So do you think 1997 was a changeful year of the 90's, or a continuation of 1996? I thought '97 was a big change for me, maybe because it's when I graduated high school. I also remember that the Spice Girls came out that year, Men in Black came out in theaters, and South Park premiered. Also in music I remember Sublime, Sugar Ray, Smashmouth, Mighty Mighty Boss Tones, and Chumbawamba were big that year.

It was a major change for me. I got married that year. I don't know as the culture changed a whole lot or anything.

1997 was a huge change.  That was the year the '90s went from being old school (and even in some ways like the 1980s) to being hi-tech, fast-paced, and almost like the '00s.  Not to say it wasn't '90s, it was just the beginning of a different type of '90s, the type that's still ridiculed today.

I personally hate 1997.  It killed Princess Di, brought a Parental Ratings system, spawned the boy bands, and was also the year the Gigapet debuted in America I believe.  1996 and 1998 were better years.

1997 was a big change, it definitely was a bridge year from the old school to the new. It wasn't the greatest year for pop culture or world events. Spice Girls/Hanson/Backstreet Boys/Robyn led the charge of the new teen pop and the gen y era began. Old school hip-hop was still around as well so it was kind of a mix of the old and the new. For me personally it wasn't the greatest year, for one my grandpa died that year so that kind of puts a stain on it. But later in the year there was the World Series for the Indians which was great, however we lost. I started a new school for 5th grade. Titanic also came out at the end of the year.

1997 was a huge change.  That was the year the '90s went from being old school (and even in some ways like the 1980s) to being hi-tech, fast-paced, and almost like the '00s.  Not to say it wasn't '90s, it was just the beginning of a different type of '90s, the type that's still ridiculed today.

I personally hate 1997.  It killed Princess Di, brought a Parental Ratings system, spawned the boy bands, and was also the year the Gigapet debuted in America I believe.  1996 and 1998 were better years.


Actually, 1996 spawned the boy band craze in America with the launch of the Backstreet Boys

[quote author=whis

Yeah, but I don't think they were popular until '97.  I could be wrong.


Their album was launced in Europe almost a year before it was in America. Same thing with the Spice Girls, they launced in 1996 in Europe as well. In America the Backstreet Boys and the Spice Girls hit the charts in 1997.

Their album was launced in Europe almost a year before it was in America. Same thing with the Spice Girls, they launced in 1996 in Europe as well. In America the Backstreet Boys and the Spice Girls hit the charts in 1997.


That's what I thought.

Who cares about Europe?  ;D

1997 was the first "really digital year"...it was also the year the last of the '80s was eradicated from pop culture, seemingly, but awhile before the '80s came back as nostalgia (a decade has to be totally eradicated from pop culture before it can make a comeback.) Also, the late '90s wave of TV shows like Ally McBeal started that year, The Simpsons started going heavily downhill in 1997, and grunge really ended as a major musical force. However, in 1997 and even in 1998 there was enough around of the "true '90s" to make it a really truly "'90s year", if you know what I mean. 1997 was ultimately the transition to the late '90s-very early '00s period, looking ahead to the real '00s.

It was what 1987-1988 was to the '80s, with the debut or formation of Nirvana, The Pixies, Tori Amos, Public Enemy, Jane's Addiction, Dinosaur Jr., Ice-T, and Guns N' Roses. Also, synth pop fell out of the charts that year, with harder rock songs from Michael Jackson. 1987 was the beginning of the late '80s and very early '90s period, with a nod ahead to the '90s.

I fondly remember 1997...probably one of the best years for music fom a few exceptions, of the 90s. Then around 1999 it started to go downhill.

Many movements took off in that year; the internet, increased computer usage, 3D gaming (I remember I got a Nintendo 64 in mid-97). I quite liked 1997...I was in year 6, which was quite an enjoyable year for me.

This was probably the last truly pure 90's year. And while mainstream music went way down from 1996, it was still pretty good. 1998 is when the crap begins, then 1999 perfected the crap.

I've said this before, 1997 and 1998 still "felt like the 90s" to me.  Some people weren't even totally letting go of grunge in 1997 and 1998.  Changes probably started in '97, but you didn't feel smashed over the head with Gen Y pop culture until 1999.  I still felt like a kid and a part of the youth culture in 1998 when I was ages 22, 23,....but I started to feel more adultish/less like a kid in 1999.  Part o that was due to changes in my own life, but a lot of it had to do with how much things shifted so hard in 1999.  But yeah you can look back and see things going that way in 1997, but it still felt like old school times to me. 

