inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: Time

Written By: Echo Nomad on 11/26/05 at 12:49 am

...

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: robby76 on 11/27/05 at 10:12 am

You could analyse this for eternity... there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. 67-79 sounds about right... those born in 1980 may dispute it, but then if you include them, the 81'ers will start complaining... and it'll be a vicious circle. It seems to me everyone wants to be Gen X at the moment. Just like people loved the 70's in the 90's and the 60's in the 80's. Okay the 90's were bad, but that's cos they were so recent. In the year 2050, the Gen Y'ers will be wishing it was 1995!

But really you are what you are. I hardly ever hear the term Gen X and Gen Y except for this forum, so it's no biggie.

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: Tia on 11/27/05 at 10:25 am

i guess the real question is, what do generations x and y stand for? i think of tom brokaw's whole the-greatest-generation thing, the depression and wwii generation, and then the baby boomers who kinda represent a new era of prosperity in the 50s and 60s, and also were the generation that stopped the vietnam war. at least that's how a lot of people think of it.

so, as a gen-xer myself, i wonder what the gen-xers and y-ers stand for that's similar. it sorta seems like after vietnam and after the 70s, people don't really face the same challenges that they used to. there's the fall of the berlin wall, but people outside of russia and eastern europe aren't really thought of as being responsible for that. when i think about the 80s, 90s, and today -- the era that's defined us teens, 20- and 30-somethings -- there was no unifying cause on the level of the depression, wwii, or vietnam/the cold war to rally people around. and the labels really reflect that -- gen "x", where X is like a variable or a placeholder, not having the kind of meaning as "the wwii generation" or the "baby boomers" have, not really reflecting anything -- and then gen "y" is defined just as being next in the alphabet. (and i've seen it written as "generation why", which sorta makes the point too.)

um, know what i mean? what do gen x and y stand for? and if that's a harder question to ask than it is for the baby boomers and the wwii gen, why do you think that is?

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 11/27/05 at 1:31 pm


You could analyse this for eternity... there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. 67-79 sounds about right... those born in 1980 may dispute it, but then if you include them, the 81'ers will start complaining... and it'll be a vicious circle. It seems to me everyone wants to be Gen X at the moment.


At the moment, and only at the moment.

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: La Sine Pesroh on 11/28/05 at 2:44 am

I've always thought that "Generation X" was a condescending and insulting label put upon my people my age by the media, which is currently controlled by members of the "baby boom" generation, who act as if they are the only generation in history who ever did anything that mattered. They took great pleasure in looking down their noses at us and calling us "slackers" and

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: Tia on 11/28/05 at 7:08 am

^good points.

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 11/28/05 at 10:34 pm


To be honest I wish that the whole concept of generations outside of the family sense didn't exist, rather our birthyears should really the only thing to pinpoint us in time. But since others have decided that it does I would have to say my generation, (whatever you name it) runs from 1965-1985 for several factual reasons. I'm getting to believe that the terms Y and X are waves of one generation rather than two seperate ones. Whether they're compaired for their similarities or differences, Gen Y and Gen X are almost always paired up in any study or report.

Finally I believe the reason why the term Gen X continues to be popular is that it has become the dominate or "go to" term for the post Boomer generations, despite all the prediction a few years ago about Xrs were soon to be forgotten. Heck, there are even teens and children who are labled Xrs. Since 2004 I've also noticed how popular the term is in marketing if you notice all the items and programs with either the word Xtreme, Xtra, or having a prominate X in the name.


Gen Y may actually be more late Gen Xers then, the way there are late Boomers born from 1955 to 1964 that are quite different from the stereotypical born in 1945 (like Bill Clinton) Baby Boomer. 

There are noticeable differences between early Xers and late Xers.  The earlier part of Gen X born in the 60s and early 70s seem to always have much more of a loathing to the Baby Boomers then the rest of Gen X-Y.  I'm not sure why that is, but I suppose it is because they were old enough to be young adults who competed for jobs with the Boomers back in the late 80s and early 90s.  The early Xers still seem to carry that heavy Boomer resentment with them.  Compare someone born in 1968 to someone born in 1978, you will see a difference in thought there.  Then ofcourse there is the whole pop culture issue and what you grew up with.  Where you around for the 70s?  Can you remember the 80s?  Hell can you remember the first half of the 90s?  What was cool in 1986 vs. what was cool in 1996 vs. what is cool in 2005/'06....etc, etc, etc, etc....     

