looking back personally and reading this thread http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=52315.0 it seems like the first half of 2006 was a 2005 continuation while the latter half was the beginning of the late/modern 2000s what do you think??

In my opinion, 2006 is just a continuation of 2005. It's not really that special compared to the other year, but it seems okay.

2006 as a full year was the transition between mid 2000's culture and late 2000's culture.

The shift into the late 2000s already started during the second half of 2005, when pop-emo fully overtook pop punk, snap music blew up, YouTube was just being introduced, Guitar Hero made its debut, and the XBOX 360 came out.  Early 2006 produced Hannah Montana, New Super Mario Bros., AVGN, and Wikipedia as a mainstream force, but otherwise wasn't terribly different from late 2005.  Autumn was when things started to really transform, with Timbaland being the dominant pop producer, the PS3 and Wii joining the XBOX 360 in the seventh generation console war, Facebook and YouTube becoming truly popular websites for the first time, and Heroes and 30 Rock premiering on television.

All in all, 2006 was definitely a year transition, however it was certainly not large to the point that the end of the year felt like a completely different universe than the beginning, as was the case with 2009 and 1997, for example.

The shift into the late 2000s already started during the second half of 2005, when pop-emo fully overtook pop punk, snap music blew up, YouTube was just being introduced, Guitar Hero made its debut, and the XBOX 360 came out.  Early 2006 produced Hannah Montana, New Super Mario Bros., AVGN, and Wikipedia as a mainstream force, but otherwise wasn't terribly different from late 2005.  Autumn was when things started to really transform, with Timbaland being the dominant pop producer, the PS3 and Wii joining the XBOX 360 in the seventh generation console war, Facebook and YouTube becoming truly popular websites for the first time, and Heroes and 30 Rock premiering on television.

All in all, 2006 was definitely a year transition, however it was certainly not large to the point that the end of the year felt like a completely different universe than the beginning, as was the case with 2009 and 1997, for example.


I agree with this post. 2006 is a transition year, but not a huge one.

I also agree with mqg96. It feels wrong to include late 2008 and 2009 as "late 2000s" since they have more in common with the early 2010s. So if you say 2009 is early 2010s, then late 2006/2007/2008 can definitely be considered "late 2000s", contrasting it with 2004/2005/early 2006 which can be considered mid-2000s.

I agree with this post. 2006 is a transition year, but not a huge one.

I also agree with mqg96. It feels wrong to include late 2008 and 2009 as "late 2000s" since they have more in common with the early 2010s. So if you say 2009 is early 2010s, then late 2006/2007/2008 can definitely be considered "late 2000s", contrasting it with 2004/2005/early 2006 which can be considered mid-2000s.


To me, 2009 wasn't like the early 2010s until September of 2009. I'm saying that because it's when Nickelodeon changed their damn logo.

I agree with this post. 2006 is a transition year, but not a huge one.

I also agree with mqg96. It feels wrong to include late 2008 and 2009 as "late 2000s" since they have more in common with the early 2010s. So if you say 2009 is early 2010s, then late 2006/2007/2008 can definitely be considered "late 2000s", contrasting it with 2004/2005/early 2006 which can be considered mid-2000s.


I consider late 2008-mid 2009 as the transition between late 2000's and early 2010's culture, and by late 2009, the early 2010's culture was in full force, and yeah, a lot of people tend to say that it's impossible for early 2010's culture to start in the late 2000's because the early 2010's hadn't even started yet. In a lot of cases this is true, but not always. The thing is, you never know how long cultural things will last or most importantly peak when it first starts. Just because 1999 & 2000 was late 90's culture doesn't mean you automatically assume that 2009 & 2010 was late 2000's culture. It doesn't work that way. The culture throughout different decades starts/ends differently at different times, not in the numerical years. A show like South Park for example, started in 1997, and had the show only lasted about 2 or 3 seasons, it would have been considered as a late 90's cultural show, however, it lasted throughout the 2000's and most importantly peaked throughout the 2000's decade, so it's clearly a 2000's cultural show, NOT late 90's. Barack Obama's presidency is 2010's culture, and his 1st term was early 2010's culture. Saying that Barack Obama presidency defined the late 2000's just because he was inaugurated in 2009 is foolish. Now his election and "Yes We Can' campaign is late 2000's culture though.

Cultural stuff like Angry Birds, Obama's 1st term, Jersey Shore, Electropop Era music & artists, Modern Family, etc. wasn't late 2000's things that carried on through the early 2010's when it clearly spent most of it's time throughout the early 2010's or PEAKED in the 2010's. The reason a lot of people say late 90's stuff carried on through the early 2000's is because a lot of those late 90's things peaked for most of the late 90's, and started around late 1996 or 1997. I understand why #Infinity has been telling us to stop lumping 2002 or 2003 with the late 90's, because really the true late 90's culture was already on its way out by the 2000-2001 school year, and when 9/11 happened in September 2001 that's when early 2000's culture truly overtook late 90's. If we keep thinking that EVERYTHING late 90's lasted until 2003 or 2004. Then people will get confused and believe that EVERYTHING that started in the late 2000's (which ran through 2010-2012ish) would be considered as late 2000's culture.

I consider late 2008-mid 2009 as the transition between late 2000's and early 2010's culture, and by late 2009, the early 2010's culture was in full force, and yeah, a lot of people tend to say that it's impossible for early 2010's culture to start in the late 2000's because the early 2010's hadn't even started yet. In a lot of cases this is true, but not always. The thing is, you never know how long cultural things will last or most importantly peak when it first starts. Just because 1999 & 2000 was late 90's culture doesn't mean you automatically assume that 2009 & 2010 was late 2000's culture. It doesn't work that way. The culture throughout different decades starts/ends differently at different times, not in the numerical years. A show like South Park for example, started in 1997, and had the show only lasted about 2 or 3 seasons, it would have been considered as a late 90's cultural show, however, it lasted throughout the 2000's and most importantly peaked throughout the 2000's decade, so it's clearly a 2000's cultural show, NOT late 90's. Barack Obama's presidency is 2010's culture, and his 1st term was early 2010's culture. Saying that Barack Obama presidency defined the late 2000's just because he was inaugurated in 2009 is foolish. Now his election and "Yes We Can' campaign is late 2000's culture though.

Cultural stuff like Angry Birds, Obama's 1st term, Jersey Shore, Electropop Era music & artists, Modern Family, etc. wasn't late 2000's things that carried on through the early 2010's when it clearly spent most of it's time throughout the early 2010's or PEAKED in the 2010's. The reason a lot of people say late 90's stuff carried on through the early 2000's is because a lot of those late 90's things peaked for most of the late 90's, and started around late 1996 or 1997. I understand why #Infinity has been telling us to stop lumping 2002 or 2003 with the late 90's, because really the true late 90's culture was already on its way out by the 2000-2001 school year, and when 9/11 happened in September 2001 that's when early 2000's culture truly overtook late 90's. If we keep thinking that EVERYTHING late 90's lasted until 2003 or 2004. Then people will get confused and believe that EVERYTHING that started in the late 2000's (which ran through 2010-2012ish) would be considered as late 2000's culture.


Late 2008- 2011 is the early 2010s culture

looking back personally and reading this thread http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=52315.0 it seems like the first half of 2006 was a 2005 continuation while the latter half was the beginning of the late/modern 2000s what do you think??


And like others have said 2006 can be divided into 2 parts, simply because the first half of 2006 was 2005 part 2. Around Late September of 2006 is when the LATE 2000s culture started. Everything had a slight shifted vibe to it. It was not that noticeable tho.

In the first wing of 2006 you had

-Sam goody still a store
-Virgin Megastore still a store
- ps2 and Gamecube still selling
-THE WB still a network
-Maclcom in the middle still on air
-Windows XP the default OS

Late 2008- 2011 is the early 2010s culture


I'd say the first part of 2012 is still part of early 2010's culture too, but it's no longer quintessential early 2010's years like 2010 or 2011 were. Because really mid 2010's culture didn't fully define itself until late 2013. Heck even with a lot of political stuff and some fashion it didn't define itself until the 2nd half of 2014. Late 2012, 2013, and 2014 could be transitions into mid 2010's culture in certain aspects. I'm having a feel that 2015 might be remembered as the quintessential year of mid 2010's culture, because it's remained stagnant throughout most of the time with a lot of stuff happening, like Gay Marriage being legalized, Donald Trump, shootings & ISIS, etc. Most of 2016 could still feel like 2014 & 2015, however, by the late part of the year when our new president gets elected I'm having a feeling that another cultural shift could occur. We'll just have to see in due time.

I'd say the first part of 2012 is still part of early 2010's culture too, but it's no longer quintessential early 2010's years like 2010 or 2011 were. Because really mid 2010's culture didn't fully define itself until late 2013. Heck even with a lot of political stuff and some fashion it didn't define itself until the 2nd half of 2014. Late 2012, 2013, and 2014 could be transitions into mid 2010's culture in certain aspects. I'm having a feel that 2015 might be remembered as the quintessential year of mid 2010's culture, because it's remained stagnant throughout most of the time with a lot of stuff happening, like Gay Marriage being legalized, Donald Trump, shootings & ISIS, etc. Most of 2016 could still feel like 2014 & 2015, however, by the late part of the year when our new president gets elected I'm having a feeling that another cultural shift could occur. We'll just have to see in due time.


EXACTLY!!!!!!!!  late 2013 is when the mid 2010s came  (Ariana Grande, Selfie obsession, Frozen, Fifth Harmony)

I think 2005 can be split into two eras a lot moreso than 2006. The first half of 2005 can still be part of the late 2001-2004 culture with rap artists like 50 Cent and Nelly on the charts, but the later part of the year had more of what we saw in 2006-2008. By then you had a lot less rap (Kanye West's "Golddigger" was one of the only rap songs in the charts in the fall) and a lot more dance pop (Gwen Stefani, Black Eyed Peas, Pussycat Dolls) and emo rock (Fall Out Boy). On TV there were less reality shows and more scripted TV shows, albeit some of them were short-lived sitcomes on FOX. Anti-reality shows started to become popular, like The Office. It was also the rise of MySpace and YouTube, as well as the next gen of video games with the Xbox 360 launching in the fall.

2006 did feel different in the second half than the first, but overall it was part of the big transition period of 2005-2008.

The shift into the late 2000s already started during the second half of 2005, when pop-emo fully overtook pop punk, snap music blew up, YouTube was just being introduced, Guitar Hero made its debut, and the XBOX 360 came out.  Early 2006 produced Hannah Montana, New Super Mario Bros., AVGN, and Wikipedia as a mainstream force, but otherwise wasn't terribly different from late 2005.  Autumn was when things started to really transform, with Timbaland being the dominant pop producer, the PS3 and Wii joining the XBOX 360 in the seventh generation console war, Facebook and YouTube becoming truly popular websites for the first time, and Heroes and 30 Rock premiering on television.

All in all, 2006 was definitely a year transition, however it was certainly not large to the point that the end of the year felt like a completely different universe than the beginning, as was the case with 2009 and 1997, for example.


This. Finally someone who sees it the way I do.

In addition to your examples, you can add 1989, 1993, 2001, 2005, and 2013. What those years have in common is that they are inaugural years for presidential terms, even if it's a re-elected president's second term. Those years seem to be major turning points in our culture.

I think 2005 can be split into two eras a lot moreso than 2006. The first half of 2005 can still be part of the late 2001-2004 culture with rap artists like 50 Cent and Nelly on the charts, but the later part of the year had more of what we saw in 2006-2008. By then you had a lot less rap (Kanye West's "Golddigger" was one of the only rap songs in the charts in the fall) and a lot more dance pop (Gwen Stefani, Black Eyed Peas, Pussycat Dolls) and emo rock (Fall Out Boy). On TV there were less reality shows and more scripted TV shows, albeit some of them were short-lived sitcomes on FOX. Anti-reality shows started to become popular, like The Office. It was also the rise of MySpace and YouTube, as well as the next gen of video games with the Xbox 360 launching in the fall.