You guys are so insistent that everything from the 80s couldn't have dissappeared  on January 1st 1990, so why do you think everything from the mid 90s culture dissappeared on January 1st 1997?  One of the more annoying parts of these discussions is how some of you kids are very selective on how pop culture shifts occur.  i.e., it worked this way for our purposes and for what we want to consider "ours", but it couldn't have possibly happened that other way that those guys 5, 10 or 15 years older then us are telling us.

1997 was the year gave us some memories but 1997 is membole for di's death,boy bands biggie's and tupac's death and so much more

I've said this before, 1997 and 1998 still "felt like the 90s" to me.  Some people weren't even totally letting go of grunge in 1997 and 1998.  Changes probably started in '97, but you didn't feel smashed over the head with Gen Y pop culture until 1999.  I still felt like a kid and a part of the youth culture in 1998 when I was ages 22, 23,....but I started to feel more adultish/less like a kid in 1999.  Part o that was due to changes in my own life, but a lot of it had to do with how much things shifted so hard in 1999.  But yeah you can look back and see things going that way in 1997, but it still felt like old school times to me. 

You guys are so insistent that everything from the 80s couldn't have dissappeared  on January 1st 1990, so why do you think everything from the mid 90s culture dissappeared on January 1st 1997?  One of the more annoying parts of these discussions is how some of you kids are very selective on how pop culture shifts occur.  i.e., it worked this way for our purposes and for what we want to consider "ours", but it couldn't have possibly happened that other way that those guys 5, 10 or 15 years older then us are telling us.


Oh, 1997 and 1998 for sure were a zillion times more old school then 1999.  I actually think the '90s culture ended in late 2001, but I do think that the end of 1997 is about 40% less old school than 1999.  But yeah, I agree, 1998 is still pretty old-school.

As for the mid '90s culture, hell, I wouldn't say it's 100% gone today!  In fact, looking at the Billboard charts of anything I'd say it's on the rise.

Oh, 1997 and 1998 for sure were a zillion times more old school then 1999.  I actually think the '90s culture ended in late 2001, but I do think that the end of 1997 is about 40% less old school than 1999.  But yeah, I agree, 1998 is still pretty old-school.

As for the mid '90s culture, hell, I wouldn't say it's 100% gone today!  In fact, looking at the Billboard charts of anything I'd say it's on the rise.


Hell, there were some people who weren't fully letting go of grunge in 2000! And the "Kurt" grunge style was still pretty popular to about 2001, and '90s bands like Pavement, My Bloody Valentine, Weezer, Beck were still popular in alot of ways. 1999 was still the '90s in alot of ways though, IMO, with the popularity of techno and stuff like TLC, and the general '90s zeitgeist and perception of alternativeness, even if it wasn't still quite the "true" '90s like 1997 was.

1997 was the year gave us some memories but 1997 is membole for di's death,boy bands biggie's and tupac's death and so much more
Pac died in late 96
When I think of 97 i think of 97-early pre 9/11 01 My early grade school years memories of a happier time These Were the memorie years of my childhood

Their album was launced in Europe almost a year before it was in America. Same thing with the Spice Girls, they launced in 1996 in Europe as well. In America the Backstreet Boys and the Spice Girls hit the charts in 1997.


Do you think what was popular in 1997 ultimately made the 1999 pop culture shift possible?

Not that I loved the Spice Girls or anything, but I do kinda understand how the mainstream audiences were so loving/receptive to stuff like that, after 5-6 years of grunge. Although on the other hand, you can't really compare them. That's stuff for "hard rock" radio, while this is poppy stuff. There was poppy stuff in 1991-96 that wasn't too much different.

I do think if they and Hanson hadn't broke through in '97, the Britney/Ricky Martin/NSync explosion of 1999 may have not happened. Or at least wouldn't have been as drastic and "influential". Oddly, as time passes, I'm cool with that stuff now, but at the time, I couldn't believe anyone would want to revive New Kids on the Block from less than ten years earlier! ;D

I think one of the reasons NKOTB got so much grief was because a few of those guys tried to pass themselves off as hard, tough guys.  Was it Donny?  Or maybey it was the Jordan guy, I can't remember.  It came off as looking ridiculous, well to non-females and anyone over the age of 15 anyway.

