Curious on your thoughts on Mono Pop culture and Fragmented Pop Culture. For those curious Mono culture pretty much describes a lot of the 20th century decades. Mono culture is what causes the "Shared Experience" where a you'll have millions of people who are all experiencing the same set of things at around the same exact time. If there is a popular artist or song you'd most likely knew about since during the eras of mono culture there were only 3 TV networks or radio stations that only played a limited amount of songs.  This is what usually causes people to claim that previous decades had their own distinct feel or style due to there being  limited amount of things that would set trends throughout the decade. Fragmented culture is what we have today. Where thinks to things like the internet, 1000+ TV channels, Rise of indie fame etc pop culture is no longer centered around just a handful of trends or specific aspects within pop culture. In 1980s if a hit artist/song was popular you'd know about it.

In the 2010s a popular artist may get featured and you'd ask "who's that?". In the 1970s Disco was everywhere and everyone knew about Disco. In the 2010s you'd mention something like Nu-Disco and people wouldn't have a slight clue about Nu-Disco. They'd mention that they know about 70's Disco, but wouldn't know the creation and success of Nu-Disco due to the fact that unlike the 1970s with Disco Nu-Disco wasn't in your face all the
time.

There is nothing truly wrong with Mono and/or Fragmented pop culture, but people do like to prefer one or the other. Mono's shared experience made certain pop cultural aspects feel grand due to the fact that nearly everyone is experiencing them at around the same time. Fragmented's effect of having people who doesn't have to follow any trends and can dive into their own interests away from everything else.

Actually, in terms of content itself, the 2010s are more of a monoculture than the 80s, 90s, and 00s. Sure there may be more outlets to access such content, but obviously today's movies, T.V. shows, fashion, music, all adhere to a smaller number of styles. Sure we have 1000+ channels, internet, streaming services, but the only type of shows that appeals to the audience of the 2010s would be overly-dark, pretentious, HBO-esque, dramas (Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Revenge, House of Cards, etc.). We are also getting these bland, unrelatable, pretentious, hipsteresque comedies (The Mindy Project, Broad City, Girls, Modern Family, etc.). People like me, whose tastes are drawn towards the shows of previous decades, are completely disregarded and left out in the dust. Same with fashion. Most of fashion today is geared towards hipster styles. Tight pants, undercut haircuts/man buns, bland, vomit-inducing colors, etc. Very few, if any alternatives are offered towards the hipster trend.

As for music, it's pretty safe to say that most people prefer today's (very limited) top 40 hits. There is a HUGE gap between mainstream artists and underground artists. The mainstream offers very little in terms of styles and genres. However, it dominates the entire industry, and anyone who doesn't adhere to those few styles will NEVER get noticed in the current climate. The only "indie" groups that get noticed are those bland hipster/folk pop bands. And the only reason they get noticed is because they are appealing to a mainstream trend. Could you imagine heavier rock bands like Salems Lott or Jett Black ever getting any mainstream attention in the 2010s? The answer is no. As for people not knowing what Nu-Disco is, I don't think it really matters. People know the musicians who follow that style, and follow said musicians.

So to answer you're question, in terms of formats and outlets, we may be living in a fragmented culture. However in terms of the content itself, as well as the general public's tastes, we are actually living in a mono culture.

Isn't mono a sickness?

Actually, in terms of content itself, the 2010s are more of a monoculture than the 80s, 90s, and 00s. Sure there may be more outlets to access such content, but obviously today's movies, T.V. shows, fashion, music, all adhere to a smaller number of styles. Sure we have 1000+ channels, internet, streaming services, but the only type of shows that appeals to the audience of the 2010s would be overly-dark, pretentious, HBO-esque, dramas (Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Revenge, House of Cards, etc.). We are also getting these bland, unrelatable, pretentious, hipsteresque comedies (The Mindy Project, Broad City, Girls, Modern Family, etc.). People like me, whose tastes are drawn towards the shows of previous decades, are completely disregarded and left out in the dust. Same with fashion. Most of fashion today is geared towards hipster styles. Tight pants, undercut haircuts/man buns, bland, vomit-inducing colors, etc. Very few, if any alternatives are offered towards the hipster trend.