2006 did feel different in the second half than the first, but overall it was part of the big transition period of 2005-2008.


Emo music was already making strides in late 2004 tho, nothing about 2005 screams separate eras, The only thing I can really think of is Xbox 360 that launched in Nov of 2005 and maybe some pussycat dolls music.

The shift into the late 2000s already started during the second half of 2005, when pop-emo fully overtook pop punk, snap music blew up, YouTube was just being introduced, Guitar Hero made its debut, and the XBOX 360 came out.  Early 2006 produced Hannah Montana, New Super Mario Bros., AVGN, and Wikipedia as a mainstream force, but otherwise wasn't terribly different from late 2005.  Autumn was when things started to really transform, with Timbaland being the dominant pop producer, the PS3 and Wii joining the XBOX 360 in the seventh generation console war, Facebook and YouTube becoming truly popular websites for the first time, and Heroes and 30 Rock premiering on television.

All in all, 2006 was definitely a year transition, however it was certainly not large to the point that the end of the year felt like a completely different universe than the beginning, as was the case with 2009 and 1997, for example.

Agreed 2006 was without question, a transitional year. It was basically the 2000s 1997.

I agree with this post. 2006 is a transition year, but not a huge one.

I also agree with mqg96. It feels wrong to include late 2008 and 2009 as "late 2000s" since they have more in common with the early 2010s. So if you say 2009 is early 2010s, then late 2006/2007/2008 can definitely be considered "late 2000s", contrasting it with 2004/2005/early 2006 which can be considered mid-2000s.

Disagree 160%, it was a huge transitional year looking back, a lot of things ended and many new things were introduced just like Infinity stated.

Late 2008- 2011 is the early 2010s culture

I always called it very late 2000s and very early 2010s culture.

This. Finally someone who sees it the way I do.

In addition to your examples, you can add 1989, 1993, 2001, 2005, and 2013. What those years have in common is that they are inaugural years for presidential terms, even if it's a re-elected president's second term. Those years seem to be major turning points in our culture.

I'd replace 2005 with 2009. But that's just me! ;)

This. Finally someone who sees it the way I do.

In addition to your examples, you can add 1989, 1993, 2001, 2005, and 2013. What those years have in common is that they are inaugural years for presidential terms, even if it's a re-elected president's second term. Those years seem to be major turning points in our culture.

I remember you compared 2005-2008 with 1989-1992, so do you think that 2001-2004 was similar to 1985-1988? ???

Answering this question; yes I do think that 2006 is two separate eras. The first half of 2006 is mid 2000s and second half is late 2000s.

Disagree 160%, it was a huge transitional year looking back, a lot of things ended and many new things were introduced just like Infinity stated.


I don't believe that 2006 was a huge transition year compared to the others of the 2000s. If I were to list the transition years of the 2000s, I'd say they were

2002
2004
2006
2008

Out of those, 2008 is indisputably the biggest change. That's once-in-a-generation kind of seismic change we hadn't seen since 1992. The second biggest I'd say is 2002, since it marks the end of the "Millennium" era ("late 90s/early 2000s" as one era). 2004 is also big in that it marks the true end of any late 90s and pre-digital era remnants/holdoffs. By 2004, the 2000s were in full swing and you could get a real feel for the zeitgeist of the decade.

In contrast, 2006 doesn't feel all that groundbreaking compared to these other years. Yeah, a lot of new websites and technologies came out that change the way we live our lives, but there were way more of those in the other transitional years. And if you think about it, yes HDTVs were on the market in 2006, but most people still owned SDTVs. iPods were still the fancy new thing in 2006. Yes, the 7th generation of gaming started in 2006, but everyone was still playing their PS2s. The PS3 tanked in 2007, no one was buying it, Wii was hard to find and the Xbox didn't become popular until September 2007 when Halo 3 came out. TV shows of the early 2000s and mid 2000s were still airing, hip hop was still topping the charts etc. etc. Contrast that with 2002 and 2004 where there were whole lifestyle changes taking place, and the technologies were not in infancy, but in actual full swing.

I agree that 2006 is a transition year into the late 2000s, but compared to other transition years it is rather small in magnitude.

2002
2004
2006
2008


I disagree with 2002 and 2004 being transition years. 2002 was like the quintessential year of early 2000's culture. The transition from late 90's to early 2000's culture was throughout 2001. 2001 was way more of a transition year than 2002 and 2004 was. So was 2006. 2002 was like the ultimate early 2000's year and didn't feel transitional to me. 2004 was just the first full year all millennial late 90's/early 2000's influences were completely obsolete and the first full year of core 2000's culture, but the transition out of early 2000's culture into mid 2000's culture started happening in 2003 anyway.

2002 is the end of the millennial era, not really the end of the early 2000s (that would be 2004).

I say 2002 because 2001 still had a very pre-digital vibe. Movies were still bought on VHS, everyone was still on Windows 98, video games were bought in cartridges, music was  bought in cassette tapes. It was also the last year I saw a floppy disk and the last year I wasn't assigned homework that required Internet. In 2001 I had to go to the library and ask the librarian on a book on how to make flashlights, no google-fu or computers involved lol. 

In 2002, all of that changed, and I consider it a huge shift.  2002/2003 is still early 2000s, the pop culture vibe and the TV shows were still the same. But 2001 and 2003 are very distinct years for me, and the transition happened in 2002.

I agree with Mq. 2002 was as early 2000s as you can get. 2001 was a transitional year from millennium era to the true early 2000s culturally.

I don't believe that 2006 was a huge transition year compared to the others of the 2000s. If I were to list the transition years of the 2000s, I'd say they were

2002
2004
2006
2008

Out of those, 2008 is indisputably the biggest change. That's once-in-a-generation kind of seismic change we hadn't seen since 1992. The second biggest I'd say is 2002, since it marks the end of the "Millennium" era ("late 90s/early 2000s" as one era). 2004 is also big in that it marks the true end of any late 90s and pre-digital era remnants/holdoffs. By 2004, the 2000s were in full swing and you could get a real feel for the zeitgeist of the decade.

In contrast, 2006 doesn't feel all that groundbreaking compared to these other years. Yeah, a lot of new websites and technologies came out that change the way we live our lives, but there were way more of those in the other transitional years. And if you think about it, yes HDTVs were on the market in 2006, but most people still owned SDTVs. iPods were still the fancy new thing in 2006. Yes, the 7th generation of gaming started in 2006, but everyone was still playing their PS2s. The PS3 tanked in 2007, no one was buying it, Wii was hard to find and the Xbox didn't become popular until September 2007 when Halo 3 came out. TV shows of the early 2000s and mid 2000s were still airing, hip hop was still topping the charts etc. etc. Contrast that with 2002 and 2004 where there were whole lifestyle changes taking place, and the technologies were not in infancy, but in actual full swing.

I agree that 2006 is a transition year into the late 2000s, but compared to other transition years it is rather small in magnitude.

I agree with 2006 being NOWHERE near as impactful as 2008. But 2006 was much more impactful than 2004. 2004, sure the kids networks went through some changes, TV shows like Friends, Fraiser, The Practice, Rugrats, and Hey Arnold ended, core 2000s had begun, but 2006 was the ultiamte end of any early 2000s influences. Music started getting more poppy sounding; shows like 30 Rock and Heroes premiered, It was the end of Sixth generation gaming,Unrestricted Internet and no PRISM,Re-runs of 90s shows on CN and Disney Channel, shows like That '70s Show, Charmed, and Malcolm in the Middle,The West Wing, Alias, Will&Grace, Everwood, Bernie Mac Show,MNF on ABC,original ABC sports,Paul Tagliabue as NFL commissioner,Funimation dubbing DBZ,WB became CW,Roger Ebert left At the Movies,TV Land strictly showing OLD SHOWS,ABC family just being family orientated old style NBA on ABC, a lot of things changed that year. 2004 had minor changes that took place, but 2006 was major. Like I've said before Late 2001-mid 2006 could be seen as a whole era; the cultural early-mid 2000s.

2002 is the end of the millennial era, not really the end of the early 2000s (that would be 2004).


The end of the millennial era (or late 90's culture) was when 9/11 happened. Late 2001, 2002, and most of 2003 felt the same, and 2001 was definitely more transitional than 2002 no question. Heck I'd consider 2003 more transitional than 2002, because while mid 2000's culture began in 2004, the transition had started in mid/late 2003. What makes you feel like 2002 was transitional? That year remained pretty stagnant to me.

I think there might be a country divide here. A lot of the things you listed for 2006 are very American, like changes in TV channel names. In Canada I think things might have carried on more organically.  ;D Although one thing that did happen in 2004 is Bush getting reelected, which really hurt America's reputation abroad. Saddam Hussein was also captured at the end of 2003, which brought the darkest days of the Iraq War to an end. That counts more as a 2004 cultural shift.

I consider the end of those early 2000s TV shows you listed the main reason that 2004 marks the end of the early 2000s and the beginning of the mid 2000s. Music also shifted from pop punk to more emo rock/hip hop. Broadband also overtook dial up. Most people had a cellphone. Cellphones started to have cameras on them. Laptops took off.  Web 2.0 also took off and gave us MySpace.  The iPod, easily the most iconic piece of technology of the core 2000s (other than PS2), took off in 2004.

But you also get the start of TV shows such as Lost,  Drake and Josh, Desperate Housewives, House, Boston Legal. All core 2000s staples. It is also the "golden era" (puke) of reality TV shows with shows like Pimp My Ride, Punk'd, The Biggest Loser, Extreme Makeover, The Apprentice all making their debuts in 2004. Mean Girls, The Day After Tomorrow, Garfield the Movie White Chicks, iRobot, Alien vs Predator, The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie, Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, The Grudge, all movies that really broke off from the years before them, and even movies released in 2006 would follow their general formula.

6th Gen gaming was also at its peak in 2004. I believe it was GTA San Andreas and Halo 2 that were topping the charts. It gave us the GTA clones and the abundance of first person shooters that the 2000s and even the 2010s are known for. Counterstrike, Runescape and World of Warcraft were also very popular that year. Now I know that 2006 had new consoles and everything, but the reality is that the PS3 was a huge flop and no one wanted it, Wii was very difficult to get for almost the entirety of 2007, and the Xbox 360 didn't take off until holiday 2007. I wouldn't attribute the 7th Gen to 2006, much like I don't attribute the 6th Gen to 1999. It would be just wrong. The 5th Gen was dominant  until early 2002, and the 6th gen was dominant until mid-2007.

And this giant essay is why I believe 2004 is a bigger transition year than 2006 LOL

The end of the millennial era (or late 90's culture) was when 9/11 happened. Late 2001, 2002, and most of 2003 felt the same, and 2001 was definitely more transitional than 2002 no question. Heck I'd consider 2003 more transitional than 2002, because while mid 2000's culture began in 2004, the transition had started in mid/late 2003. What makes you feel like 2002 was transitional? That year remained pretty stagnant to me.


Ah, I explained two posts above on why I feel 2001 and 2003 were completely different years. I can agree that maybe the shift can include late 2001, but 2002 also felt very transitional to me.

I bought my Gamecube in March 2002 so that was the end of 5th generation gaming for me and most the kids in my neighbourhood. Gameboy Color and the main era of Pokemania also died around then. I think it's also the year that DVD sales overtook VHS sales. At the very least, my local rental shop stopped stocking the VHS releases of newer movies. I believe most of teen pop died around then and we got the main eras of pop punk in 2002, especially with the release of Avril Lavigne's album. EVERY girl started dressing like her. Rachel hair was definitely out and the stick straight hair and very liberal use of black eye shadow was all the rage. Then you have the release of Windows XP in 2001, but in 2002 you get people throwing their CRT monitors out and replacing them with LCD monitors.  Movies like Spiderman, Star Wars Episode 2, Mummy 2, Lord of the Rings came around that era, and none have any late 90s vibe to them at all. You can tell it was a dawn of a different era.