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 11/28/05 at 10:40 pm

I'll add this...I guess Gen X is still young enough to be cool just because even though so many of us are over 25 and/or in our 30s...we are not yet totally "the establishment" yet.  The Baby Boomers still seem to be the establishment and many Xers are bitching about them like it's still 1993.  Once your generation becomes the establishment...thats when you know you've gone beyond the point of no return and are not cool.



but that's right around the corner...it won't be too long before you see kids born in 1999 saying, "damn that generation born in the 70s, they screwed up everything for us"

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: karen on 11/30/05 at 4:32 am


As for the divide of our generation I think there are several major differences between the earlier and the later, or as I like to think the 80's and 90's waves. The first ( like my older brother) experienced childhood in the 70's and came of age during the 80's- aka "Bratpackers". They generally had parents from the "Beat" generation (Think Fonzzie from "Happy Days")



I guess I'd fit in with this description.  Although I'm not sure my dad was allowed to wear a leather jacket  ;)

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 11/30/05 at 6:01 pm

^Yes, I too have an older sister and several older cousins who are what I call "older Gen Xers"....they were born from around 1965 to 1971/'72 or so.

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: Marty McFly on 12/01/05 at 9:45 am

^ Good thinking, Chris. I like what you've got to say - as usual I mostly agree with you here too (this has been a very interesting thread, btw). :)

The "Early Gen X-er" I won't argue with you on at all. I might say a born in 1963 or 64 person would be close enough to squeak by though. The gang from Fast Times at Ridgemont High would've been about this age. This was more the "very erly 80's" teens. Someone born in 1968-71 is more of a "Brat Pack"er.

It's the other two you outlined that are a bit harder to define, IMO:

Like I always say, everyone is different, but I'd sat the TYPICAL born in 1977 and born in 1978 person is where the split between "Middle Gen Xer" and "Late Gen Xer" would be. A 77-er seems alot more old-school, IMO.

All the '77 born people I know (or know of) all like the 80's or at least remember quite a bit from the decade. Even if the Grunge/coffeehouse/Beverly Hills 90210 era was more the center of "their" time, there's a good chance they're also into John Hughes movies and Van Halen too.

I've actually have three different friends born in 1978 who I can base this off of. They seem different from the typical 77-ers. Although they know alot about the 80's, they also tended to kinda laugh at me when I brought it up, for it being "old" - and were fans of gangsta rap, for instance.

As for the "Late Xer" phase, this is even more "depending on the person". I know people born in 1987 who love the 80's and people born in 1979 who think they're stupid -- but I would go so far as to put that into two mini categories of its own.

A born in 1978 or 79 person is more likely to laugh at the 80's because it's too "cheesy" compared to the Grunge era. A born in 1985 person is more likely to laugh at the 80's because they don't remember it so well.

Overall, how does this sound?

Early Gen Xer: Born 1964-71
Middle Gen Xer: Born 1972-77
Late Gen Xer: (Part 1) Born 1979-81, (Part 2), Born 1982-85

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: robby76 on 12/01/05 at 10:06 am

Marty's slight changes are probably more accurate... agree with your views. I know people  2years younger than me who aren't on the same nostalgic level as me at all.

Either way I love being a Middle Gen-Xer! It's a nice halfway point.

Subject: Generations, waves, and popculture

Written By: Echo Nomad on 12/02/05 at 12:22 am

From my experience I believe trying to measure what is a generation by pop culture is rather impossible and has caused a lot of confusion and argument on this topic. Generation's are simply too unwieldy to be defined this way due to their sheer span of years.
Instead waves or cusp are better units of measurement.

Subject: Re: The Gen X\Y story: Creation of an identity crisis

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 12/03/05 at 1:21 pm


^ Good thinking, Chris. I like what you've got to say - as usual I mostly agree with you here too (this has been a very interesting thread, btw). :)

The "Early Gen X-er" I won't argue with you on at all. I might say a born in 1963 or 64 person would be close enough to squeak by though. The gang from Fast Times at Ridgemont High would've been about this age. This was more the "very erly 80's" teens. Someone born in 1968-71 is more of a "Brat Pack"er.

It's the other two you outlined that are a bit harder to define, IMO:

Like I always say, everyone is different, but I'd sat the TYPICAL born in 1977 and born in 1978 person is where the split between "Middle Gen Xer" and "Late Gen Xer" would be. A 77-er seems alot more old-school, IMO.