NSYNC just kinda were what they were.  What blew my mind was how many 17, 18 and 19 and 20 year olds were into NYSNC and Backstreet Boys back in 1999.  Guys and girls.  They were seen as cool, were as NKOTB were never cool.  NKOTB's fan base tended to be middle school kids and under, young women that were 20 years old in 1989 had a tendency to laugh at them just as much as guys did.  (not all of them, but you get the idea)   

NSYNC just kinda were what they were.  What blew my mind was how many 17, 18 and 19 and 20 year olds were into NYSNC and Backstreet Boys back in 1999.  Guys and girls.  They were seen as cool, were as NKOTB were never cool.  NKOTB's fan base tended to be middle school kids and under, young women that were 20 years old in 1989 had a tendency to laugh at them just as much as guys did.  (not all of them, but you get the idea)   


In my high school boybands were never considered cool. It was cool to bash them and complain constantly about their omnipresence in the culture of that time; if anyone openly acknowledged listening to them, that person's musical tastes ran the high risk of being derided by the fascistic "cool" kids. Furthermore, the only people I knew who listened to boybands were girls -- never guys -- and they were generally considered to be somewhat "geeky"; any guy who admitted to listening to boybands would have almost certainly been ridiculed as a "fag."

I never liked boybands myself, but still... reminiscing about this just reminds me of why I'm glad to be out of high school.

NKOTB. Don't remember them. (I was 11 in '97).

As for N'sync, backstreet boys, they became popular around 99-00 and can tell you, apart from SOME girls, no-one in their latter teens would openly admit to liking them. Even at 12 at despised them; not just cos of their image, and I seriously could not stand their music.

Do you think what was popular in 1997 ultimately made the 1999 pop culture shift possible?

Not that I loved the Spice Girls or anything, but I do kinda understand how the mainstream audiences were so loving/receptive to stuff like that, after 5-6 years of grunge. Although on the other hand, you can't really compare them. That's stuff for "hard rock" radio, while this is poppy stuff. There was poppy stuff in 1991-96 that wasn't too much different.

I do think if they and Hanson hadn't broke through in '97, the Britney/Ricky Martin/NSync explosion of 1999 may have not happened. Or at least wouldn't have been as drastic and "influential". Oddly, as time passes, I'm cool with that stuff now, but at the time, I couldn't believe anyone would want to revive New Kids on the Block from less than ten years earlier! ;D


That's probably true, that the '97 Spice Girls-Hanson stuff made the '99 explosion possible. Britney, Ricky Martin, N*Sync, The Backstreet Boys, Enrique Iglesias, Christina Aguilera...the period when I was in 3rd and 4th grade when that was the dominant thing on the airwaves seems so far away now...the whole 1999 zeitgeist. Hanson and the Spice Girls were in alot of ways more authentically '90s and seemed just like palatable tweenybopper versions to an extent of what else was popular in like '97. And there's definitely some truth to that all that became popular around '97 or '98, when people were fed up with grunge. More "optimistic" grunge pop like Alanis Morisette and the Counting Crows became popular around the same time.

That's probably true, that the '97 Spice Girls-Hanson stuff made the '99 explosion possible. Britney, Ricky Martin, N*Sync, The Backstreet Boys, Enrique Iglesias, Christina Aguilera...the period when I was in 3rd and 4th grade when that was the dominant thing on the airwaves seems so far away now...the whole 1999 zeitgeist. Hanson and the Spice Girls were in alot of ways more authentically '90s and seemed just like palatable tweenybopper versions to an extent of what else was popular in like '97. And there's definitely some truth to that all that became popular around '97 or '98, when people were fed up with grunge. More "optimistic" grunge pop like Alanis Morisette and the Counting Crows became popular around the same time.


Good point. I never knew quite what to call, say Alanis and Giin Blossoms, or even harder bands like The Offspring. Sure, they had some grunge and feelings of anger in them (especially parts of Alanis' song "You Oughta Know" ;D ), but were overall a bit more upbeat.