Ah, I explained two posts above on why I feel 2001 and 2003 were completely different years. I can agree that maybe the shift can include late 2001, but 2002 also felt very transitional to me.

I bought my Gamecube in March 2002 so that was the end of 5th generation gaming for me and most the kids in my neighbourhood. Gameboy Color and the main era of Pokemania also died around then. I think it's also the year that DVD sales overtook VHS sales. At the very least, my local rental shop stopped stocking the VHS releases of newer movies. I believe most of teen pop died around then and we got the main eras of pop punk in 2002, especially with the release of Avril Lavigne's album. EVERY girl started dressing like her. Rachel hair was definitely out and the stick straight hair and very liberal use of black eye shadow was all the rage. Then you have the release of Windows XP in 2001, but in 2002 you get people throwing their CRT monitors out and replacing them with LCD monitors.  Movies like Spiderman, Star Wars Episode 2, Mummy 2, Lord of the Rings came around that era, and none have any late 90s vibe to them at all. You can tell it was a dawn of a different era.


Lord of the Rings, Spy Kids, and Harry Potter started in 2001, including Shrek, Monster's Inc, and The Fast and the Furious. Which was the start of cultural 2000's movies just like Spiderman or Ice Age from 2002. All those movies felt similar to me. Look at some of the movies that debuted in 2000, those were clearly late 90's holdovers for sure, which is why it was kind of a bland year for movies with few exceptions. While 2001 & 2002 felt so original it distinctly felt like movies that defined the early 2000's. Remember, I said that late 2001 (September 2001-December 2001) was just like 2002 and most of 2003. Early/Mid 2001 (January 2001-August 2001) is still around the transition between late 90's and early 2000's culture. It's not like late 2001-2003 but it's not exactly like late 1997-mid 2000 either. 2003 was the first full year DVD sales overtook VHS sales, especially by summer of that year. 2002 was more of a DVD/VHS cusp year. 5th generation gaming actually transitioned over to 6th generation gaming throughout 2001. Kinda like how 2006 was the transition between 6th generation and 7th generation gaming as a full year. Pokemania did die out in 2001, however, the Pokemon TV series itself was still in its 1st generation with Ash, Misty, and Brock, which wouldn't end until 2003. Everything else you said is spot on.

Ah, I explained two posts above on why I feel 2001 and 2003 were completely different years. I can agree that maybe the shift can include late 2001, but 2002 also felt very transitional to me.

I bought my Gamecube in March 2002 so that was the end of 5th generation gaming for me and most the kids in my neighbourhood. Gameboy Color and the main era of Pokemania also died around then. I think it's also the year that DVD sales overtook VHS sales. At the very least, my local rental shop stopped stocking the VHS releases of newer movies. I believe most of teen pop died around then and we got the main eras of pop punk in 2002, especially with the release of Avril Lavigne's album. EVERY girl started dressing like her. Rachel hair was definitely out and the stick straight hair and very liberal use of black eye shadow was all the rage. Then you have the release of Windows XP in 2001, but in 2002 you get people throwing their CRT monitors out and replacing them with LCD monitors.  Movies like Spiderman, Star Wars Episode 2, Mummy 2, Lord of the Rings came around that era, and none have any late 90s vibe to them at all. You can tell it was a dawn of a different era.



2002 is the end of the millennial era, not really the end of the early 2000s (that would be 2004).

I say 2002 because 2001 still had a very pre-digital vibe. Movies were still bought on VHS, everyone was still on Windows 98, video games were bought in cartridges, music was  bought in cassette tapes. It was also the last year I saw a floppy disk and the last year I wasn't assigned homework that required Internet. In 2001 I had to go to the library and ask the librarian on a book on how to make flashlights, no google-fu or computers involved lol. 

In 2002, all of that changed, and I consider it a huge shift.  2002/2003 is still early 2000s, the pop culture vibe and the TV shows were still the same. But 2001 and 2003 are very distinct years for me, and the transition happened in 2002.


You sure? What part of Canada are you from? My uncle lives in Toronto and when I'd visit him back in 2002, I'd see all the video rental stores stocking more VHS than DVD like most stores in 2002. 2003 is the year DVD overtook VHS according to the internet. The 5th generation of consoles (especially the PS1) were still considerably popular despite the Gamecube and Xbox coming in. CRT monitors and Windows 98 (or ME) were still pretty big way into 2003 (people hated XP. I got links to old web posts that show the reaction to XP was similar to Windows 8. People held onto 7 a few years into 8's runtime just like they did with 98 and ME). Teen Pop artists released their final big albums and hits in 2002. Pop Punk was also already big by 1998 and was a phenomenon by 1999 (for the second time. It was already a pretty big phenomenon in 1994). The Movies you mentioned wouldn't feel out of place if released in 1999 or 2000, in my opinion. I always like to use Spider-Man as an example because that is one of my all time favorites. That movie doesn't feel very 2000's. It feels like it's riding off the success of Can't Hardly Wait and American Pie but with a Super-Hero twist. 2002 didn't feel noticeably different than the last 3/4 years before it except when I'd visited New York during late that year. They took the sh*t end of the stick in 2001. I have a whole collection of cassettes from new releases in 2002 (music cassettes were pretty much dead by 1995, though), still used Windows 98 with the big white PC's with floppy disks, still had dial-up etc., etc. This is how I remember most people living back then.

2003 felt pretty different mid way through but 2002 still felt like 2000 and 2001. Same fashion, same music, same lifestyle, same vibe, etc.

Ah, I explained two posts above on why I feel 2001 and 2003 were completely different years. I can agree that maybe the shift can include late 2001, but 2002 also felt very transitional to me.

I bought my Gamecube in March 2002 so that was the end of 5th generation gaming for me and most the kids in my neighbourhood. Gameboy Color and the main era of Pokemania also died around then. I think it's also the year that DVD sales overtook VHS sales. At the very least, my local rental shop stopped stocking the VHS releases of newer movies. I believe most of teen pop died around then and we got the main eras of pop punk in 2002, especially with the release of Avril Lavigne's album. EVERY girl started dressing like her. Rachel hair was definitely out and the stick straight hair and very liberal use of black eye shadow was all the rage. Then you have the release of Windows XP in 2001, but in 2002 you get people throwing their CRT monitors out and replacing them with LCD monitors.  Movies like Spiderman, Star Wars Episode 2, Mummy 2, Lord of the Rings came around that era, and none have any late 90s vibe to them at all. You can tell it was a dawn of a different era.


I really don't see how the biggest transition didn't happen in 2001 as opposed to 2002.  Sure, a lot of new things arrived or established themselves in 2002, and I do think 2001 and 2003 are actually fairly distinct years, but the primary groundwork of the early 2000s was undeniably laid down in 2001 and even 2000 to a slight degree.

Politically, the year had 9/11, which completely shook the world upside down overnight and is primarily attributable to all major foreign policy later in the decade, including the Iraq War.  Earlier in the year, George W. Bush became President of the United States, not to mention the economy eventually entered a recession that year, truly a break from late 90s prosperity.

In music, while it is true that teen pop was still successful in 2001 and Avril Lavigne became a major cultural icon once she arrived in 2002, the waxing and waning of respective movements occurred primarily throughout 2001; the end of the year was very different from the beginning.  At the beginning of 2001, teen pop was just exiting its peak, with Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys still releasing major chart hits like Stronger and selling millions of albums, alongside other popular acts such as O-Town and Dream.  By the end of 2001, however, there were almost no millennial teen pop on the charts aside from *NSYNC's Gone and the Backstreet Boys' Drowning, the latter of which wasn't even that big of a hit.  Meanwhile, Britney Spears matured into an adult and completely abandoned the melodious teen pop style that catapulted her into fame, instead leading off her new album that year with a less melodic and more rhythmic single produced by the era-defining Neptunes.

As for Avril Lavigne, while she certainly became the most culturally influential rock act of the decade, her debut album didn't really pioneer any new musical movement that didn't already existed.  Let Go isn't even consistent to a single genre, instead experimenting with all different subgenera of rock that were popular at the time.  To comment on the type of music it does contain, however, 2000s-style pop punk had already evolved into a full-fledged mainstream movement in mid-2001 with the releases of Sum 41's All Killer, No Filler and blink-182's Take Off Your Pants and Jacket; the song Sk8er Boi was only significant in that it popularized pop punk with female leads, thus eventually paving the way for Kelly Clarkson's Breakaway album, as well as bands such as Saving Jane, The Donnas, and Paramore.  Post-grunge, as represented by tracks like Losing Grip and Unwanted, already established its 2000s incarnation in 2000, beginning with Creed's Higher, with 2001 being a particularly huge year for the genre thanks to How You Remind Me, Blurry, and It's Been Awhile.  Finally, songs like I'm with You and Complicated are pretty much just a continuation of the female alternative singer/songwriter trend that began in 1995 with Alanis Morissette and survived into the early 2000s with artists like Michelle Branch and further albums by Morissette and Jewel.

There are also plenty of other musical transformations that happened in 2001 that I haven't even touched upon yet.  Hip hop experienced a minor shift in 2001 thanks to the decline of millennial era icons like DMX and Lauryn Hill, as well as the breakthrough of Murder Inc thanks to the success of Ja Rule and the Fast & the Furious soundtrack, all of which paved the way for Ashanti's dominance in 2002.  Jay-Z's The Blueprint also dropped on 9/11, establishing Kanye West and Just Blaze as popular producers for the 2000s and bringing direct sampling back to the forefront of hip hop.  The Neptunes had already hit their stride in late 2000, coming off the success of Shake Ya Ass and I Just Wanna Love U (Give It 2 Me), but grew even more prominent by the end of 2001, with songs like Young'n (Holla Back) and I'm a Slave 4 U having made an impact on the charts.  2001 also saw the release of The Strokes' Is This It, which influenced a ton of the biggest indie bands of the decade and made possible the success of The White Stripes and Franz Ferdinand in years following.  Jimmy Eat World was also just starting to pick up in fame, as their breakthrough album Bleed American came out during the summer and eventually spawned major airplay success.

In terms of video games, I think you are overestimating the significance of late 90s video game consoles during the 2001-2002 school year.  As a kid in 2001, it seemed like everybody was hyped up about the GameCube and original XBOX, not to mention Grand Theft Auto III.  I remember the first time I laid eyes upon Super Smash Bros. Melee at my local Fry's, where the Adventure Mode was being displayed on a big screen, and I was absolutely mesmerized by what I saw.  It was such a huge leap to see 3D graphics that actually looked rounded and expressive after the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation 1.  The GameCube, along with SSBM, were at the very top of my Christmas list in 2001, and I'm sure they were for a lot of other people as well.  Even if they didn't ask for the GameCube, a lot of kids I knew at least asked for the original XBOX, complete with Halo.  Others still simply bought the PS2, which by that year already had a massive catalogue of killer apps, including SSX Tricky, Gran Turismo 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Jak and Daxter, and the aforementioned Grand Theft Auto III.  In addition to all of this, the Game Boy Advance came out in the summer of 2001; I got mine for my ninth birthday party in August, packaged with Super Mario Advance, though there were plenty of other notable titles that year such as Mario Kart Super Circuit, Castlevania: Circle of the Moon, and Wario Land 4, the latter of which is one of my favorite 2D platforms of all time.  At the same time, this didn't stop me from playing Pokémon Crystal, which I got that same birthday I got my Game Boy Advance, but by late 2001, I felt we had undeniably entered a completely new era of gaming from where we were in late 1996-early 2001.  Even if you weren't first to buy the new consoles, you can't overlook the impact they had when they came out.

As mqg96 stated, movies were already solidly early 2000s in 2001.  The Matrix had already set the precedent for major 21st century blockbusters, and as such films released after it took cues from its groundbreaking special effects and philosophical edge.  The sheer number of new franchises that debuted in 2001, plus other influential movies like Shrek, Monsters, Inc., and Zoolander established clearly that we had entered a new age of cinema.