All the '77 born people I know (or know of) all like the 80's or at least remember quite a bit from the decade. Even if the Grunge/coffeehouse/Beverly Hills 90210 era was more the center of "their" time, there's a good chance they're also into John Hughes movies and Van Halen too.

I've actually have three different friends born in 1978 who I can base this off of. They seem different from the typical 77-ers. Although they know alot about the 80's, they also tended to kinda laugh at me when I brought it up, for it being "old" - and were fans of gangsta rap, for instance.

As for the "Late Xer" phase, this is even more "depending on the person". I know people born in 1987 who love the 80's and people born in 1979 who think they're stupid -- but I would go so far as to put that into two mini categories of its own.

A born in 1978 or 79 person is more likely to laugh at the 80's because it's too "cheesy" compared to the Grunge era. A born in 1985 person is more likely to laugh at the 80's because they don't remember it so well.

Overall, how does this sound?

Early Gen Xer: Born 1964-71
Middle Gen Xer: Born 1972-77
Late Gen Xer: (Part 1) Born 1979-81, (Part 2), Born 1982-85



You know what, you might actually be right.

Subject: Timeline

Written By: Echo Nomad on 12/04/05 at 12:24 am

I know two 78rs who would be very happy to see that others agree with them. Interestingly it seems that those born in 78 desire to have more distance from us than those born after, especially 79rs that I know.

Personally I have come to posistion that social generations really don't exist. Instead I see each birthyear as a link in a chain, where we experience life in our little spot along the line. I have as much in common (or not in common) with someone born in 78 as I do in 74. If I entered middleagedom in the mid 90's when I was still 19, then what right do I have even have being on this board talking about culture and society? And is it fair that someone only 2 years younger gets to be young and claim the entire period from 1995 -2018 as their own?

That why I don't see generations as real anymore. While an "age block" might perfectly describe someone in the middle of it, it gets hard to define on it's edges because in reality we all have our own unique posistion in time. 

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Marty McFly on 12/04/05 at 9:13 am


You know what, you might actually be right.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Mark Y on 12/07/05 at 9:17 pm

I was born in 1978, and I firmly agree with some of the people here. There is a divide between people born in 1977 and 1978 that is rather strong...stronger than you would think a one-year gap would bring. I think the main reason why is because of the Internet. Most people would probably pinpoint the explosion of the Internet to the fall of 1995. By then, most people born in 1977 graduated high school, whereas those born in 1978 were still in the high school phase. As a result, I think that there is a muchmore "soulful" attachment to the Internet and technology by those who were born in 78 than those in 77, since the 78ers were still in a "weaning process". This probably set in stone a generation gap, and therefore, the 78ers have greater affection towards the 90s, whereas those born in 77, who were the last cohort to be totally free from the internet growing up, feel more old school, and attach themselves more to the 80s.

Regarding pop culture, I agree with Robby and Chris...a lot of 78ers are clueless about music before Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer (and "claim" that that's 80s music!) I think that the fact that parental overprotection skyrocketing during our years growing up had a lot to do with our lack of 80s pop culture knowledge..few of us were watching MTV when we were 8. Older kids, however, did have that "luxury".

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 12/07/05 at 11:45 pm

^Yeah, my cousin is 2 years younger then me.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: DevoRule on 12/08/05 at 12:34 am



I was born in 1978, and I firmly agree with some of the people here. There is a divide between people born in 1977 and 1978 that is rather strong...stronger than you would think a one-year gap would bring. I think the main reason why is because of the Internet. Most people would probably pinpoint the explosion of the Internet to the fall of 1995. By then, most people born in 1977 graduated high school, whereas those born in 1978 were still in the high school phase. As a result, I think that there is a muchmore "soulful" attachment to the Internet and technology by those who were born in 78 than those in 77, since the 78ers were still in a "weaning process". This probably set in stone a generation gap, and therefore, the 78ers have greater affection towards the 90s, whereas those born in 77, who were the last cohort to be totally free from the internet growing up, feel more old school, and attach themselves more to the 80s.

Regarding pop culture, I agree with Robby and Chris...a lot of 78ers are clueless about music before Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer (and "claim" that that's 80s music!) I think that the fact that parental overprotection skyrocketing during our years growing up had a lot to do with our lack of 80s pop culture knowledge..few of us were watching MTV when we were 8. Older kids, however, did have that "luxury".