1998 just felt "less 1997" to me and still a bit old school in many ways, albeit as a last gasp. Even if there wasn't the boy band explosion of 1999, I have a feeling music still would've shifted that year. 1997 and 1998 overall were still a bit like the mid '90s, but already felt a bit removed from, say 1993.

Good point. I never knew quite what to call, say Alanis and Giin Blossoms, or even harder bands like The Offspring. Sure, they had some grunge and feelings of anger in them (especially parts of Alanis' song "You Oughta Know" ;D ), but were overall a bit more upbeat.

1998 just felt "less 1997" to me and still a bit old school in many ways, albeit as a last gasp. Even if there wasn't the boy band explosion of 1999, I have a feeling music still would've shifted that year. 1997 and 1998 overall were still a bit like the mid '90s, but already felt a bit removed from, say 1993.


Yeah, 1997 and 1998 still felt pretty "old school" '90s in alot of ways, based on what was on TV and on the airwaves to a certain extent, and fashion, etc. Also, the whole super-relaxed Seattle mindset was still pretty big right then. To me, the turning point as a kid in the '90s to it not being the same '90s anymore was around 1999, when the classic Nickelodeon line-up ended. Even early 1999, when I was in 3rd grade, had some sort of old school elements to it, very little that's popular now was popular then. IMO, the real death of the old school '90s was "Baby One More Time." However, even in 1999-2000, when my friends and I were getting into music, we headed straight for Nirvana. But you're right, there was very little actually left of say 1993 by 1998.

^ Yeah. Would you agree that in 1999 and 2000 (or even the first half of 2001) it was still somewhat cool/acceptable to like things from earlier in the '90s, even if the old school '90s died around late '98/early '99? I know, alot of friends around my age were listening to grunge at the time, and no one was telling them "Dude, that's old school" or anything of that sort.

^ Yeah. Would you agree that in 1999 and 2000 (or even the first half of 2001) it was still somewhat cool/acceptable to like things from earlier in the '90s, even if the old school '90s died around late '98/early '99? I know, alot of friends around my age were listening to grunge at the time, and no one was telling them "Dude, that's old school" or anything of that sort.


Yeah, it was still acceptable by far to listen to grunge, my friends all listened to stuff like Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, and early Nine Inch Nails in 2001 and even early 2002, and it was not old school. There's so much rock from then that's not around anymore, I miss the diversity of the late '90s scene: poppy female singer-songwriters, techno, country pop, post-grunge, Beck-esque alt rock, Britpop, pop-punk, nu metal....

Yeah, it was still acceptable by far to listen to grunge, my friends all listened to stuff like Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, and early Nine Inch Nails in 2001 and even early 2002, and it was not old school. There's so much rock from then that's not around anymore, I miss the diversity of the late '90s scene: poppy female singer-songwriters, techno, country pop, post-grunge, Beck-esque alt rock, Britpop, pop-punk, nu metal....


Yeah. Have you noticed that even the variety of styles out now seem to have more of a common denominator than the '90s, or even 1999/2000 did (let alone the '60s-80s)? Even the adult contemporary stuff sounds like Dave Matthews ripoffs or American Idol-esque pop. You don't hear sappy prom-type ballads anymore, among alot of other stuff.

Yeah. Have you noticed that even the variety of styles out now seem to have more of a common denominator than the '90s, or even 1999/2000 did (let alone the '60s-80s)? Even the adult contemporary stuff sounds like Dave Matthews ripoffs or American Idol-esque pop. You don't hear sappy prom-type ballads anymore, among alot of other stuff.


The problem I have with a lot of the AC stuff is that it all seems to sound the same.

Yeah. Have you noticed that even the variety of styles out now seem to have more of a common denominator than the '90s, or even 1999/2000 did (let alone the '60s-80s)? Even the adult contemporary stuff sounds like Dave Matthews ripoffs or American Idol-esque pop. You don't hear sappy prom-type ballads anymore, among alot of other stuff.


Yeah...all the Jack Johnson, John Mayer, Norah Jones, Maroon 5, James Blunt, David Powter, Natasha Bedingfield stuff essentially sounds the same-Dave Matthews Band ripoffs, as you said. There's actually a fair amount of variation, though it doesn't usually produce decent results, with the "indie" stuff, though Good Charlotte et. al. sounds the same.