As for music, it's pretty safe to say that most people prefer today's (very limited) top 40 hits. There is a HUGE gap between mainstream artists and underground artists. The mainstream offers very little in terms of styles and genres. However, it dominates the entire industry, and anyone who doesn't adhere to those few styles will NEVER get noticed in the current climate. The only "indie" groups that get noticed are those bland hipster/folk pop bands. And the only reason they get noticed is because they are appealing to a mainstream trend. Could you imagine heavier rock bands like Salems Lott or Jett Black ever getting any mainstream attention in the 2010s? The answer is no. As for people not knowing what Nu-Disco is, I don't think it really matters. People know the musicians who follow that style, and follow said musicians.

So to answer you're question, in terms of formats and outlets, we may be living in a fragmented culture. However in terms of the content itself, as well as the general public's tastes, we are actually living in a mono culture.


What do you qualify as bland hipster/folk bands?

I think the term hipster is misused waay too much on this board.

Actually, in terms of content itself, the 2010s are more of a monoculture than the 80s, 90s, and 00s. Sure there may be more outlets to access such content, but obviously today's movies, T.V. shows, fashion, music, all adhere to a smaller number of styles. Sure we have 1000+ channels, internet, streaming services, but the only type of shows that appeals to the audience of the 2010s would be overly-dark, pretentious, HBO-esque, dramas (Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Revenge, House of Cards, etc.). We are also getting these bland, unrelatable, pretentious, hipsteresque comedies (The Mindy Project, Broad City, Girls, Modern Family, etc.). People like me, whose tastes are drawn towards the shows of previous decades, are completely disregarded and left out in the dust. Same with fashion. Most of fashion today is geared towards hipster styles. Tight pants, undercut haircuts/man buns, bland, vomit-inducing colors, etc. Very few, if any alternatives are offered towards the hipster trend.

As for music, it's pretty safe to say that most people prefer today's (very limited) top 40 hits. There is a HUGE gap between mainstream artists and underground artists. The mainstream offers very little in terms of styles and genres. However, it dominates the entire industry, and anyone who doesn't adhere to those few styles will NEVER get noticed in the current climate. The only "indie" groups that get noticed are those bland hipster/folk pop bands. And the only reason they get noticed is because they are appealing to a mainstream trend. Could you imagine heavier rock bands like Salems Lott or Jett Black ever getting any mainstream attention in the 2010s? The answer is no. As for people not knowing what Nu-Disco is, I don't think it really matters. People know the musicians who follow that style, and follow said musicians.

So to answer you're question, in terms of formats and outlets, we may be living in a fragmented culture. However in terms of the content itself, as well as the general public's tastes, we are actually living in a mono culture.


Interesting points. So what you're getting at is that we're in a sort of fragmented mono culture? At least in terms of formats and outlets. You have 1-1000+ channels and a trillion internet websites sites, but a majority will only watch small amount of those channels regularly and despite there being ton of websites you'll most often here about things like Youtube, Facebook, Twitter etc and within youtube itself people usually just talk about the bigger starts like Pewdiepie or Smosh.

As for people not knowing Nu-Disco from what I've tend to notice is that if you follow an artist you most likely are aware of the kind of music they play. Follow Daft Punk and you'll most likely run into a lot of information on the kind of music that they play. After all it's the artists that make musical genres popular and well known.

As for the 2010s compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s I like to see it as a transition. '80s was pretty much monoculture. However, culture became more fragmented in the 1990s. The early 1990s was still pretty mono, but by the time we got to the late 1990s where cable TV and internet were pretty common that's when pop culture became fragmented. This continues to the '00s where is seems like there was something for everyone and everything. Then we get to the '10s where you say that we get a mix of mono and fragmented. From what I've looked up this may have happened due to Social media which didn't start to really take over until the 2010s. Social media creates groups of people with shared ideas and views. And since many different people are within many different groups those ideas or trends end up leaking into others.

