapes.


for how much?

I remember seeing clips of 2 TV interviews of famous starrs from 2002 in the last 2 weeks. My reaction was that that both interviews it looked like the they were from the 90's.

I remember seeing clips of 2 TV interviews of famous starrs from 2002 in the last 2 weeks. My reaction was that that both interviews it looked like the they were from the 90's.

It looks 90's yet old 00's at the same time

Im 24 ,  1997 and 1998 are retro tho


I'm 21 and I honestly don't think of 1997/1998 as retro, as weird as that may seen.

I'm 21 and I honestly don't think of 1997/1998 as retro, as weird as that may seen.


No, it's indeed not retro yet. But it will come... probably automatically once 20 years has passed. It's not too long ago that I couldn't imagine that the early 90s will be retro at some time.

No, it's indeed not retro yet. But it will come... probably automatically once 20 years has passed. It's not too long ago that I couldn't imagine that the early 90s will be retro at some time.


I know it will eventually but I thought it was weird that newtattoo thinks those years are retro, even though he's only 3 years older than me. It's dated but not retro.

I know it will eventually but I thought it was weird that newtattoo thinks those years are retro, even though he's only 3 years older than me. It's dated but not retro.


A lot of stuff he posts sounds weird...  ;D

A lot of stuff he posts sounds weird...  ;D


He sure loves 2005. LOL  ;D :D But on the serious note, I was listening to some Hip Hop song by Whodini, it came out in 1996 and listening to made me realize how dated it was, it during the time when New Jack Swing was dying out. No way someone would think this song was new.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrAEYglha6s

No way someone would think this song was new.



Except if you aren't really into Hip Hop. I am not... ;)

Except if you aren't really into Hip Hop. I am not... ;)


Even if you're not into it, it's pretty obvious it sounds dated.
I'm not into a lot of rock music myself but I can distinguish 80s rock from 90s rock or 00s rock.  FYI- Rock has Rhythm and Blues roots, just like Jazz and Bi bop.  ;)

A lot of stuff he posts sounds weird...  ;D



the unknown is weird  ;)

if the wii came out in 2001 it would be weird

when i say retro  i dont mean like  retro retro

but like dated retro


there are already stations xm sirius        that are  00s hits

when i say retro  i dont mean like  retro retro

but like dated retro


there are already stations xm sirius        that are  00s hits


A better term would be "old school". Even 2003 is 10 years ago this year.

A better term would be "old school". Even 2003 is 10 years ago this year.



old school then

But retro can mean 10 years ago lol as 2003 was 10 years ago
it depends on ur way of using the word retro

old school then

But retro can mean 10 years ago lol as 2003 was 10 years ago
it depends on ur way of using the word retro


It does depend on how you use it but professionals usually wait at least 15-20 years before calling something "retro".

It does depend on how you use it but professionals usually wait at least 15-20 years before calling something "retro".


What professionals ? the professionals of naming things retro?

I'm 21 and I honestly don't think of 1997/1998 as retro, as weird as that may seen.


But that was 15, 16 years ago. seems too soon.

Except if you aren't really into Hip Hop. I am not... ;)


Why not?

What professionals ? the professionals of naming things retro?



radio station Deejays.

But that was 15, 16 years ago. seems too soon.


1997 has already passed the 15 year milestone.

Why not?


Because I don't consider that style 'music' ;)

Because I don't consider that style 'music' ;)


What is your style music?  ???

Because I don't consider that style 'music' ;)



:\'(

Because I don't consider that style 'music' ;)


Are you suggesting that Hip Hop isn't music? It's cool not to like it but to think it isn't music is very closed-minded.

Are you suggesting that Hip Hop isn't music? It's cool not to like it but to think it isn't music is very closed-minded.


According to Wikipedia, Music is an art form whose medium is sound and silence. I'd say hip hop definitely would fit that definition.

Personally I love 80s hip hop and some select things from later but I wouldn't exactly call myself a lover of the genre. I'm not really a rock lover either though. I love pop :)

According to Wikipedia, Music is an art form whose medium is sound and silence. I'd say hip hop definitely would fit that definition.

Personally I love 80s hip hop and some select things from later but I wouldn't exactly call myself a lover of the genre. I'm not really a rock lover either though. I love pop :)


Thank you dude!  :) It's cool if you're not a huge fan of hip hop, I just think it's silly how people still think it isn't music. I like 90s and early( and some mid) 00s hip hop music.

I don't see how people aren't a fan of Hip Hop.  :-\\ It's much better than metal in my opinion.

Calm down people, of course it's music, but it's just not my kind of music. Why are you taking it that seriously. I mean, I added a smiley after my statement...  :)

I don't see how people aren't a fan of Hip Hop.  :-\\ It's much better than metal in my opinion.


Metal is even worse.

I don't see how people aren't a fan of Hip Hop.  :-\\ It's much better than metal in my opinion.


Punk is even worse than metal  :P

I don't really like music with abrasive sounds or lyrical content generally speaking.

The thing is, the 2000-2003 period was better than now in that it was less digital. And nowadays we're stuck in the uncool middle - we're not digital enough to have awesome robots instead of waiters, yet we do everything on the Internet and people are antisocial and don't talk at all like they did back then.

Are you suggesting that Hip Hop isn't music? It's cool not to like it but to think it isn't music is very closed-minded.


Hip Hop is music, it's just lot of noise.

I don't see how people aren't a fan of Hip Hop.  :-\\ It's much better than metal in my opinion.


I agree.

Metal is even worse.


death metal?  ???

Everyone's taste in music is different. For me, the only thing worse than hiphop is the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard.
It's actually almost a tie.  ;)