I did feel that there was a small shift in August/September of this year. It was more musical than anything else. It paved the way for 2008's Lady Gaga/electro-pop becoming more mainstream.

As for Avril Lavigne, while she certainly became the most culturally influential rock act of the decade, her debut album didn't really pioneer any new musical movement that didn't already existed.  Let Go isn't even consistent to a single genre, instead experimenting with all different subgenera of rock that were popular at the time.  To comment on the type of music it does contain, however, 2000s-style pop punk had already evolved into a full-fledged mainstream movement in mid-2001 with the releases of Sum 41's All Killer, No Filler and blink-182's Take Off Your Pants and Jacket; the song Sk8er Boi was only significant in that it popularized pop punk with female leads, thus eventually paving the way for Kelly Clarkson's Breakaway album, as well as bands such as Saving Jane, The Donnas, and Paramore.  Post-grunge, as represented by tracks like Losing Grip and Unwanted, already established its 2000s incarnation in 2000, beginning with Creed's Higher, with 2001 being a particularly huge year for the genre thanks to How You Remind Me, Blurry, and It's Been Awhile.  Finally, songs like I'm with You and Complicated are pretty much just a continuation of the female alternative singer/songwriter trend that began in 1995 with Alanis Morissette and survived into the early 2000s with artists like Michelle Branch and further albums by Morissette and Jewel.


Huh? How did Pop Punk evolve into a full-fledged movement in mid-2001? It had already done that in 1999 after the huge build-up in 1998 where it was already at it's breaking point. You already had Enema Of the State, A Place in the Sun, Blue Skys Broken Hearts, Fenix TX's self-titled and Something to Write Home About. 2000 also had it's fair share of big releases with Conspiracy of One, American Hi-Fi and New Found Glory's self-titled, The Ever Passing Moment, Wasting Time, etc., etc. The whole American Pie Teen Movie Pop Punk thing was established long before 2001 came around. How'd Avril pave the way for the Donnas!? Is there another Donnas or are you talking about the same band who formed in 1993 and released their self-titled in 1997? If you are, then The Donnas, along with other Pop Punk bands like The Dance Hall Crashers, Discount and The Distillers had already paved and driven over that road long before Avril did. Higher came out in 1999 but Post-Grunge was already pretty early 2000's in 1996/1997 with My Own Prison, Yourself or Someone Like You and Pushing the Salmanilla Envelope. But yeah, it peaked around 2001/2002. I agree with the rest of this, though. Avril was nothing new and Let Go doesn't feel very 2000's.

Huh? How did Pop Punk evolve into a full-fledged movement in mid-2001? It had already done that in 1999 after the huge build-up in 1998 where it was already at it's breaking point. You already had Enema Of the State, A Place in the Sun, Blue Skys Broken Hearts, Fenix TX's self-titled and Something to Write Home About. 2000 also had it's fair share of big releases with Conspiracy of One, American Hi-Fi and New Found Glory's self-titled, The Ever Passing Moment, Wasting Time, etc., etc. The whole American Pie Teen Movie Pop Punk thing was established long before 2001 came around.

Enema of the State was the only early 2000s-style pop punk album to really make a chart success.  Surprisingly, not much else followed it until All Killer, No Filler and Take Off Your Pants and Jacket.  Most of the other albums you listed achieved marginal success at best.  I don't mean to imply nobody knew about them, but they were hardly comparable in success to Enema of the State or post-grunge like Human Clay and The Better Life.  New Found Glory's Self-Titled only produced Hit or Miss, which was more the latter than the former, though it was their first appearance on the Modern Rock Chart.  As blink-182-esque as The Ataris' Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits is, it was not a mainstream success, even though San Dimas High School Football Rules was very popular with punk insiders.  Most people learned about The Ataris after they signed with Columbia and released In This Diary and The Boys of Summer.

As for the others you listed, which were considerable successes, I consider The Offspring's Conspiracy of One to be on the tail end of late 90s pop punk.  Some of its tracks, like Want You Bad, are pretty similar to the pop punk that became popular in the early 2000s, but it's mostly a continuation of their late 90s style, only achieving less success than its predecessor Americana.  Green Day's Warning falls into the same category; like Conspiracy of One, it signaled a temporary decline for its band's popularity rather than benefiting from the success of Enema.  American Hi-Five's debut album came out in 2001, with the album's key hit Flavor of the Weak taking off that summer, the same time that Fat Lip and The Rock Show were popular.

All in all, while I would definitely acknowledge that pop punk existed during the millennial era, even that its transformation between the late 90s and early 2000s was pretty small, it still peaked in widespread popularity specifically during the core early 2000s, beginning in mid-2001 with AKNF and TOYPAJ and continuing with Avril Lavigne's Sk8er Boi, Bowling for Soup's Drunk Enough to Dance, The Ataris' So Long, Astoria, New Found Glory's Sticks and Stones, Good Charlotte's The Young and the Hopeless (arguably the most commercially successful album in terms of chart hits), etc., etc.

How'd Avril pave the way for the Donnas!? Is there another Donnas or are you talking about the same band who formed in 1993 and released their self-titled in 1997? If you are, then The Donnas, along with other Pop Punk bands like The Dance Hall Crashers, Discount and The Distillers had already paved and driven over that road long before Avril did. Higher came out in 1999 but Post-Grunge was already pretty early 2000's in 1996/1997 with My Own Prison, Yourself or Someone Like You and Pushing the Salmanilla Envelope. But yeah, it peaked around 2001/2002. I agree with the rest of this, though. Avril was nothing new and Let Go doesn't feel very 2000's.


I was introduced to The Donnas in the mid-2000s, when they appeared on the Freaky Friday and Gran Turismo 4 soundtracks.  They were around well before Avril, but their popularity in the 2000s is at least partially attributable to the Avril Lavigne craze.

I strongly disagree with albums like My Own Prison and Yourself or Someone Like You sounding distinctly early 2000s.  Post-grunge in 1997-1999 was poppier, less angsty, and not as sludgy as mid-90s post-grunge, but it was still unmistakably 90s and certainly wasn't comparable to groups like Nickelback or Puddle of Mudd.  There's a reason you never hear people bash If You Could Only See, I Will Buy You a New Life, Lakini's Juice, or Clumsy the way the attack My Sacrifice and How You Remind Me.  Creed may have had their start in 1997, but their debut album is much grittier than Human Clay and Weathered; if anything, songs like the title track and Torn verge on regular grunge.  Matchbox Twenty, like Creed, achieved primary success in the early 2000s despite debuting in the late 90s but still had a garagier sound on their first album than their later work, despite the songs being as melodically radio-friendly as Bent, Unwell, and the like.  This late 90s brand of post-grunge emerged around the time Live's Secret Samadhi came out and concluded with Oleander's Why I'm Here in 1999.

Enema of the State was the only early 2000s-style pop punk album to really make a chart success.  Surprisingly, not much else followed it until All Killer, No Filler and Take Off Your Pants and Jacket.  Most of the other albums you listed achieved marginal success at best.  I don't mean to imply nobody knew about them, but they were hardly comparable in success to Enema of the State or post-grunge like Human Clay and The Better Life.  New Found Glory's Self-Titled only produced Hit or Miss, which was more the latter than the former, though it was their first appearance on the Modern Rock Chart.  As blink-182-esque as The Ataris' Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits is, it was not a mainstream success, even though San Dimas High School Football Rules was very popular with punk insiders.  Most people learned about The Ataris after they signed with Columbia and released In This Diary and The Boys of Summer.


A Place In The Sun sounds very early 2000's to me. No, these albums were big successes which only strengthened Pop Punk's hold on the mainstream. All the albums I mentioned, mainstream successes or underground hits, only helped Pop Punk get bigger. They were just as influential as they came out as they are now, make no mistake. You can thank MTV2 for that. All these albums I mentioned had videos that were played on MTV2 all the time from 1998 onward and from there on, it only got bigger and bigger. New Found Glory only produced Hit or Miss? You're forgetting about Dressed to Kill! That was also a big hit. "Punk insiders"? They'd call you a f*g and throw food at you if you were caught listening to anything but the Dead Kennedys. No joke. Nobody accepted these bands as true Punk back then, either.  Right you are about this, So Long Astoria was their breakthrough. Didn't last very long, though.


As for the others you listed, which were considerable successes, I consider The Offspring's Conspiracy of One to be on the tail end of late 90s pop punk.  Some of its tracks, like Want You Bad, are pretty similar to the pop punk that became popular in the early 2000s, but it's mostly a continuation of their late 90s style, only achieving less success than its predecessor Americana.  Green Day's Warning falls into the same category; like Conspiracy of One, it signaled a temporary decline for its band's popularity rather than benefiting from the success of Enema.  American Hi-Five's debut album came out in 2001, with the album's key hit Flavor of the Weak taking off that summer, the same time that Fat Lip and The Rock Show were popular.


You could either call 2000-2002 Pop Punk late 90's Pop Punk or 1998-1999 Pop Punk early 2000's. It works either way. That sound is very prevalent on Home Grown's Act Your Age, Unwritten Law's self-titled and MxPx's Slowly Going the Way of the Buffalo. Each of these bands were huge, especially in California. I could barely get into the clubs they'd play, especially if opening for blink-182. The 1998 Pee Pee Poo Poo tour (yes, that is the real name) was one of the biggest events of 1998 Pop Punk. blink's first tour with Travis. You could tell they were gonna blow up if you'd been to those shows. Those other three bands I mentioned also had hits on majors. Even then, both the late 90's and early 00's also still had the mid-90's Pop Punk sound. Americana isn't too different from the early 2000's style, either. Listen to the less Metallic songs off of Sum 41's DTLI like "Thanks For Nothing", kinda gives off an Americana vibe if you ask me. The rest of that Sum 41 album resembles Twisted By Design-era Strung Out from 1997. If by "late 90's style" you mean that Bad Religion-esque sound (which is actually more late 80's up to mid 90's) then that was definitely still an early 2000's thing with bands like Authority Zero breaking into the mainstream with their 2002 A Passage in Time album. Right you are about American Hi-Fi. I f*cked that one up. Flavor of the Week came out in early 2001.  It was already pretty big before Fat Lip and Rock Show, though. Don't forget the Mark, Tom and Travis show also came out in 2000 with Man Overboard. blink-182 cemented themselves as pop culture icons by then. Warning declined because of their departure from the Pop Punk sound but The Offspring were still doing pretty well for themselves. In the late 90's and early 2000's, The Offspring were the bigger band than Green Day, for once.


All in all, while I would definitely acknowledge that pop punk existed during the millennial era, even that its transformation between the late 90s and early 2000s was pretty small, it still peaked in widespread popularity specifically during the core early 2000s, beginning in mid-2001 with AKNF and TOYPAJ and continuing with Avril Lavigne's Sk8er Boi, Bowling for Soup's Drunk Enough to Dance, The Ataris' So Long, Astoria, New Found Glory's Sticks and Stones, Good Charlotte's The Young and the Hopeless (arguably the most commercially successful album in terms of chart hits), etc., etc.

I was introduced to The Donnas in the mid-2000s, when they appeared on the Freaky Friday and Gran Turismo 4 soundtracks.  They were around well before Avril, but their popularity in the 2000s is at least partially attributable to the Avril Lavigne craze.


Pop Punk definitely peaked in 1999 in terms of success. Nothing was bigger than Enema of The State if we're talking 1998-2002 era Pop Punk. Nothing is bigger than Dookie and Smash in terms of Pop Punk in general. 

I got into the Donnas around 1998 or so. I like everything up until The Donnas Turn 21 when they stopped being Pop Punk. Maybe, but without female bands like them and the others I mentioned, there might not be an Avril.