That's quite true.  Not that I think '78ers are quite Gen Y, just late Gen X. 80s and 90s are X decades, well late 90s is Y but most of the 90s is X.
X/Y bound is IMO about 1983, if you're born from 1959-64 to 1982 you're X, 1983 to 1993-97 you're Y.  Of course with the early eighties it's really about personality; I mean I wouldn't totally exclude an 85er from X if they started getting into Grunge in say, 1994 when they were 9.  But 1986 on is Y, definitely.  Being born in Jan '90 I tend to see people born from '86 to '93 to be more or less "my age" if you get my drift.  I guess that could be just because it's around my age but I really think the core of Gen Y is about 1986 to 1992.

I'd date the Net explosion to the fall of 1994, but it really became useful and essential I think around 1996-97.  Before '94 technology was only somewhat more advanced than 80s tech.  Prior to '99 you could still be without it and not get a funny look.

I'd say this:

Eighties/"New Wave" generation = 1964/65-1975
early-mid Nineties/"Crappuchino" generation = 1976-1984/85
Late Nineties and New Nineties  ;D/"South Park" generation = 1985-1993/94


Subject: Re: Time

Written By: robby76 on 12/08/05 at 7:28 am

But let's also agree that our pigeon holes are only relevant to us nostalgic folk. I know plenty of '72 and '73 ers who are totally immersed in 2000's culture... music, clothes, films, tv.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 12/08/05 at 3:27 pm

^And that is VERY true as well.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 12/08/05 at 3:43 pm

Being born in Jan '90 I tend to see people born from '86 to '93 to be more or less "my age" if you get my drift.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Tanya1976 on 12/08/05 at 5:25 pm




But you know what?

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Tanya1976 on 12/08/05 at 5:29 pm



I'd say this:

Eighties/"New Wave" generation = 1964/65-1975
early-mid Nineties/"Crappuchino" generation = 1976-1984/85
Late Nineties and New Nineties

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Echo Nomad on 12/09/05 at 1:40 am


^And that is VERY true as well.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Echo Nomad on 12/09/05 at 1:57 am


Please do not group me with this generation "early-mid Nineties/"Crappuchino" generation = 1976-1984/85". That's a scathingly inappropriate generalization, lol!!!! 75ers are no more close to new wave than 76ers.


Actually I'd put the whole "Crappuchino\Starbucks\Friends" wave as 65-75. They the one's who were old enough to get rich in the internet bubble and became the "neoyuppies" of the 90's. As for a "New Wave wave" I'd probably put that near something more like 63-72. When NW groups like Devoe or Flock of seaguls came out, I was only a little tike.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Echo Nomad on 12/09/05 at 2:08 am

Personally if I was to breakdown my "loyalty" it would be 65-84\85 > 76-84\85 > 76-81 > 76-77

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: DevoRule on 12/09/05 at 2:38 am

Where's Marty McFly when you need him?  :)

I guess that is true about the Crappuchino thing being 65-75.  The Nineties were an adult decade, Gen Y was overlooked until 1997-'99.

The funny thing about the Nineties is they were owned by adults; that is those who were teens in the eighties.  The teens of the
'91-'97 "true" Nineties were born from '72 to '84 and thus were mostly late Gen X, but the decade was very much ruled by twentysomethings born in the sixties and seventies.  The kids of the nineties were Gen Y and thus lay claim also to certain things from the decade, which is partly why the nineties are almost "trendy" even today in the latter half of the 2000s.  I mean who's popular today: Mariah Carey, 50 Cent ("grandson" of Dr. Dre), and Green Day!

Then again, I guess Whitney Houston and Metallica were hot in the '90s too, so perhaps it's not too weird, I mean Akon and Young Jeezy's cheeseball song "Soul Survivor" is probably more popular than "Don't Forget About Us".  If the Beatles were all alive they'd probably still be selling platinum today!  I still don't see why "We Belong Together" is so great though; I mean they're pratically telling us it's the grammy.

-DR




Subject: Re: Time

Written By: ADH13 on 12/09/05 at 2:47 am


Where's Marty McFly when you need him?

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: DevoRule on 12/09/05 at 3:28 am


Welcome back Devo!!


Thank you  :)

I'm not here for good, just been lingering around.