I bet a lot of the stuff from the '90s actually is considered very unfashionable now, and I just don't notice it because I don't go to school.

Anyway though, 1997 was like a "little 1999".  1997 and 1998 really felt like a cusp between the more old school early and mid '90s and 1999 and the early '00s.  For instance, certain things that define the early '00s and the year 1999 were there, but so was tons of things from the mid and early '90s. 

Actually, even 1999 has a tiny grain of old-school ness, even though many of the '00s cultural staples were firmly planted by then.

I bet a lot of the stuff from the '90s actually is considered very unfashionable now, and I just don't notice it because I don't go to school.

Anyway though, 1997 was like a "little 1999".  1997 and 1998 really felt like a cusp between the more old school early and mid '90s and 1999 and the early '00s.  For instance, certain things that define the early '00s and the year 1999 were there, but so was tons of things from the mid and early '90s. 

Actually, even 1999 has a tiny grain of old-school ness, even though many of the '00s cultural staples were firmly planted by then.


Yeah, I think grunge for example is considered pretty damn unfashionable among the whole peak Y, 1984-1990 subset, but less so after that, and nu metal is considered extremely unfashionable.

It was a very changeful year. In some ways 1997 was the beginning of the culture we live in today. It was also the year that the digital revelution(started in 1993) really exploded. It's alot more old school than 1999 though. And while I dont believe everthing changed on January 1,1997 I think it was all 365 days of 1997 that changed things.

And while I dont believe everthing changed on January 1,1997 I think it was all 365 days of 1997 that changed things.


Totally.  The early months of 1997 were a lot different than 1998.  It was the whole year, it wasn't a total change, it was like half the step to the 1999 culture.

Totally.  The early months of 1997 were a lot different than 1998.  It was the whole year, it wasn't a total change, it was like half the step to the 1999 culture.



Yeah like I said 1997 still had an old school quality to it that 1999 didnt have. Even though I still think the late 90's vibe lasted until mid 2001.

Yeah like I said 1997 still had an old school quality to it that 1999 didnt have. Even though I still think the late 90's vibe lasted until mid 2001.


Yeah, even 1998 still felt a little old school.  The video games of the '90s weren't completely 3D either, they were more like 2 1/2 D if that makes sense.  Well towards 1998 or so they became 3D, but the graphics are really dated and cartoonish.
You know what's funny too?  I used to think the explicit media of the '90s (and of this decade, to a lesser extent) would save it from ever becoming old, but that's not really true.  It's still shocking, but it seems old too somehow.

Yeah, even 1998 still felt a little old school.  The video games of the '90s weren't completely 3D either, they were more like 2 1/2 D if that makes sense.  Well towards 1998 or so they became 3D, but the graphics are really dated and cartoonish.
You know what's funny too?  I used to think the explicit media of the '90s (and of this decade, to a lesser extent) would save it from ever becoming old, but that's not really true.  It's still shocking, but it seems old too somehow.



I agree on both counts. First off I dont consider the early 3D ear(1995-1998) to be fully 3D the way it is now either. Especially the PS1 ;D. Plus since the decade started with the whole 16 bit era the 90's still feel like a 2D video game decade overall. Also on the other point the whole late 90's violence thing is starting to feel pretty dated ain't it? ;)

I agree on both counts. First off I dont consider the early 3D ear(1995-1998) to be fully 3D the way it is now either. Especially the PS1 ;D. Plus since the decade started with the whole 16 bit era the 90's still feel like a 2D video game decade overall. Also on the other point the whole late 90's violence thing is starting to feel pretty dated ain't it? ;)


I don't miss the flying organs! :)

Apart from the reintroduction of cricket into my life, 1997 seems now like an ordinary year for me.

For starters, there are two types of '3D'. A mere oblique 'view' such as Sim City 2000; such '3D' vectored games actually appeared as early as the very early 80s with Moon Lander, but it was not until Falcon 4.0 back in '91, and many arcade games that it was introduced. 'True 3D' multi-vectored, a true 'depth engine' was restricted mainly to the arcade until the PS1 came along in '94 or '95 (can't remember).