I strongly disagree with albums like My Own Prison and Yourself or Someone Like You sounding distinctly early 2000s.  Post-grunge in 1997-1999 was poppier, less angsty, and not as sludgy as mid-90s post-grunge, but it was still unmistakably 90s and certainly wasn't comparable to groups like Nickelback or Puddle of Mudd.  There's a reason you never hear people bash If You Could Only See, I Will Buy You a New Life, Lakini's Juice, or Clumsy the way the attack My Sacrifice and How You Remind Me.  Creed may have had their start in 1997, but their debut album is much grittier than Human Clay and Weathered; if anything, songs like the title track and Torn verge on regular grunge.  Matchbox Twenty, like Creed, achieved primary success in the early 2000s despite debuting in the late 90s but still had a garagier sound on their first album than their later work, despite the songs being as melodically radio-friendly as Bent, Unwell, and the like.  This late 90s brand of post-grunge emerged around the time Live's Secret Samadhi came out and concluded with Oleander's Why I'm Here in 1999.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Songs like Push seem to be a big influence on Nickelback and other early 2000's Post-Grunge. More along the lines of the softer tone some of those bands take. Matchbox are pretty poppy. Some of the songs on the first album are just Pop Rock in that same late 90's/early 00's Goo Goo Dolls style (actually, so do some songs off Matchbox's 2nd and 3rd album do, too). I heard Push on the radio the other day and I though for a second it was an early 2000's throwback until it hit me "Oh! This is that Matchbox 20 song from 1996!" Other bands like Jimmie's Chicken Shack and their angsty brand of Post-Grunge (with some of their hit songs like High and Dropping Anchor both from 1997) are a huge influence on 2001/2002 bands like Audiovent and TrustCompany (who are one foot in Post-Grunge, another foot in Nu Metal). Hell, Nickelback released The State in 1998 and that album already sounds just like Silver Side Up. Not to mention Curb from 1996 which sounds very early 2000's. I think that's mostly because those albums are forgotten about but My Own Prison is bashed fairly enough. People should bash all Post-Grunge equally in general. It's all bad. You think so? I just decided to listen to some of the songs and I am listening to the title track right now and it's not different from early 2000's Post-Grunge bands like Default and Greenwheel or even some Puddle of Mudd. A song like Blurry isn't a huge departure from most songs from My Own Prison.

A Place In The Sun sounds very early 2000's to me. No, these albums were big successes which only strengthened Pop Punk's hold on the mainstream. All the albums I mentioned, mainstream successes or underground hits, only helped Pop Punk get bigger. They were just as influential as they came out as they are now, make no mistake. You can thank MTV2 for that. All these albums I mentioned had videos that were played on MTV2 all the time from 1998 onward and from there on, it only got bigger and bigger. New Found Glory only produced Hit or Miss? You're forgetting about Dressed to Kill! That was also a big hit.

If by "big hit" you mean released as a promo and played a lot at pop punk concerts and rotated on MTV, yes.  But it didn't chart whatsoever, so I don't see how it could be considered a genuine success.  Maybe it's just a similar situation to the Beastie Boys in the early 90s, since everybody definitely knows about So What'cha Want and Sabotage, but both singles barely made a dent on the charts.

"Punk insiders"? They'd call you a f*g and throw food at you if you were caught listening to anything but the Dead Kennedys. No joke. Nobody accepted these bands as true Punk back then, either.

Insiders meaning people who listened to punk or pop/punk as it was at the time, not the early 80s stuff.  Just a choice of words thing.

You could either call 2000-2002 Pop Punk late 90's Pop Punk or 1998-1999 Pop Punk early 2000's. It works either way. That sound is very prevalent on the Home Grown's Act Your Age, Unwritten Law's self-titled and MxPx's Slowly Going the Way of the Buffalo. Each of these bands were huge, especially in California. I could barely get into the clubs they'd play, especially if opening for blink-182. The 1998 Pee Pee Poo Poo tour (yes, that is the real name) was one of the biggest events of 1998 Pop Punk. blink's first tour with Travis. You could tell they were gonna blow up if you'd been to those shows.

Blink-182 was already pretty popular around the time Dude Ranch came out, as Dammit was a big hit that garnered a lot of airplay, but of course Enema was when they absolutely skyrocketed in fame, especially as a result of their satirical music videos.  On that subject, Dude Ranch is comparable to the material the trio released between Enema and their 2005 breakup, but it has more distorted guitars and less studio-prepared vocals, making it more representative of the transition between mid-90s Dookie-era pop punk and early 2000s Take Off Your Pants and Jacket/The Young and the Hopeless pop punk.

Those other three bands I mentioned also had hits on majors. Even then, both the late 90's and early 00's also still had the mid-90's Pop Punk sound. Americana isn't too different from the early 2000's style, either. Listen to the less Metallic songs off of Sum 41's DTLI like "Thanks For Nothing", kinda gives off an Americana vibe if you ask me.

The Offspring's Americana has more distorted guitars than most early 2000s pop punk and is more playfully carefree.  Thanks for Nothing may not have the most metallic sound, but like most early 2000s pop punk, it's sterner and darker in its execution, without the same sarcastic undertones that the Offspring's late 90s material usually had.

The differences between late 90s and early 2000s pop punk is not huge, but the nuances still distinguish albums from both periods.  I doubt The Anthem or Girl All the Bad Guys Want would've been huge hits in 1997 as they were in 2003.

The rest of that Sum 41 album resembles Twisted By Design-era Strung Out from 1997.

Not really.  Does This Look Infected is much more studio-engineered, whereas Twisted By Design is identifiably late 90s with its fairly lucid, yet recklessly brisk and mildly raw production, just like Blink-182's Dude Ranch.  It doesn't feel nearly as heavy handed as DTLI.

If by "late 90's style" you mean that Bad Religion-esque sound (which is actually more late-80's up to mid 90's) then that was definitely still an early 2000's thing with bands like Authority Zero breaking into the mainstream with their 2002 A Passage in Time album.

Bad Religion?  Their brief stint with the mainstream was with Stranger Than Fiction in the mid-90s, which is what I associate that style more with, anyway, though yes, it was already present back in the late 80s (i.e., The Offspring's self-titled debut).  Just like post-grunge, I see pop punk in the late 90s as strictly bridging its mid-90s incarnation with its early 2000s style.  Ixnay on the Hombre, Dude Ranch, and Anywhere But Here are all strong representations of this.

Don't forget the Mark, Tom and Travis show also came out in 2000 with Man Overboard. blink-182 cemented themselves as pop culture icons by then.

Man Overboard continued blink-182's chart success in-between albums, but my point was that other pop punk bands didn't enter their peaks until after TOYPAJ came out.

Warning declined because of their departure from the Pop Punk sound but The Offspring were still doing pretty well for themselves. In the late 90's and early 2000's, The Offspring were the bigger band than Green Day, for once.

They never disappeared from the public spotlight until the very end of pop punk's existence in the mainstream at the turn of the decade, but they certainly weren't reaching Smash levels of success anymore.

Pop Punk definitely peaked in 1999 in terms of success. Nothing was bigger than Enema of The State.

Enema of the State is just one album, though.  Take Off Your Pants and Jacket and Self-Titled were nearly just as successful, and neither was neither the only massive pop punk success that year.  2003 is really more the peak of early 2000s pop punk.

I got into the Donnas around 1998 or so. I like everything up until The Donnas Turn 21 when they stopped being Pop Punk. Maybe, but without female bands like them and the others I mentioned, there might not be an Avril.

Having a discussion about female vocalists in rock is much more complex than can be confined to the 90s and 2000s, as you had artists like Joan Jett and Pat Benatar back in the early 80s, not to mention singers like Janis Joplin broke a lot of ground for women in rock & roll back in the late 60s.  At the very least, the Donnas recording music that appeared on the soundtrack to a Disney movie starring Lindsay Lohan says a lot about where they were by the mid-2000s.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Songs like Push seem to be a big influence on Nickelback and other early 2000's Post-Grunge. More along the lines of the softer tone some of those bands take. Matchbox are pretty poppy. Some of the songs on the first album are just Pop Rock, basically but I heard Push on the radio the other day and I though for a second it was an early 2000's throwback until it hit me "Oh! This is Matchbox 20!"

It's definitely poppy, poppier than mid-90s post-grunge like Silverchair's Tomorrow and Bush's Comedown, but it isn't as clean-cut, adult contemporary oriented as their later albums.  Its production is a little rockier and thus identifiably late 90s.

Other bands like Jimmie's Chicken Shack and their angsty brand of Post-Grunge (with some of their hit songs like High and Dropping Anchor both from 1997) are a huge influence on 2001/2002 bands like Audiovent and TrustCompany (who are one foot in Post-Grunge, another foot in Nu Metal).

The difference though is that they weren't breaking into mainstream success the way other groups were at the time.  Korn, if anything, were already well-known in the mid-90s with their first two albums, although they didn't bridge the genre with post-grunge the way bands like TrustCompany or even Staind were.

Hell, Nickelback released The State in 1998 and that album already sounds just like Silver Side Up. Not to mention Curb from 1996 which sounds very early 2000's.

The State is definitely transitioning into the group's early 2000s style, but it's still not entirely 2000s-style blatant adult radio-geared kitsch.  Ironically, too, the album's biggest song (Leader of Men) is the most 90s of the bunch and has much more of a tendency towards grunge than country like their more well-known work.  Curb is definitely not 2000s; like Leader of Men, the album is more of a Nirvana knockoff, following in the footsteps of Bush, although the content is more repetitive than Sixteen Stone.

I think that's mostly because those albums are forgotten about but My Own Prison is bashed fairly enough. People should bash all Post-Grunge equally in general. It's all bad. You think so? I just decided to listen to some of the songs and I am listening to the title track right now and it's not different from early 2000's Post-Grunge bands like Default and Greenwheel or even some Puddle of Mudd. A song like Blurry isn't a huge departure from most songs from My Own Prison.


People do bash all post-grunge; Bush and Collective Soul, for example, were quite derided when they first became popular in the mid-90s.  The thing is, though, while they certainly aren't as revered as real grunge bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, a lot of people are still able to at least find some merit in the mid-90s stuff, as well as the late 90s stuff on the occasion.  Silverchair, Live, Bush, and the like aren't constantly joked around as the worst bands in the world the way Creed and Nickelback have been for ages, even well beyond their periods of fame.  Post-grunge is not nearly as black and white as you seem to treat it.  I can't possibly categorize songs like Tomorrow, Comedown, or Selling the Drama with fluffy 2000s stuff like Lips of an Angel and Photograph.  That's why I prefer to call bands from 2000-2010 pop post-grunge, separate from 1993-1999 post-grunge that actually genuinely tries to emulate the Seattle bands, as opposed to going full-on pop while borrowing only the basic instrumentation of regular grunge.

I guess we can agree the shift was late 2001. My original point was that there was a shift in 2001/2002 that was bigger than the one in 2006 lol.

As for 5th Gen gaming, it was still well and alive in 2001. Paper Mario, Mario Party 3 and Pokémon Stadium 2 came out that year, those games were huge, especially the latter took my neighbourhood by storm.  Pokémania was still strong in 2001. Conker's Bad Fur Day also came out that year but that's an adult game. There were plenty of other rent worthy games that came out that year.

If by "big hit" you mean released as a promo and played a lot at pop punk concerts and rotated on MTV, yes.  But it didn't chart whatsoever, so I don't see how it could be considered a genuine success.  Maybe it's just a similar situation to the Beastie Boys in the early 90s, since everybody definitely knows about So What'cha Want and Sabotage, but both singles barely made a dent on the charts.


It was released as an official album single, not just a promo. That album was the one that got them the opportunity to sign to a major.


Insiders meaning people who listened to punk or pop/punk as it was at the time, not the early 80s stuff.  Just a choice of words thing.


Which was most people. These bands don't seem big now but they were back then. The context of the times always seems to get lost and people think things were one way when they were really another. Listening to bands such as NoFX wasn't just something the weird kid who sat alone in the cafeteria did. Casual fans listened to these bands, too, just not as heavily as a guy like me.