My gosh it seems like years since my "glory days" here.  ;D

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Marty McFly on 12/09/05 at 6:01 am


Where's Marty McFly when you need him?

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: DevoRule on 12/10/05 at 1:07 am


Hey man, welcome back! :) I remember we had quite a few cool talks about this kind of thing back in the day (I guess it's official that I've been around for quite some time if people who posted when I started, have left and then returned!).

Overall, I'd pretty much agree. It's certainly closer together now, but it's strange at first glance how in the 80's and most of the 90's, the prime age of people who were "fans" of pop culture and the prime age of those who created it, varied a bit.

The people "responsible" for the 80's, those who really created it, were mainly people born in the 50's. Say 1949-63 or so. The rock, TV and movie stars were roughly 25 to 39 - some of the vital "comebackers/veterans" were in their 40's as well. This time period seemed very "adult friendly". Chevy Chase for instance, was born in 1943.

The 90's was inching toward a younger crowd, but pretty much was the same. I always found it ironic that Kurt Cobain -- the Godfather of Grunge and the whole generation, so to speak -- was born in 1967, the height of an "80's teen" who would've probably hated that stuff since it was so drastically different from what they grew attached to in middle-high school. Because it was people around his age who "created" the 90's, even if they were 80's teens.

It's easy to think of the Brat Pack-ers of the 80's, and the Melrose Place-ish twentysomethings of the 90's in completely different leagues. But I sometimes have to remind myself 80's teens WERE the twentysomethings of the 90's.

When I think of the foundation of the 90's, I think of Seinfeld. Not just 'cause it's one of my favorite shows, but it's a perfect snapshot of the culture ten to twelve years ago (alot of it is still relevant, though - especially the casual nature attached to things like dating, or girls having mostly guy friends, etc).

The "real" Jerry was born in 1954 (I assume the TV Jerry was meant to be the same age), and Michael Richards, aka Kramer, was born in '49! They're old enough to have been parents of 90's teens, and yet they definitely were a huge impact on the pop culture.

^ Yes, I'm a geek for memorizing things like that, but it's nothing new. ;)

However, those who were/are/will be "responsible" for 2000's culture are considerably younger. Probably those born 1975-90 or so.

I remember starting back in 1998/99 (but truly around 2001), it was a total shock to me to see huge celebrities starting to be in my own age group. Keep in mind, as a kid and even the first half of my teen years, I was so used to all my favorite TV stars, singers/bands being like parental figures (extremely cool ones, but parental in their age nonetheless). Just so much older than me! That was a very weird feeling a few years ago to see the meter lower so fast, but I'm used to it now.

Even though I blame that in part for the demise of good music and TV shows, I didn't/don't totally hate it. I got sick of reality TV in 2001, but I loved the original Survivor. While I found boybands to be manufactured, no instrument-playing pop, at least it was happy and not gangsta rap (plus, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a teeny bit jealous -- in a complimentary way -- of all the female fans they got, lol). :D

But anyway, I suppose that sudden "drop" of the average "big star" age is one reason the late 90's culture is still holding on in what's almost 2006! Naturally, you'd think that would make the 1999-ish stuff go out of style faster than the snap of a finger.

Just as I was writing this up, I have a new theory though.

The "cool" thing to do starting around 1999 was to be young - namely teenpop or a boyband. Even the hip hop was almost exclusively targeted that way too (as opposed to the more political/edgy gangsta rap of the early-mid 90's).

Teen/early 20's stardom became not only cool, but almost the ONLY way to do it. If you wanted to be a pop star, you almost had to be mainstream rap, N'Sync, Britney or Christina for it to be successful on MTV and the radio. It wasn't just the stars themselves who became a lexicon of 1999-2001ish pop culture, but the idea itself of being teen pop, etc.

That still hasn't really lost its appeal - which is why this still feels like a "new and updated 1999" in many ways. However, the very thing that brought it in will also by default, lead to its eventual demise. In other words, once it's no longer "cool" to be a 15/16 to 24 year old pop star/reality TV chick in the Brintey/Paris Hilton mold, that's when the late 90's culture will truly fade away.

I see that as happening once it all gets around a decade old. Probably in the 2008-11 time frame.