Isn't mono a sickness?


Mono is a disease. Monoculture or culturally mono refers to shared experiences within pop culture.


What do you qualify as bland hipster/folk bands?

I think the term hipster is misused waay too much on this board.


To me a hipster is someone who follows the trends that aren't mainstream. It's a form of counter culture/sub culture. Or at least this is what the internet and actual hipsters tell me. They don't like when things become mainstream due to the fact that in order for something to be mainstream it has to be designed for the masses which may end generalizing the experience. If something is niche it's usually true to its original form. When something that is niche becomes mainstream it is slightly water-down or changed up keeping only the stereotypical aspects of it.

Or at least this is what it is to me anyways. I'm not an actual hipster so I'm probably wrong.

Mono is a disease. Monoculture or culturally mono refers to shared experiences within pop culture.

To me a hipster is someone who follows the trends that aren't mainstream. It's a form of counter culture/sub culture. Or at least this is what the internet and actual hipsters tell me. They don't like when things become mainstream due to the fact that in order for something to be mainstream it has to be designed for the masses which may end generalizing the experience. If something is niche it's usually true to its original form. When something that is niche becomes mainstream it is slightly water-down or changed up keeping only the stereotypical aspects of it.

Or at least this is what it is to me anyways. I'm not an actual hipster so I'm probably wrong.


My problem is that I only hear the term hipster used as a pejorative. I never hear anyone call themselves hipsters. It's just immature and eye rolling. I'm really over it.

My problem is that I only hear the term hipster used as a pejorative. I never hear anyone call themselves hipsters. It's just immature and eye rolling. I'm really over it.


Most usually don't use the term hipster. When hipster culture first started to rise people would use the name, but when the culture started to be trashed and mocked most individuals try to stay away from using the name.

Actually, in terms of content itself, the 2010s are more of a monoculture than the 80s, 90s, and 00s. Sure there may be more outlets to access such content, but obviously today's movies, T.V. shows, fashion, music, all adhere to a smaller number of styles. Sure we have 1000+ channels, internet, streaming services, but the only type of shows that appeals to the audience of the 2010s would be overly-dark, pretentious, HBO-esque, dramas (Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Revenge, House of Cards, etc.). We are also getting these bland, unrelatable, pretentious, hipsteresque comedies (The Mindy Project, Broad City, Girls, Modern Family, etc.). People like me, whose tastes are drawn towards the shows of previous decades, are completely disregarded and left out in the dust. Same with fashion. Most of fashion today is geared towards hipster styles. Tight pants, undercut haircuts/man buns, bland, vomit-inducing colors, etc. Very few, if any alternatives are offered towards the hipster trend.

As for music, it's pretty safe to say that most people prefer today's (very limited) top 40 hits. There is a HUGE gap between mainstream artists and underground artists. The mainstream offers very little in terms of styles and genres. However, it dominates the entire industry, and anyone who doesn't adhere to those few styles will NEVER get noticed in the current climate. The only "indie" groups that get noticed are those bland hipster/folk pop bands. And the only reason they get noticed is because they are appealing to a mainstream trend. Could you imagine heavier rock bands like Salems Lott or Jett Black ever getting any mainstream attention in the 2010s? The answer is no. As for people not knowing what Nu-Disco is, I don't think it really matters. People know the musicians who follow that style, and follow said musicians.

So to answer you're question, in terms of formats and outlets, we may be living in a fragmented culture. However in terms of the content itself, as well as the general public's tastes, we are actually living in a mono culture.

I agree with every point you made. However, you do have to admit that the 1980s was a very monoculture decade like Looney Toon said.

Most usually don't use the term hipster. When hipster culture first started to rise people would use the name, but when the culture started to be trashed and mocked most individuals try to stay away from using the name.


This whole anti-hipster thing is stupid then.  ::)

This whole anti-hipster thing is stupid then.  ::)


I think people started to hate hipsters when they started to become pretentious or something like that. I'm not a of the anti-mainstream view of hipsters, but at the same time I don't actually hate hipsters. Not everyone is going like what everyone else likes which makes 100% sense.