Blink-182 was already pretty popular around the time Dude Ranch came out, as Dammit was a big hit that garnered a lot of airplay, but of course Enema was when they absolutely skyrocketed in fame, especially as a result of their satirical music videos.  On that subject, Dude Ranch is comparable to the material the trio released between Enema and their 2005 breakup, but it has more distorted guitars and less studio-prepared vocals, making it more representative of the transition between mid-90s Dookie-era pop punk and early 2000s Take Off Your Pants and Jacket/The Young and the Hopeless pop punk.


'Course. Dammit was a huge hit and was on the soundtrack for Can't Hardly Wait. Honestly, it's just a well-produced version of Cheshire Cat. nimrod, on the other hand, is even closer to that style with songs like Uptight or All The Time.


The Offspring's Americana has more distorted guitars than most early 2000s pop punk and is more playfully carefree.  Thanks for Nothing may not have the most metallic sound, but like most early 2000s pop punk, it's sterner and darker in its execution, without the same sarcastic undertones that the Offspring's late 90s material usually had.


That's not true at all. Early 2000's Pop Punk was very in your face. This isn't mid-2000's Emo Pop where Edgar Allen Poe-rejects wrote failed musicals and tried to pass it off as "Pop Punk" and "Emo"; the early 2000's retained that loud extreme vibe that was fully established in 1998. You're forgetting about bands like the Riddlin' Kids who were very playful and carefree and Home Grown who were even more sarcastic than The Offspring ever were. Simple Plan were also a very snotty band and there is nothing at all dark about them. You're also forgetting songs like Have You Ever, End Of the Line and No Breaks. Those songs are very stern and dark that deal with serious topic like depression and suicide much like Sum 41 did on DTLI. Americana had a pretty dark tone on a lot of songs; it wasn't all Pretty Fly fun and games. You're also forgetting bands like Authority Zero who got big in 2002 playing both a mid-90's Ska Punk sound and a mid-90's Epi-Fat Bad Religion sound, loud guitars and all. Early 2000's Pop Punk was not sterner and darker. Even Good Charlotte, who had songs about the struggles of growing up poor, still had their fair share of goofy and light-hearted songs. Definitely not much more dark than the late 90's stuff. I don't see how albums like Drunk Enough to Dance, Sticks and Stones, Last Stop Suburbia, Say What You're Thinking, All Killer No Filler and No Pads are darker than anything that came out in the late 90's. You already had "dark" albums like How Far Shallow Takes You, a good amount of Americana and even a couple of songs from Act Your Age (like the song Suffer which was a hit on KROQ), etc. Even "dark" Pop Punk albums will always have a good amount of light-hearted songs to balance it out.


The differences between late 90s and early 2000s pop punk is not huge, but the nuances still distinguish albums from both periods.  I doubt The Anthem or Girl All the Bad Guys Want would've been huge hits in 1997 as they were in 2003.


Not in 1997 but in 1998 and 1999, sure. They certainly fit the vibe of the times, especially Girl All The Bad Guys Want. I'd think most people in my age group would agree. The nuances exist between 1996/1997 albums and whatever came out afterwards because those two years are a transition from the mid-90's to late 90's/early 00's sound but they're still predominately mid 90's.


Not really.  Does This Look Infected is much more studio-engineered, whereas Twisted By Design is identifiably late 90s with its fairly lucid, yet recklessly brisk and mildly raw production, just like Blink-182's Dude Ranch.  It doesn't feel nearly as heavy handed as DTLI.


You are aware all these albums are produced the same way, right? That the Epi-Fat albums started the industry standard for over-produced Pop Punk? Greg Nori used the same techniques that Ryan Greene did. All produced, tracked and recorded the exact same way in the same studios. I bet you wouldn't believe these late 90's albums actually use a fair amount of Auto Tune and digital editing but it's true. They're definitely not raw in any sense of the word. Thanks For Nothing literally has the exact same D minor chord progression as a million Offspring and Bad Religion songs. The less metallic songs on the album either resemble Green Day (ex. My Direction, All Messed Up) or The Offspring (ex. The Hell Song, Thanks For Nothing). The Sum 41 album has, what, slightly louder guitars than Strung Out? The production is hardly different. Listen to the Strung Out songs like Ultimate Devotion, Reason to Believe and Ice Burn and then listen to Sum 41 songs like Hooch, Billy Spleen and Hyper-Insomnia-Para-Condrioid. It's the same genre of music. You know what all those songs have in common, too? They're all dark and deal with topics like suicide, uncertainty and depression yet three are from the late 90's and three are from the early 2000's. 


Bad Religion?  Their brief stint with the mainstream was with Stranger Than Fiction in the mid-90s, which is what I associate that style more with, anyway, though yes, it was already present back in the late 80s (i.e., The Offspring's self-titled debut).  Just like post-grunge, I see pop punk in the late 90s as strictly bridging its mid-90s incarnation with its early 2000s style.  Ixnay on the Hombre, Dude Ranch, and Anywhere But Here are all strong representations of this.


Oh no, I didn't know what you meant. I was asking you if by "late 90's sound" you meant the Bad Religion sound. You are aware that I was there in the mid-90's when Stranger Than Fiction broke out, right? I got into Punk Rock through Smash, Dookie and that album. They were on a major from 1994's Stranger up to 2000's New America. They had a come back in 2002 (showcasing that the mid 90's sound was still extremely strong in 2002) with Process (Don't be fooled. Once Smash came out Epitaph became a mini major). All those albums are from 1997, though and represent the mid 90's more than the late 90's. Act Your Age and Enema of The State represent the late 90's best.



Man Overboard continued blink-182's chart success in-between albums, but my point was that other pop punk bands didn't enter their peaks until after TOYPAJ came out.


Most people will tell you blink peaked in 1999. TOYPAJ was Enema part 2 but it wasn't the same breakthrough as Enema.


They never disappeared from the public spotlight until the very end of pop punk's existence in the mainstream at the turn of the decade, but they certainly weren't reaching Smash levels of success anymore.

Yeah, but the Offspring were undeniably a huge, huge band in the early 2000's. They were the biggest 1994-breakthrough band of 1998-2003. Much bigger than Green Day was until American Idiot came and f*cked up Pop Punk.


Enema of the State is just one album, though.  Take Off Your Pants and Jacket and Self-Titled were nearly just as successful, and neither was neither the only massive pop punk success that year.  2003 is really more the peak of early 2000s pop punk.


2003? Huh? 2003 was the end of the late 90's and early 00's Pop Punk. The self-titled signified the end of that era which was already starting to fall apart mid-2003. Also, nobody I've known has ever called 2003 the peak of Pop Punk. 1994, yes. 1999, yes. 2003? Never. It didn't do nearly as well as Enema and Take Off did, either.


Having a discussion about female vocalists in rock is much more complex than can be confined to the 90s and 2000s, as you had artists like Joan Jett and Pat Benatar back in the early 80s, not to mention singers like Janis Joplin broke a lot of ground for women in rock & roll back in the late 60s.  At the very least, the Donnas recording music that appeared on the soundtrack to a Disney movie starring Lindsay Lohan says a lot about where they were by the mid-2000s.


I was gonna mention Joan Jett in my post but I wanted to keep the discussion to the 90's and 2000's. Also, late 70's moreso than early 80's. The Donnas should of stayed Pop Punk.


It's definitely poppy, poppier than mid-90s post-grunge like Silverchair's Tomorrow and Bush's Comedown, but it isn't as clean-cut, adult contemporary oriented as their later albums.  Its production is a little rockier and thus identifiably late 90s.


Most of the songs sound like late 90's/early 00's Goo Goo Dolls outtakes but Push is leaning on the Post-Grunge side.


The difference though is that they weren't breaking into mainstream success the way other groups were at the time.  Korn, if anything, were already well-known in the mid-90s with their first two albums, although they didn't bridge the genre with post-grunge the way bands like TrustCompany or even Staind were.


You mean Jimmie's Chicken Shack? They were a big band from 1997 to 1999. That's true. TrustCompany and Staind are 50/50 Post-Grunge and Nu Metal.


The State is definitely transitioning into the group's early 2000s style, but it's still not entirely 2000s-style blatant adult radio-geared kitsch.  Ironically, too, the album's biggest song (Leader of Men) is the most 90s of the bunch and has much more of a tendency towards grunge than country like their more well-known work.  Curb is definitely not 2000s; like Leader of Men, the album is more of a Nirvana knockoff, following in the footsteps of Bush, although the content is more repetitive than Sixteen Stone.


It sounds very, very early 2000's to me. Even Leader of Men, especially the chorus. It isn't at all different from what they were doing in 2001/2002. Nickelback didn't start leaning towards Country until All The Right Reasons with crap like Photograph. Listen to the song "Little Friend". Sounds pretty 2000's. Songs like Fly are more mid-90's. 50/50.


People do bash all post-grunge; Bush and Collective Soul, for example, were quite derided when they first became popular in the mid-90s.  The thing is, though, while they certainly aren't as revered as real grunge bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, a lot of people are still able to at least find some merit in the mid-90s stuff, as well as the late 90s stuff on the occasion.  Silverchair, Live, Bush, and the like aren't constantly joked around as the worst bands in the world the way Creed and Nickelback have been for ages, even well beyond their periods of fame.  Post-grunge is not nearly as black and white as you seem to treat it.  I can't possibly categorize songs like Tomorrow, Comedown, or Selling the Drama with fluffy 2000s stuff like Lips of an Angel and Photograph.  That's why I prefer to call bands from 2000-2010 pop post-grunge, separate from 1993-1999 post-grunge that actually genuinely tries to emulate the Seattle bands, as opposed to going full-on pop while borrowing only the basic instrumentation of regular grunge.


I'm not treating it as black and white at all but it has a very specific sound that people tend to ignore. You also categorizing mid 2000's Rock (which is pretty much Post Post Grunge) with the early 2000's Post-Grunge. Not the greatest example. Songs like Blurry or Stupid Girl aren't "fluffy" and have a more harder edge much like the stuff from 1997-1999. 2000-2003 Post-Grunge was one thing. 2003-2010 Alt. Metal is another. 1993-1995 Post-Grunge was also very different than anything 1996/1997 onward. Neither tried to emulate the "Seattle sound" well. It just took an already terrible, watered-down genre and made it worse.


I guess we can agree the shift was late 2001. My original point was that there was a shift in 2001/2002 that was bigger than the one in 2006 lol.


I don't. I think the big shift was in mid-late 2003.

There wasn't a huge shift in 2006.  There were differences between the first half and the second half of the year, but it wasn't a major shift and whether or not you felt it depended largely where you were in your personal life at the time.  One thing you can say is 2006 was the year that the last holdovers from the '90s disappeared. 

I also don't lump 2008 in with the early 2010s.  I will concede 2009 to the '10s but 2008 was a distinctly '00s year.  I don't care if "Just Dance" was on the radio in the fall of that year, when you look at the events of the year as a whole and its culture, it was far more '00s than '10s.

There wasn't a huge shift in 2006.  There were differences between the first half and the second half of the year, but it wasn't a major shift and whether or not you felt it depended largely where you were in your personal life at the time.  One thing you can say is 2006 was the year that the last holdovers from the '90s disappeared. 

I also don't lump 2008 in with the early 2010s.  I will concede 2009 to the '10s but 2008 was a distinctly '00s year.  I don't care if "Just Dance" was on the radio in the fall of that year, when you look at the events of the year as a whole and its culture, it was far more '00s than '10s.

September- Dec 2008  was pretty much early 2010s culture tho

thats 4 months

September- Dec 2008  was pretty much early 2010s culture tho

thats 4 months


Nope.  See my post here.  Everything in my OP applies to the second half of 2008 as much as it does the first.