Nice to talk to you

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: GoodRedShirt on 12/10/05 at 1:40 am


2006 or more likely 2007 seems to be where we'll begin to enter the 2010s.  I think by 2011-2012 the Nineties will be totally gone and old-school. By then rap will have no more room to expand and will fall flat on it's face, along with all the post-grunge bands and teen pop.
We can only but hope!  :D

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 12/13/05 at 12:44 am


Nope, you'd be wrong. Us 76ers would be the last year of people thinking 80s music was superior. While I adored "alternative" music, I was still into my dance pop and freestyle music of the 80s.


No seriously, from my experience (and I'm going from my experiences and views)

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Tanya1976 on 12/13/05 at 12:57 am


No seriously, from my experience (and I'm going from my experiences and views)

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 12/13/05 at 1:07 am

I want to add that I totally agree with the post that asserted that the group of folks that "created" the 1980s were really the younger Baby Boomers born in the 1950s.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 12/13/05 at 4:42 am

I remember starting back in 1998/99 (but truly around 2001), it was a total shock to me to see huge celebrities starting to be in my own age group. Keep in mind, as a kid and even the first half of my teen years, I was so used to all my favorite TV stars, singers/bands being like parental figures (extremely cool ones, but parental in their age nonetheless). Just so much older than me! That was a very weird feeling a few years ago to see the meter lower so fast, but I'm used to it now.

But anyway, I suppose that sudden "drop" of the average "big star" age is one reason the late 90's culture is still holding on in what's almost 2006! Naturally, you'd think that would make the 1999-ish stuff go out of style faster than the snap of a finger.

Just as I was writing this up, I have a new theory though.

The "cool" thing to do starting around 1999 was to be young - namely teenpop or a boyband. Even the hip hop was almost exclusively targeted that way too (as opposed to the more political/edgy gangsta rap of the early-mid 90's).

Teen/early 20's stardom became not only cool, but almost the ONLY way to do it. If you wanted to be a pop star, you almost had to be mainstream rap, N'Sync, Britney or Christina for it to be successful on MTV and the radio. It wasn't just the stars themselves who became a lexicon of 1999-2001ish pop culture, but the idea itself of being teen pop, etc.


I never liked how this changed starting in 1999.

Subject: Cultural Footprint

Written By: Echo Nomad on 12/13/05 at 1:55 pm

Each generation has a "cultural footprint" of 30 years which is broken down into 3 phases, culture\music made 1: For 2: By\For 3: By . Here is the model as it is applied to GenX with an example in each one.

For (1980's) Culture made by Babyboomers for teenage Xrs. (Madonna)
By\For (1990's) Culture made by Xrs for Xrs. (Kobain)
By (2000's) Culture made by Xrs for the next generation (50Cent)

However this is only half the equation. While there is a span in which your youth is permanately pinned to one era, you as an individual are allow to choose which era and style of music you enjoy or even identify with. For instance my father who was born in 1941 and came of age in the late 50's, his favorite station is classic rock of the late 60's thru early 80's.

As for me I see...

60's,70's,80's: This is my musical heritage which I grew up in. Although I was a child only in the 80's, I was exposed to music of the 60's and 70's due to my parents.

90's: This is my time which spanned from 91-99. My favorite of was during the later half of the 90's with groups like BNL, Smashmouth, No Doubt, Lenny Cravitz, ect

2000's: This is my pick and choose era. I claim certain songs that I like and\or mean something to me. Greenday's "Boulavard of Broken Dreams" and Maroon 5's "Sunday Morning" will always be associated with this year because of certain emotional events.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Marty McFly on 12/13/05 at 6:21 pm


Nice to talk to you

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Marty McFly on 12/13/05 at 6:57 pm


I never liked how this changed starting in 1999.

Subject: Re: Cultural Footprint

Written By: Chris MegatronTHX on 12/13/05 at 7:30 pm

2000's: This is my pick and choose era. I claim certain songs that I like and\or mean something to me. Greenday's "Boulavard of Broken Dreams" and Maroon 5's "Sunday Morning" will always be associated with this year because of certain emotional events.

I actually do like a lot of things about the 2000's.

Subject: Re: Cultural Footprint

Written By: Tanya1976 on 12/13/05 at 7:43 pm


When I'm old and grey, the 80s will always be "my magic decade", but I think I will probably include the '00s and '90s in there as well, just because I know I will look back and realize I was still very much a relatviely young man in the 2000s, with an age range of 25 to 34.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: bbigd04 on 12/13/05 at 7:58 pm

I was born in '87. I like both the '90s and the '00s. It seems '80s teens are usually very attached to their teen years. I prefer my younger years myself. Not that it's that bad now, but I have so many great memories from my childhood in the '90s. I remember a number of the '90s tv shows, the politics of the time, some music (though I wasn't as much into music back then), the technology, movies. There are things I like about the '00s as well, I like a number of '00s songs, some tv shows, movies, etc. I think I'll always end up being connected to both decades in a way. I've grown attached to the '00s in ways, but I love the '90s as well for many reasons.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Marty McFly on 12/13/05 at 8:03 pm

^ Same here.