I think people started to hate hipsters when they started to become pretentious or something like that. I'm not a of the anti-mainstream view of hipsters, but at the same time I don't actually hate hipsters. Not everyone is going like what everyone else likes which makes 100% sense.


Can I get an example of hipsters being pretentious?

I think people who continuously trash electronic music and "hipster" fashion are being uber-pretentious but nobody ever gives them that label.

Can I get an example of hipsters being pretentious?

I think people who continuously trash electronic music and "hipster" fashion are being uber-pretentious but nobody ever gives them that label.


It's like with Vaporwave. Non-Vaporwave listeners say it's basically just internet meme music who only satisfy pretentious hipsters who try to make a deeper meaning out of the music that they should just 'ironically' listen to. Now I listen to Vaporwave and don't see it as hipster infested music.

As for people trashing electronic music and hipster fashion I wonder why they'd do that. Although I will admit that I hate hipster fashion quite a bit. But then again I hate a ton of different fashions and hipster fashion is far from the worst. As for Electronic music I do enjoy a lot of EDM music like House or Electro Swing. I suppose some just want music that is only made with real instruments or something.

Mono is a disease. Monoculture or culturally mono refers to shared experiences within pop culture.

To me a hipster is someone who follows the trends that aren't mainstream. It's a form of counter culture/sub culture. Or at least this is what the internet and actual hipsters tell me. They don't like when things become mainstream due to the fact that in order for something to be mainstream it has to be designed for the masses which may end generalizing the experience. If something is niche it's usually true to its original form. When something that is niche becomes mainstream it is slightly water-down or changed up keeping only the stereotypical aspects of it.

Or at least this is what it is to me anyways. I'm not an actual hipster so I'm probably wrong.


In the past, there were all sorts of counter-cultures going on at the same time, like skater, stoners, goths, punks, nerd etc. Hippies in the 60s and 70s, outlaw cowboys in the 1800s etc. But now there's only one self-identifying counter-culture group, the hipsters? So all these trends either died out or blended together into one group based only on opposing mainstream culture?

If this is true, it might mean monoculture is stronger than ever, since otherwise different groups are banding together to oppose a common enemy. That kind of behavior indicates an existential threat. In the past, skaters, stoners, nerds, goths etc., though there was overlap and some dialog, often disliked each other as much as they disliked the mainstreamers.

I think there's far more pressure to conform today than there was twenty years ago and society is more suspicious of difference than it was at that time. Maybe I'm wrong, and the situation might be far more complex, but I definitely think it's too simply to say that society is just fragmented in a way that people can explore what they want because there's so many options now.

What's being called "fragmentation," when treated as a negative thing, could largely consist of just a widespread sense that people have of not personally identifying with society. It's like what Durkheim would have called anomie, which seems to happen in times of rapid modernization, a weak middle class, a lack of common goals, and a sense that government isn't concerned with the common people.

Isn't mono a sickness?


I'm a Barbie girl

I don't agree with this.

Some decades are inherently more conformist than others and the pendulum swings back and forth.  The '10s is actually more monoculture than the '90s were, in my opinion.  The '00s were quite conformist throughout most of them.  The '10s leans fragmented but it's less so than the '90s.

I guess what I'm saying in the above comment is that a lot of the time when people talk about fragmentation negatively what they're really getting at is the rise of a conformist monoculture and widespread dissatisfaction with it, like they think there's a strong monoculture and a lot of people are dissatisfied with it, and this is called fragmentation, when really it's mainly an opposition between two things. Many people's own sense of not identifying with the monoculture is expressed in terms of fragmentation.

It's too bad we can't go back to the 80's when a million different sub-cultures existed and there was something for everyone to enjoy.

The 2010's are very, very homogeneous to an extreme degree. The 00's were bad, too, but this decade has upped the ante.