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=52539.0

In hindsight, people tend to view 2008 as being a lot more '10s than it really was simply because of Obama's election and Lady Gaga's first hit, "Just Dance."  This was only the beginning of the transition though, which picked up steam in January 2009 with Obama's inauguration and continued throughout 2009.  The cultural 2010s had fully arrived in the fall of 2009.  2009 was the real transition as there was a pretty big difference between January 2009 and December 2009.

Here are the top 10 Billboard songs for December 13, 2008.  Other than song #5 and arguably #6, do any of these songs sound '10s?

1. Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) - Beyonce
2. Live Your Life - T.I. Featuring Rihanna
3. If I Were A Boy - Beyonce
4. Whatever You Like - T.I.
5. Just Dance - Lady GaGa Featuring Colby O'Donis
6. Hot N Cold - Katy Perry
7. Miss Independent - Ne-Yo
8. So What - Pink
9. Womanizer - Britney Spears
10. I'm Yours - Jason Mraz

There wasn't a huge shift in 2006.  There were differences between the first half and the second half of the year, but it wasn't a major shift and whether or not you felt it depended largely where you were in your personal life at the time.  One thing you can say is 2006 was the year that the last holdovers from the '90s disappeared. 


The last breath of late 90's influences was around 2003. For 2006 a better way you can say it is that it was the last year of early 2000's influences. BTW, while most people get this, don't get the word "culture" and "influence" confused. 2 completely different terms.

Here are the top 10 Billboard songs for December 13, 2008.  Other than song #5 and arguably #6, do any of these songs sound '10s?

1. Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) - Beyonce
2. Live Your Life - T.I. Featuring Rihanna
3. If I Were A Boy - Beyonce
4. Whatever You Like - T.I.
5. Just Dance - Lady GaGa Featuring Colby O'Donis
6. Hot N Cold - Katy Perry
7. Miss Independent - Ne-Yo
8. So What - Pink
9. Womanizer - Britney Spears
10. I'm Yours - Jason Mraz


Those two I have in bold do. 2008 was still clearly a late 2000's cultural year for most of the time.

September- Dec 2008  was pretty much early 2010s culture tho

thats 4 months


Not quite. That was just the beginning of the transition period between late 2000's and early 2010's culture. Remember late 2008-mid 2009 was like half late 2000's culture and half early 2010's culture. It was not predominantly late 2000's culture or early 2010's culture though. Late 2008-mid 2009 can't be fully late 2000's when late 2006-mid 2008 is what mostly defined late 2000's culture, while it can't be fully early 2010's either when late 2009-mid 2012 is what mostly defined early 2010's culture. I have my reasons ;)

For me, the difference between early 2006 and late 2006 is that early 2006 was ok, whereas late 06 sucked (IMHO).

I won't get into great detail over this music discussion, JordanK1982, because you're far more familiar with these rock movements as they happened, being a decade older than me (even though I grew up in Southern California and had plenty of friends who listened to 90s and 2000s punk and pop punk, in addition to listening to it myself), I just think I'm focusing on differences that line up with my view of 2001 being the transition from the Y2K era to the regular 2000s, whereas you extend the transition to 2003.


It sounds very, very early 2000's to me. Even Leader of Men, especially the chorus. It isn't at all different from what they were doing in 2001/2002. Nickelback didn't start leaning towards Country until All The Right Reasons with crap like Photograph. Listen to the song "Little Friend". Sounds pretty 2000's. Songs like Fly are more mid-90's. 50/50.

I'm not treating it as black and white at all but it has a very specific sound that people tend to ignore. You also categorizing mid 2000's Rock (which is pretty much Post Post Grunge) with the early 2000's Post-Grunge. Not the greatest example. Songs like Blurry or Stupid Girl aren't "fluffy" and have a more harder edge much like the stuff from 1997-1999. 2000-2003 Post-Grunge was one thing. 2003-2010 Alt. Metal is another. 1993-1995 Post-Grunge was also very different than anything 1996/1997 onward. Neither tried to emulate the "Seattle sound" well. It just took an already terrible, watered-down genre and made it worse.

It's obvious you're in a very different place than me over post-grunge.  I prefer the regular grunge bands that first formed in the 80s and exploded in the 90s, but I still enjoy a lot of 90s post-grunge, too.  Sixteen Stone, Throwing Copper, Secret Samadhi, Clumsy, and Frogstomp are especially great.  Honestly, much of the mid-90s post-grunge is closer to regular grunge than the Nickelback/Hinder/Hoobastank pop post-grunge from the 2000s (not all of it - Collective Soul, for example, were pretty poppy in the 2000s sense from the start); do you really think Tomorrow by Silverchair or Comedown by Bush are horrendous songs that are several times inferior to Nirvana just because they weren't part of the original movement?  The former song, especially is anything but generic love Chuck, critiquing a privileged subject's inability to relate to an impoverished, underrepresented community (essentially one of the exact same themes that fueled grunge in the first place); that's pretty heavy stuff, considering the band members were younger than Britney Spears was when she released Baby One More Time.  There's also the Foo Fighters, who are categorized as post-grunge but have retained both popularity, as well as positive reviews to this day.  Most 2000s post-grunge, I'll agree is really repetitive, although that doesn't prevent me from enjoying a lot of songs, at least from the early 2000s side.  Photograph is a pretty lame track, for sure.

I'd replace 2005 with 2009. But that's just me! ;)


He already listed 2009, and 1997 for examples so the ones I listed are additional.


I remember you compared 2005-2008 with 1989-1992, so do you think that 2001-2004 was similar to 1985-1988? ???


According to my 16-year parallel theory, yes. However the early 00's were a darker version of the mid 80's (kind of like how the mid-10's are a darker version of the late 90's/Y2K era), especially because of 9/11. The space shuttle disaster was the only thing close, and there was another one in 2003. I did notice some similarities between 2002 and 1986, especially with Bon Jovi's comeback. Also Peter Gabriel released an album that was decent. 2003 on the other hand had very little similarities to 1987. That year reminded me more of 1991 (Iraq War, Terminator movie, The OC being the new 90210). Now 2004 and 1988 had very similar vibes, especially politically with Bush against a strange looking Democrat candidate from Mass, and a feel-good/optimistic vibe.

Now regarding 2006, that year supports my theory in that it was very similar to 1990. I felt it was a very culturally bland year that lacked good music and movies. Just like how I remember 1989 being so much better than 1990, I felt the same about 2005 vs. 2006. One thing that everyone seems to have forgotten about that happened in 2006 was this:

laynXVsBulg

At least in 1990, Vanilla Ice had his 6 months of fame and is still remembered today.

In terms of video games, I think you are overestimating the significance of late 90s video game consoles during the 2001-2002 school year.  As a kid in 2001, it seemed like everybody was hyped up about the GameCube and original XBOX, not to mention Grand Theft Auto III.  I remember the first time I laid eyes upon Super Smash Bros. Melee at my local Fry's, where the Adventure Mode was being displayed on a big screen, and I was absolutely mesmerized by what I saw.  It was such a huge leap to see 3D graphics that actually looked rounded and expressive after the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation 1.  The GameCube, along with SSBM, were at the very top of my Christmas list in 2001, and I'm sure they were for a lot of other people as well.  Even if they didn't ask for the GameCube, a lot of kids I knew at least asked for the original XBOX, complete with Halo.  Others still simply bought the PS2, which by that year already had a massive catalogue of killer apps, including SSX Tricky, Gran Turismo 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Jak and Daxter, and the aforementioned Grand Theft Auto III.  In addition to all of this, the Game Boy Advance came out in the summer of 2001; I got mine for my ninth birthday party in August, packaged with Super Mario Advance, though there were plenty of other notable titles that year such as Mario Kart Super Circuit, Castlevania: Circle of the Moon, and Wario Land 4, the latter of which is one of my favorite 2D platforms of all time.  At the same time, this didn't stop me from playing Pokémon Crystal, which I got that same birthday I got my Game Boy Advance, but by late 2001, I felt we had undeniably entered a completely new era of gaming from where we were in late 1996-early 2001.  Even if you weren't first to buy the new consoles, you can't overlook the impact they had when they came out.

SIGH... Well, not everyone can get brand new consoles when they are released! I did get the game boy advanced for my 6th birthday in 2001. But didn't get the PS2 until 2002/03ish. I do remember kids in my class and school being excited for the PS2 and even the GameCube in late 01 and early 02, even though we had our N64 and some PS1s. But I got my PS2 a year 1/2 later. I still played my N64 until the 2002-03 school year. 

SIGH... Well, not everyone can get brand new consoles when they are released! I did get the game boy advanced for my 6th birthday in 2001. But didn't get the PS2 until 2002/03ish. I do remember kids in my class and school being excited for the PS2 and even the GameCube in late 01 and early 02, even though we had our N64 and some PS1s. But I got my PS2 a year 1/2 later. I still played my N64 until the 2002-03 school year.


The thing is, though, 2001 was when the sixth generation produced its best games (though you could also make an argument for 2004, especially if you're factoring in PC gaming).  Just because people still owned and played their previous generation consoles after the new ones came out doesn't mean the the new generation wasn't relevant yet.  The 2001-2002 school was a very different atmosphere from the 2000-2001 school year, during which the DreamCast and PS2 were out, but the former was rapidly declining popularity and the latter didn't have many worthwhile games besides SSX yet, and both were clearly nowhere near as popular as the Nintendo 64.  People at my school in 2001-2002 were completely all about the Game Boy Advance, GameCube, original XBOX, and PS2 to my recollection, and this is well before I started attending my private high school full of rich kids.

It's the same as comparing the 1996-1997 school year to the 1995-1996 school year, during which the Saturn and PS1 were out, but the biggest games were still predominantly coming out on the Super Nintendo, like Chrono Trigger, DKC2, Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, and Super Mario RPG; by the 1996-1997 school year, however, the fifth generation was clearly dominant.  This situation also applies with the 2013-2014 school year versus the 2012-2013 school year; the latter was when the Wii U was already released but the eighth generation of gaming clearly hadn't truly taken off yet, and it wouldn't until the holiday season of 2013.

The thing is, though, 2001 was when the sixth generation produced its best games (though you could also make an argument for 2004, especially if you're factoring in PC gaming). \ of 2013.


That's very controversial. 6th generation had many great titles in 2003 & 2004 too, not just 2001. That's like saying that the Wii's best titles came out in 2007, when IMO it's best titles were in 2008. The XBOX 360 and PS3's best titles were spread out throughout the late 2000's and early 2010's. I can't even pick a year.

SIGH... Well, not everyone can get brand new consoles when they are released!


BINGO!!!! This applies to almost everyone. Not everybody gets new consoles right away during the year it was released. I didn't get a Wii until Christmas 2007, which a year after its original release. I didn't get a Gamecube until my 7th birthday in 2003, which was a year and 3 months after its original release. I didn't get a Nintendo DS until May 2006, again, a year and 6 months after its original release. I didn't get an XBOX until Christmas 2004, which was 3 years after it had long been out! When the XBOX 360 was just coming out the following year, but TBH, the XBOX 360's peak was yet to come during its first few years. The excitement and craze for it being brand new was there during the mid 2000's, but its peak didn't begin until the late 2000's, and its best titles and games were arguably in the early 2010's in some aspects.

I won't get into great detail over this music discussion, JordanK1982, because you're far more familiar with these rock movements as they happened, being a decade older than me (even though I grew up in Southern California and had plenty of friends who listened to 90s and 2000s punk and pop punk, in addition to listening to it myself), I just think I'm focusing on differences that line up with my view of 2001 being the transition from the Y2K era to the regular 2000s, whereas you extend the transition to 2003.