I do wonder if people are becoming more "tied down" to their early years sooner than before. I was born in 1981 and feel the way yo do about the 80's, and (in a less "kid like" way) the 90's before 1997. Hell, even '97 and '98 are pretty cool in their own way.

Subject: Millennial Pop

Written By: Echo Nomad on 12/13/05 at 10:47 pm

The biggest change I've noticed on top40 between my era as a teenager and today is that there is a equal glaring mix of pop and rap, although I'm not including crunk. Could you imagine Ace of Base opening for Tupac? I've tried to keep up with modern pop music by listening to top40 programs like Rick Dee's and Casey Kasem's, but this clash between two almost opposite styles makes it difficult. I made a seperation between Rap and Crunk because I believe this style of music is a form of hip hop that is the strongest standout of this period.

Marty McFly wrote:
I sometimes wonder if a new artist has to not only be young, but has to do pop or hip hop/R&B. In other words, could a 15 year old "kid" who was really into rock music, come out with a hard rock/classic rock inspired album nowadays? I'd probably say not.

I noticed that there have been several attempts this decade at producing music with a beat with groups like Jet, Bowling for soup,and Modest mouse (which I do like), however from my recollection they were pretty much limited to one album affairs. The only ones that I know of still trying are neogrunge Nickleback and 90's holdout Greenday.   

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Iceman on 12/17/05 at 10:06 am

Well I was born in 1974, I'm 31 and for me people born around 1981 (currently age 24) would be the last group of people that I see as honest to goodness "contemporaries" of mine from the 80s and 90s.  Starting with people born in 1982 and most definately those born in 1983, '84, '85 and beyond are a different group from myself. 

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Marty McFly on 12/18/05 at 8:47 am


ME:
I sometimes wonder if a new artist has to not only be young, but has to do pop or hip hop/R&B. In other words, could a 15 year old "kid" who was really into rock music, come out with a hard rock/classic rock inspired album nowadays? I'd probably say not.


I noticed that there have been several attempts this decade at producing music with a beat with groups like Jet, Bowling for soup,and Modest mouse (which I do like), however from my recollection they were pretty much limited to one album affairs. The only ones that I know of still trying are neogrunge Nickleback and 90's holdout Greenday.

Subject: 1981

Written By: Echo Nomad on 12/19/05 at 11:59 pm


Well I was born in 1974, I'm 31 and for me people born around 1981 (currently age 24) would be the last group of people that I see as honest to goodness "contemporaries" of mine from the 80s and 90s.

Subject: Re: 1981

Written By: Tanya1976 on 12/20/05 at 11:38 am


As a 76r I have to agree with you. For me those born in 81' seem to be the last cohort that I can relate to as a peer. When I talk to those born in 82 I have the impression of talking to the next age group. However that may be just an issue of where I was born along the timeline. Those born in 79 might have the same impression extending to 84.


I must be in the minority b/c I can't truly relate to anyone born after 1977 (even that's stretching it).

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Random on 12/28/05 at 10:10 am

Born in 77' I love the 80s, and the first half of the 90s.. After around 1995 or 96 everything really started to get crappy.. I can hardly stand to watch anything or even turn on the radio to the "current" stations all it is crappy,pointless, boring rap.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/23/14 at 6:58 am

Is this the time that is found in a bottle?