I'm a Barbie girl


;D

In my line of work, if it can't be measured, then it's junk.  :-X It's hard to say which decade has a more homogenized culture and which is more diverse.

The 2010s do have ease of access and the ability to choose from millions of options in a way that wasn't possible before. Now that's definitely someting that can be measured.  ;)

In the past, there were all sorts of counter-cultures going on at the same time, like skater, stoners, goths, punks, nerd etc. Hippies in the 60s and 70s, outlaw cowboys in the 1800s etc. But now there's only one self-identifying counter-culture group, the hipsters? So all these trends either died out or blended together into one group based only on opposing mainstream culture?

If this is true, it might mean monoculture is stronger than ever, since otherwise different groups are banding together to oppose a common enemy. That kind of behavior indicates an existential threat. In the past, skaters, stoners, nerds, goths etc., though there was overlap and some dialog, often disliked each other as much as they disliked the mainstreamers.

I think there's far more pressure to conform today than there was twenty years ago and society is more suspicious of difference than it was at that time. Maybe I'm wrong, and the situation might be far more complex, but I definitely think it's too simply to say that society is just fragmented in a way that people can explore what they want because there's so many options now.

What's being called "fragmentation," when treated as a negative thing, could largely consist of just a widespread sense that people have of not personally identifying with society. It's like what Durkheim would have called anomie, which seems to happen in times of rapid modernization, a weak middle class, a lack of common goals, and a sense that government isn't concerned with the common people.


Virtually nobody identifies themselves as a hipster. NOBODY. As for the pressure to conform, I believe we're in an era that doesn't pressure people to conform...and that's the "problem". Those earlier subcultures flourished because 1. the mainstream kept them at arm's length and 2. each subculture pressured their members to conform to specific aspects of the group. Now we live in an era where each subculture is far more relaxed. Kind of like gay culture. There was a time when gay culture flourished but ever since mainstream culture accepted LGBT people, gay bars, and clubs have been shutting down en masse.

I how tend to make it out.

1980s is a pretty consistent decade in terms of pop culture is an easy example of mono culture.
1990s was mono at the beginning, but with the popularity of the internet/Windows and Cable TV we ended going to a more fragmented culture by the late 1990s.
The 2000s is fragmented all around pretty much continuing from the late 1990s.
The 2010s is a mix of mono and fragmented thinks to things like social media creating groups and communities that leak into each other.

I how tend to make it out.

1980s is a pretty consistent decade in terms of pop culture is an easy example of mono culture.
1990s was mono at the beginning, but with the popularity of the internet/Windows and Cable TV we ended going to a more fragmented culture by the late 1990s.
The 2000s is fragmented all around pretty much continuing from the late 1990s.
The 2010s is a mix of mono and fragmented thinks to things like social media creating groups and communities that leak into each other.


But cable TV had already gotten really big in the 80's.

But cable TV had already gotten really big in the 80's.


From what I've been told cable existed but few used it. Most were still just watching broadcast channels instead of cable channels.

Keep in mind that I'm a guy who never lived the 1980s. I can only do by what others tell me.

In my line of work, if it can't be measured, then it's junk.  :-X It's hard to say which decade has a more homogenized culture and which is more diverse.

The 2010s do have ease of access and the ability to choose from millions of options in a way that wasn't possible before. Now that's definitely someting that can be measured.  ;)


Basically compare the way that the 2010s has a ton of options to previous decades and you'll notice that the further back you go the amount of options decrease. You don't have actual measures but rather comparison s that can act as measures.

But cable TV had already gotten really big in the 80's.


I think cable TV went big between the mid-late 80s/early 90s. Most people between the 50s-early 80s were using broadcast channels.

I think cable TV went big between the mid-late 80s/early 90s. Most people between the 50s-early 80s were using broadcast channels.


The old days where there only around 3 to 5 channels.

The old days where there only around 3 to 5 channels.


Then it went up to like 70 channels when cable TV was mainstream in the late 80s.

Then it went up to like 70 channels when cable TV was mainstream in the late 80s.