It's obvious you're in a very different place than me over post-grunge.  I prefer the regular grunge bands that first formed in the 80s and exploded in the 90s, but I still enjoy a lot of 90s post-grunge, too.  Sixteen Stone, Throwing Copper, Secret Samadhi, Clumsy, and Frogstomp are especially great.  Honestly, much of the mid-90s post-grunge is closer to regular grunge than the Nickelback/Hinder/Hoobastank pop post-grunge from the 2000s (not all of it - Collective Soul, for example, were pretty poppy in the 2000s sense from the start); do you really think Tomorrow by Silverchair or Comedown by Bush are horrendous songs that are several times inferior to Nirvana just because they weren't part of the original movement?  The former song, especially is anything but generic love Chuck, critiquing a privileged subject's inability to relate to an impoverished, underrepresented community (essentially one of the exact same themes that fueled grunge in the first place); that's pretty heavy stuff, considering the band members were younger than Britney Spears was when she released Baby One More Time.  There's also the Foo Fighters, who are categorized as post-grunge but have retained both popularity, as well as positive reviews to this day.  Most 2000s post-grunge, I'll agree is really repetitive, although that doesn't prevent me from enjoying a lot of songs, at least from the early 2000s side.  Photograph is a pretty lame track, for sure.


Rad, Cali-pride, dude. I'm happy to agree to disagree. I found this an enjoyable debate because it allowed me to go into details about my all time favorite genre. I guess that's it, yeah. Our views on the Y2K era are pretty different based on our experiences and whatnot which affects the way we see this music and all that stuff. 

Actually, I don't really like actual Grunge in general. Nirvana is the only Grunge band I like. Kurt, Krist and Dave seemed like genuine and cool dudes whereas Pearl Jam and Soundgarden seemed like bad buttrock. I agree with you, actually. Mid-90's Post-Grunge is extremely close to the actual Grunge style itself that it's hard to separate the two but I definitely think around 1996 and 1997, you can start to hear the "Post" style truly take form. You know, I actually saw Silverchair open for blink-182 in 1999 on the Enema tour. Didn't really like them, but whatever. I think they're inferior because nothing beats Nirvana but they're on the same level as bands like Mudhoney as far as I'm concerned. I don't really consider the Foo's a Post-Grunge band. Even the first album, it's more Grunge than anything (going back to what we were talking about above) but the second album honestly sounds like an Emo and Pop Punk album on a couple of songs. My Hero and Everlong? I can totally tell they stole a Sunny Day Real Estate member because of those songs. I can't really call a lot of their stuff Post-Grunge. It's literally Post-Grunge because it's Post-Nirvana but musically feels so far removed from what else was happening at the time. Alt. Rock seems like a better term. The Foo's first four albums are pretty rad, though. I see why you'd enjoy the mid-90's up to early 00's Post-Grunge songs. I can see the charm and charisma in these bands and why people like them and I'd rather listen to Too Bad and How You Remind Me over crap like Photograph and Animals any day.

The thing is, though, 2001 was when the sixth generation produced its best games (though you could also make an argument for 2004, especially if you're factoring in PC gaming).  Just because people still owned and played their previous generation consoles after the new ones came out doesn't mean the the new generation wasn't relevant yet.  The 2001-2002 school was a very different atmosphere from the 2000-2001 school year, during which the DreamCast and PS2 were out, but the former was rapidly declining popularity and the latter didn't have many worthwhile games besides SSX yet, and both were clearly nowhere near as popular as the Nintendo 64.  People at my school in 2001-2002 were completely all about the Game Boy Advance, GameCube, original XBOX, and PS2 to my recollection, and this is well before I started attending my private high school full of rich kids.

Yeah... I'd say 2004 was when the 6th gen overall had the best games. That might have been the peak of that gen overall. Grand Theft Auto San Andres, Jak 3, WWE Day of Recokning, Half Life 2, Halo 2, Doom 3, Star Wars Battle Front, MGS 3, Fable, Ninja Gaiden, Sly Cooper 2, Spiderman 2. Damn that was a good year to be an XBOX fan. But yeah, I can see where you're coming from since we lived in different areas. The Original XBOX was not that popular at my school very much from what I remember; PS2 and Gamecube were the rage during the second half of the 2001-02 school year. The first half of the school year on the other hand; a lot my friends my age group were still heavily into 5th gen.

That's very controversial. 6th generation had many great titles in 2003 & 2004 too, not just 2001. That's like saying that the Wii's best titles came out in 2007, when IMO it's best titles were in 2008. The XBOX 360 and PS3's best titles were spread out throughout the late 2000's and early 2010's. I can't even pick a year.

yup 2003 and 2004 were probably the best years for 6th gen. Best 7th gen years; probably 2007 and 2011.

BINGO!!!! This applies to almost everyone. Not everybody gets new consoles right away during the year it was released. I didn't get a Wii until Christmas 2007, which a year after its original release. I didn't get a Gamecube until my 7th birthday in 2003, which was a year and 3 months after its original release. I didn't get a Nintendo DS until May 2006, again, a year and 6 months after its original release. I didn't get an XBOX until Christmas 2004, which was 3 years after it had long been out! When the XBOX 360 was just coming out the following year, but TBH, the XBOX 360's peak was yet to come during its first few years. The excitement and craze for it being brand new was there during the mid 2000's, but its peak didn't begin until the late 2000's, and its best titles and games were arguably in the early 2010's in some aspects.

Yup, get my N64 3 years after it had been out. Gameboy color 2 years after it was released.
At least you got your XBOX when it was at it's peak. I got mine for christmas of 2006; after it was pretty much past it's prime. So that's the FINAL console I associate with my childhood; since I got my XBOX 360 when I was 12/13 in 2008.
Now, If I gotten the Wii in 2006 instead of the orignal XBOX; that would be a different story.

Yup, get my N64 3 years after it had been out. Gameboy color 2 years after it was released.
At least you got your XBOX when it was at it's peak. I got mine for christmas of 2006; after it was pretty much past it's prime. So that's the FINAL console I associate with my childhood; since I got my XBOX 360 when I was 12/13 in 2008.
Now, If I gotten the Wii in 2006 instead of the orignal XBOX; that would be a different story.


I guess my main point was that 5th generation games were no longer at the forefront of definitive culture of present day so much as they were just holdovers from the previous era.  I'm sure a lot of people still played their Nintendo 64 in 2002 and 2003 (I know I did, even though I got the GameCube for Christmas in 2001), in the same way a lot of people still bought or played Super Nintendo in 1997 and 1998, but in both cases, these systems began to drastically lose sales and significant new games, due to the industry's full investment in the new generation.  After Donkey Kong Country 3 in November 1996, there were no truly significant games released for the Super Nintendo, and 1997 was pretty much 100% defined by the 5th generation in terms of new releases.  Similarly, the Nintendo 64 didn't have any truly notable new exclusives after the first half of 2001, not to mention the system was discontinued just a year later.  The PS1, to be fair, did live on as a cheap alternative to the PS2 through 2006, and even produced some notable exclusive software, such as the first three home ports of Dance Dance Revolution, but far and large, the PS2 was much more significant to popular culture in general beginning in 2001.  Similar to PS1 during the 6th generation, the NES was still on the market during the cultural early 90s, but it sales went drastically down as soon as Sonic the Hedgehog and the SNES were released, despite still attracting some third party developers, as well as producing Kirby's Adventure during that time; the system was nowhere near as huge as it was in the late 80s.

While I can understand why somebody would consider 1995-1996 a 4th generation school year and 2000-2001 5th generation, it's a complete exaggeration to say that we were still predominantly in the 4th generation of gaming during the 1996-1997 school year and 5th generation during the 2001-2002 school year, respectively, considering the most popular new titles at the time were for next-generation platforms and the newer systems were now far outselling the old, even if the latter survived in certain cases.  Saying that would be like stating the mid-2000s were still the golden eras for Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon, simply because reruns of Cartoon Cartoons, pre-movie Spongebob, etc., were still on the channel.  It would also be like saying 1997 was still a mid-90s year for music because you first bought your copies of All Eyez on Me and (What's the Story) Morning Glory in July 1997 or something, even though musical acts like Puffy, Hanson, Spice Girls, and Savage Garden were way more relevant to the current charts at that time.  Of course not everybody buys the next-generation video game console as soon as it comes out or even enters its peak - that would imply GameCube and original XBOX sales were through the roof during the 2001 holiday season but then suddenly plummeted to like 2% of that in 2002 - but as far as what was being released and hyped about most, the 2001/2002 school year was undeniably dominated by 6th generation video game consoles.

SIGH... Well, not everyone can get brand new consoles when they are released!

I wait a couple of years to get the new consoles until they're down in price.

Second half of 2006 LIKE I HAVE SAID, feels slightly different leaning more towards late 2000s

Second half of 2006 LIKE I HAVE SAID, feels slightly different leaning more towards late 2000s


Agree with this.  The second half of 2006 had a noticeably different feel from the first half.  Still classic '00s, but things were trending towards the late '00s feel.  I personally think that was a great time.  Music was improving and the economy was at its strongest prior to the Great Recession.  That was also when I was 21 and had alcohol for the first time, which led to drastic improvement in my social life.  I also consider that to be an excellent time for television, with serial dramas like 24, Prison Break, and LOST.  That was also when The Office really started to become popular.

Agree with this.  The second half of 2006 had a noticeably different feel from the first half.  Still classic '00s, but things were trending towards the late '00s feel.  I personally think that was a great time.  Music was improving and the economy was at its strongest prior to the Great Recession.  That was also when I was 21 and had alcohol for the first time, which led to drastic improvement in my social life.  I also consider that to be an excellent time for television, with serial dramas like 24, Prison Break, and LOST.  That was also when The Office really started to become popular.


The economy in 2006 was terrible from what I remember. Not Great Recession terrible, but it wasn't exactly roaring like the late 90s  (and early 2000s here in Canada).

Looking at old data, there was indeed a huge unemployment spike in 2003/2004, and 2006 was coming down from it, but labour participation was way down. I remember Republicans scapegoating and blaming it on illegal immigrants too instead of doing their job properly. Dark times lol, at least poltiically.

The economy in 2006 was terrible from what I remember. Not Great Recession terrible, but it wasn't exactly roaring like the late 90s  (and early 2000s here in Canada).

Looking at old data, there was indeed a huge unemployment spike in 2003/2004, and 2006 was coming down from it, but labour participation was way down. I remember Republicans scapegoating and blaming it on illegal immigrants too instead of doing their job properly. Dark times lol, at least poltiically.


The real issue in 2006 with the economy was offshoring and H1-B visas taking American jobs.  Still, that was the best year for the economy since 2000 and was the height of the real estate bubble.

Politically, Iraq overshadowed the economy and everything else.  Public opinion was against the war by that year and it led to Democrats taking over both houses of Congress that November.

The economy in 2006 was terrible from what I remember. Not Great Recession terrible, but it wasn't exactly roaring like the late 90s  (and early 2000s here in Canada).

Looking at old data, there was indeed a huge unemployment spike in 2003/2004, and 2006 was coming down from it, but labour participation was way down. I remember Republicans scapegoating and blaming it on illegal immigrants too instead of doing their job properly. Dark times lol, at least poltiically.


unemployment was very low in 2006

unemployment was very low in 2006


Yeah but economic growth was slow in 2006, I distinctly remember people not being confident in the economy in the mid and late 2000s even before the recession  ;D

Unemployment was really low in 2006 as you said, but in the coming months unemployment would jump in 2007 and then a massive spike in 2008. The economic conditions for this would be laid down in 2006, which had slow economic growth.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

Yeah but economic growth was slow in 2006, I distinctly remember people not being confident in the economy in the mid and late 2000s even before the recession  ;D

Unemployment was really low in 2006 as you said, but in the coming months unemployment would jump in 2007 and then a massive spike in 2008. The economic conditions for this would be laid down in 2006, which had slow economic growth.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/


Were people really talking about that? It could be that I was not paying attention to MSNBC or bloomberg then lol  I would say the earliest signs of that feeling would be early 2007, I remember teachers were calling out alot during that time,  but it was because of budget reasons.  No clue if the teachers not showing up as much to school had anything to do with the economy, but it seemed like everyday a teacher was out and a sub had to come in.

It could be my school lacked the funds to even pay them tbh