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 10/23/14 at 1:23 pm

I was born in 1977. My favorite decade is the 1980s, but I love the early 90s (1990-1993) just as much. Unlike Random, I hated 1993-1999 because those years were horrible for movies, music, television shows and fads. At least I could call the late 80s and early 90s "the New Jack Swing times", what the heck were the mid 90s and late 90s about? I could tolerate the late 90s over the mid 90s because pop music returned from the dead. The mid 90s were too depressing for me with all of that Grunge music and those Gangsta records.  People say 1991 is when music died due to Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Nevermind reaching number one on two Billboard charts. I would have to disagree, 4 Non Blondes' "What's Up?" is far worse than "Teen Spirit". Historians also believe 1991 was when people my age began donning the flannel and Doc Martens, but that wasn't the case until 1993. In 1991, many X-ers were wearing Vuarnet shirts, Bugle Boy pants and Filas shoes. After all, the early 90s came after the 1980s, the styles weren't too different from that of the late 80s.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Howard on 10/23/14 at 3:04 pm


Is this the time that is found in a bottle?


time is of the essence.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: robby76 on 10/23/14 at 9:06 pm


I was born in 1977. My favorite decade is the 1980s, but I love the early 90s (1990-1993) just as much. Unlike Random, I hated 1993-1999 because those years were horrible for movies, music, television shows and fads. At least I could call the late 80s and early 90s "the New Jack Swing times", what the heck were the mid 90s and late 90s about? I could tolerate the late 90s over the mid 90s because pop music returned from the dead. The mid 90s were too depressing for me with all of that Grunge music and those Gangsta records.  People say 1991 is when music died due to Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Nevermind reaching number one on two Billboard charts. I would have to disagree, 4 Non Blondes' "What's Up?" is far worse than "Teen Spirit". Historians also believe 1991 was when people my age began donning the flannel and Doc Martens, but that wasn't the case until 1993. In 1991, many X-ers were wearing Vuarnet shirts, Bugle Boy pants and Filas shoes. After all, the early 90s came after the 1980s, the styles weren't too different from that of the late 80s.


As a 76er I'd agree with most of the above. Though at the time 93-96 were fine, looking back it was very grungy and depressing entertainment-wise, despite also owning Doc Martens and flannel shirts.  :D I loved New Jack Swing but my true nostalgia love is for the early-mid 80s.

update : Just looked at the UK charts for 93-94 and it's surprisingly poppy. Not many grunge acts at all in our Top 100 singles for each year. I think the UK was a much brighter place during those years than the US... perhaps.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: winteriscoming on 10/24/14 at 4:38 am

1991 and 1992 are more like the 80s than people give them credit for. I think they are pretty much just like 1989 and 1990 actually. A lot of stuff from 1989 was still popular throughout the early 90s like Ninja Turtles, Paula Abdul and Bill and Ted. I think the late 90s had more of the stereotypical gothic and ironic coffee drinking vibe people associate with the decade as a whole.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/24/14 at 4:47 am

About 5:45pm!

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/24/14 at 4:51 am

“Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.”

― Marthe Troly-Curtin

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Howard on 10/24/14 at 7:16 am


About 5:45pm!


About 8:15am

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Howard on 10/24/14 at 7:17 am

"A stitch in time saves nine".

Nine what?  ???

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/24/14 at 7:44 am


"A stitch in time saves nine".

Nine what?  ???
stitches

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-stitch-in-time.html

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/24/14 at 7:46 am

^ The question usually asked is "saves nine what"? The 'stitch in time' is simply the sewing up of a small hole or tear in a piece of material, so saving the need for more stitching at a later date when the hole has become larger. Clearly, the first users of this expression were referring to saving nine stitches.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/24/14 at 7:48 am

As the origin post has been edited and now shows as blank, this has now developed in to a discussion on time itself, should it now be moved to another board?

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Howard on 10/24/14 at 1:57 pm


As the origin post has been edited and now shows as blank, this has now developed in to a discussion on time itself, should it now be moved to another board?


Is there enough time?

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/24/14 at 11:16 pm


Is there enough time?
Time may have ran out, and we should have bolted the door!

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/24/14 at 11:19 pm


Is there enough time?
Time may have ran out, and we should have bolted the door!

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Henk on 10/25/14 at 2:13 am


Time may have ran out, and we should have bolted the door!



Time may have ran out, and we should have bolted the door!


Duplicate posts! I love when that happens. :D

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Howard on 10/25/14 at 6:50 am


Time may have ran out, and we should have bolted the door!


We should've.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Howard on 10/25/14 at 6:51 am

The time is quarter to 8.

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Philip Eno on 10/26/14 at 9:07 pm


Duplicate posts! I love when that happens. :D
. When posting that reply, I was struggling with my Internet connection, not knowing if the reply had been sent or not.

It feels like I was on 'double time

Subject: Re: Time

Written By: Howard on 10/27/14 at 2:25 pm

Anybody got the time?

Check for new replies or respond here...