Found a good image.
https://www.calcable.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Timeline-lrg.gif

Back in the 1980s the subscriber count started with 16 Million cable users in 1980 to around 53 million by 1990. Cable goes as far back at the 1940s, but less than 1 million had it by then.

Found a good image.
https://www.calcable.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Timeline-lrg.gif

Back in the 1980s the subscriber count started with 16 Million cable users in 1980 to around 53 million by 1990. Cable goes as far back at the 1940s, but less than 1 million had it by then.


It's surprising from that picture shows that 27% of cable subscribers had digital cable in 2002. I always thought my family was the minority of the digital cable subscriber group.

It's surprising from that picture shows that 27% of cable subscribers had digital cable in 2002. I always thought my family was the minority of the digital cable subscriber group.


Well 27% is minority. The majority 73% still was using analog cable in 2002. As big as the world population is if anything is less than the majority amount then it's seen as not common placed, I think.

Well 27% is minority. The majority 73% still was using analog cable in 2002. As big as the world population is if anything is less than the majority amount then it's seen as not common placed, I think.

My family had analog until 2009/2010. Then, we got digital in 2010.

My family had analog until 2009/2010. Then, we got digital in 2010.


I don't think my family switched to digital cable until 2005 or '06. Before that we either didn't have cable or just had analog.

I don't think my family switched to digital cable until 2005 or '06. Before that we either didn't have cable or just had analog.

Sometimes, we didn't have cable....so I would have to watch "basic" TV. I would watch PBS Kids and the WB (later, CW).

Well 27% is minority. The majority 73% still was using analog cable in 2002. As big as the world population is if anything is less than the majority amount then it's seen as not common placed, I think.


I thought it was less than 27%.


My family had analog until 2009/2010. Then, we got digital in 2010.



I don't think my family switched to digital cable until 2005 or '06. Before that we either didn't have cable or just had analog.


My family probably switched to digital cable before I remember anything. Maybe around 2003/4, since my recorded DVDs from late 2004-2006 do show my Time Warner Cable i-Guide.

I thought it was less than 27%.

My family probably switched to digital cable before I remember anything. Maybe around 2003/4, since my recorded DVDs from late 2004-2006 do show my Time Warner Cable i-Guide.

Lucky.........................

From what I've been told cable existed but few used it. Most were still just watching broadcast channels instead of cable channels.

Keep in mind that I'm a guy who never lived the 1980s. I can only do by what others tell me.


I know you posted a chart but I just wanted to post this:

"By 1985, 68% of all American households (60 million) had cable television service, while 88% of those subscribed to a pay cable service like HBO or Showtime."

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id13.htm


I think cable TV went big between the mid-late 80s/early 90s. Most people between the 50s-early 80s were using broadcast channels.


It got big around 1983.

Lucky.........................


Yeah, I had digital cable throughout most of my childhood. Although my family switched to Verizon FiOS in late 2010 because the Internet was a pain in the ass during that year.


I know you posted a chart but I just wanted to post this:

"By 1985, 68% of all American households (60 million) had cable television service, while 88% of those subscribed to a pay cable service like HBO or Showtime."


Well, I see it more like 1984/5 when the majority of Americans had cable TV. Especially when HBO was starting to peak around that time.

I know you posted a chart but I just wanted to post this:

"By 1985, 68% of all American households (60 million) had cable television service, while 88% of those subscribed to a pay cable service like HBO or Showtime."

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id13.htm


Ah, there we go.The % numbers don't match the ones on the chart I posted, but either way it still shows the popularity of cable in the 1980s. Guess that means that cable TV isn't where fragmented culture started as the 1980s overall was mono and consistent in terms of pop culture. Maybe it was just things like the internet in the 1990s that caused things to be fragmented. 1990s-2000s both had pop culture that all over the place especially as those decades had rapid culture changes. 2010s seems to be the odd case of both fragmented and mono. At least to me.