Yeah, even 1998 still felt a little old school.  The video games of the '90s weren't completely 3D either, they were more like 2 1/2 D if that makes sense.  Well towards 1998 or so they became 3D, but the graphics are really dated and cartoonish.
You know what's funny too?  I used to think the explicit media of the '90s (and of this decade, to a lesser extent) would save it from ever becoming old, but that's not really true.  It's still shocking, but it seems old too somehow.


I've always felt that, actually the "cooler" or more shocking/controversial something is when it's actually going on, the more likely it's going to be perceived as stupid, cheesy, or at least dated later on.

Of course, there's an exception to stuff that was extremely culturally shaping, such as The Beatles/'60s revolution, MTV, etc. But, for the most part, when something is just SO "in" and cool that it defines an era, when its time passes, it won't be able to change with the times as easily. Whereas stuff that's just "kinda cool" actually has more staying power.

I think '90s violence/extreme stuff on TV is a good example. I love Beavis and Butthead for instance, but I was just watching some old episodes I taped back in the day, and its coolness actually makes it look dated. Even though they were pretty moronic even for 1994, they seem even more immature/silly now.

I've always felt that, actually the "cooler" or more shocking/controversial something is when it's actually going on, the more likely it's going to be perceived as stupid, cheesy, or at least dated later on.

Of course, there's an exception to stuff that was extremely culturally shaping, such as The Beatles/'60s revolution, MTV, etc. But, for the most part, when something is just SO "in" and cool that it defines an era, when its time passes, it won't be able to change with the times as easily. Whereas stuff that's just "kinda cool" actually has more staying power.

I think '90s violence/extreme stuff on TV is a good example. I love Beavis and Butthead for instance, but I was just watching some old episodes I taped back in the day, and its coolness actually makes it look dated. Even though they were pretty moronic even for 1994, they seem even more immature/silly now.


Yeah, I think gangsta rap and hair metal are other examples of this, and probably emo and the iPod are '00s examples of this. Alot of hyper-violent '90s programming now just looks immature.

Alot of hyper-violent '90s programming now just looks immature.


Tell that to Quentin Tarantino  :)

I've always felt that, actually the "cooler" or more shocking/controversial something is when it's actually going on, the more likely it's going to be perceived as stupid, cheesy, or at least dated later on.

Of course, there's an exception to stuff that was extremely culturally shaping, such as The Beatles/'60s revolution, MTV, etc. But, for the most part, when something is just SO "in" and cool that it defines an era, when its time passes, it won't be able to change with the times as easily. Whereas stuff that's just "kinda cool" actually has more staying power.



I totally agree. When something just happens to reach it's peak coolness in the peak of any given decade, when that decade passes and the next starts up it usually appears very cheesy and dated.

I've always felt that, actually the "cooler" or more shocking/controversial something is when it's actually going on, the more likely it's going to be perceived as stupid, cheesy, or at least dated later on.

Of course, there's an exception to stuff that was extremely culturally shaping, such as The Beatles/'60s revolution, MTV, etc. But, for the most part, when something is just SO "in" and cool that it defines an era, when its time passes, it won't be able to change with the times as easily. Whereas stuff that's just "kinda cool" actually has more staying power.

I think '90s violence/extreme stuff on TV is a good example. I love Beavis and Butthead for instance, but I was just watching some old episodes I taped back in the day, and its coolness actually makes it look dated. Even though they were pretty moronic even for 1994, they seem even more immature/silly now.


Totally.

Did you actually think during the 1990s that the violence would somehow make the period immortally young, or age differently.  I did, but I really think I was wrong now, it still looks old, even if it's no less violent.

Oops! Lol. Forgot there is a thread about 1997. Sorry everyone!

UqAvhrMwpYc

Favorite hit of 1997.

The Digital Revolution really impacted me, but I'll save that for a post on The 2000s because it happened in the early '00s.

But yeah, Space Ghost Coast to Coast was at its peak, Batman & Robin was my favorite movie, Superman: The Escape opened at Six Flags Magic Mountain and became my first rollercoaster over 100 ft, and I went to Malibu that summer. It felt like an episode of Beverly Hills Teens.

I was one of those dragged to see Titanic in theatres 25 years ago. Just to spite the hated phenom, I think the little girl Cora should have lived and Rose DeWitt Bukater should have died.


https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/r255/molly-dolly/11017657_807264339349242_2086082602_n.jpg