In other random news, the "I Like turtles" kid moment on the news happened almost 10 years ago  :P

In other random news, the "I Like turtles" kid moment on the news happened almost 10 years ago  :P


I never really heard of that kid until about four years ago. But back then, my 7 year old self was more into "This is Sparta", "Numa Numa", "Shoes", "Chocolate Rain", and "Leave Britney Alone" on YouTube.

I never really heard of that kid until about four years ago. But back then, my 7 year old self was more into "This is Sparta", "Numa Numa", "Shoes", "Chocolate Rain", and "Leave Britney Alone" on YouTube.

https://i.imgflip.com/1fgvmo.jpg

Ah, there we go.The % numbers don't match the ones on the chart I posted, but either way it still shows the popularity of cable in the 1980s. Guess that means that cable TV isn't where fragmented culture started as the 1980s overall was mono and consistent in terms of pop culture. Maybe it was just things like the internet in the 1990s that caused things to be fragmented. 1990s-2000s both had pop culture that all over the place especially as those decades had rapid culture changes. 2010s seems to be the odd case of both fragmented and mono. At least to me.


The 80's were pretty fragmented, too. There's a billion different styles of music on the charts and in the underground there were many different scenes and styles of music. It was an extremely diverse decade. Some people looked like Cyndi Lauper and some looked like The Official Preppy Handbook.

https://i.imgflip.com/1fgvmo.jpg


;D ;D ;D

I'll admit, he was a bit funny.

;D ;D ;D

I'll admit, he was a bit funny.

;)  ;D

What do you qualify as bland hipster/folk bands?

I think the term hipster is misused waay too much on this board.


"Bands" (a term I use loosely) like Mumford and Sons, Lumineers, Imagine Dragons, X Ambassadors etc.  8-P All these bands make me nauseous.

Interesting points. So what you're getting at is that we're in a sort of fragmented mono culture? At least in terms of formats and outlets. You have 1-1000+ channels and a trillion internet websites sites, but a majority will only watch small amount of those channels regularly and despite there being ton of websites you'll most often here about things like Youtube, Facebook, Twitter etc and within youtube itself people usually just talk about the bigger starts like Pewdiepie or Smosh.

As for people not knowing Nu-Disco from what I've tend to notice is that if you follow an artist you most likely are aware of the kind of music they play. Follow Daft Punk and you'll most likely run into a lot of information on the kind of music that they play. After all it's the artists that make musical genres popular and well known.

As for the 2010s compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s I like to see it as a transition. '80s was pretty much monoculture. However, culture became more fragmented in the 1990s. The early 1990s was still pretty mono, but by the time we got to the late 1990s where cable TV and internet were pretty common that's when pop culture became fragmented. This continues to the '00s where is seems like there was something for everyone and everything. Then we get to the '10s where you say that we get a mix of mono and fragmented. From what I've looked up this may have happened due to Social media which didn't start to really take over until the 2010s. Social media creates groups of people with shared ideas and views. And since many different people are within many different groups those ideas or trends end up leaking into others.


Yeah pretty much.

The old days where there only around 3 to 5 channels.



Channel 2-13.

"Bands" (a term I use loosely) like Mumford and Sons, Lumineers, Imagine Dragons, X Ambassadors etc.  8-P All these bands make me nauseous.


Let's not leave out F.U.N., LMFAO, and The Civil Wars to name just a few more.

Channel 2-13.


I remember 13 being Fox and 2 being WB.

"Bands" (a term I use loosely) like Mumford and Sons, Lumineers, Imagine Dragons, X Ambassadors etc.  8-P All these bands make me nauseous.


This gives me a better idea what you guys go on about. I'm not much of a fan of any of these bands. The label hipster confuses me because hipster music is supposedly not mainstream.

This gives me a better idea what you guys go on about. I'm not much of a fan of any of these bands. The label hipster confuses me because hipster music is supposedly not mainstream.


Half the time i don't know what "Hipster music" even is. Hipster isn't a music genre, but more of an umbrella term for just anything that isn't truly mainstream. Think Synthwave, Indie-Pop, Alternative Dance etc. And even then being "Indie" is not the same as being a "Hipster".