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: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 03/10/15 at 3:29 pm

Seriously, it has so little in common with the previous year let alone the rest of the '00s. Its got the 2010s written all over it. HDTVs became mainstream, Facebook truly became relevant, far more 2000s youtube videos are from that year than any other(something with the rest of the internet), smartphones overtook dumbphones, Dial-up usage becoming rare(10% US pop.), some people claiming to have joined twitter, etc. In fact it seems like every year of a decade that ends in a "9" is very different from the rest. 1999 had DVDs and, 1989 had the internet proper, 1979 had "80s" music.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Philip Eno on 03/10/15 at 3:34 pm

By my calendar it is!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 03/10/15 at 3:35 pm

Culture-wise.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/10/15 at 4:12 pm


Seriously, it has so little in common with the previous year let alone the rest of the '00s. Its got the 2010s written all over it. HDTVs became mainstream, Facebook truly became relevant, far more 2000s youtube videos are from that year than any other(something with the rest of the internet), smartphones overtook dumbphones, Dial-up usage becoming rare(10% US pop.), some people claiming to have joined twitter, etc. In fact it seems like every year of a decade that ends in a "9" is very different from the rest. 1999 had DVDs and, 1989 had the internet proper, 1979 had "80s" music.
Not exactly.

In 2009, most people still had simple cellphones (smartphones weren't more popular until 2011)

Broadband and Wifi internet connections were in competition together

Although Obama was in office, his influence didn't change overnight.

There were two major social media sites (Myspace and Facebook) while the rest weren't that popular.

Most YouTube users hadn't made a career from site yet.

Xbox 360 and PS3 didn't have the motion sensor controllers yet.

Some artists today were not relevant in that year

The word app didnt refer to a phone app, it referred to applications such as jobs, college, etc.

Music from 2006 to '08 were still played on radios

People still watched TV on cable, not on Netflix or Hulu.

Games were still more genres than just FPS.

No Ipads or tablets










Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 03/11/15 at 4:37 am


Not exactly.

In 2009, most people still had simple cellphones (smartphones weren't more popular until 2011)

Broadband and Wifi internet connections were in competition together

Although Obama was in office, his influence didn't change overnight.

There were two major social media sites (Myspace and Facebook) while the rest weren't that popular.

Most YouTube users hadn't made a career from site yet.

Xbox 360 and PS3 didn't have the motion sensor controllers yet.

Some artists today were not relevant in that year

The word app didnt refer to a phone app, it referred to applications such as jobs, college, etc.

Music from 2006 to '08 were still played on radios

People still watched TV on cable, not on Netflix or Hulu.

Games were still more genres than just FPS.

No Ipads or tablets

In 2009 I got my first slider phone and thought the world of it! People with money had Blackberries. It was also the year TV went all digital and the cable company charges for every TV that has it.  >:( Twitter existed too in social media, but wasn't huge yet. Games now aren't just FPS, but need more originality. Xbox360 and PS3 had totally overtaken the two earlier systems by 2009 though in just three years.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 03/11/15 at 6:12 am

Now, that's pure decadeology.

In fact it seems like every year of a decade that ends in a "9" is very different from the rest.

Sure, the 9-year will have more in common with the upcoming 0,1 or 2-year than with the previous, but I doubt that 2009 was that different from the 2006-08 era...

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Catherine91UK on 03/11/15 at 10:43 am

I think the 2010s did actually begin in 2010 when the iPad was released. In the UK, you could also say the 2010s began when the current government took office, which was around the same time the iPad came out!

I don't remember many people my age (17 at the time) having smartphones in 2009.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 03/11/15 at 3:27 pm

Yes.  In 2009...

-MySpace was still relevant
-Emo/scene culture was still big; nobody was talking about hipsters yet
-Remember Bieber hair?  Nobody had heard of Justin Bieber until late that year but if you were an affluent, suburban teen or twentysomething guy you probably had that haircut
-Top 40 still had a fair amount of ringtone rap and post grunge
-The iPad wasn't out yet.  The iPhone was expensive and it was the only option if you wanted a smartphone
-Digital cameras were still relevant
-Computers still came with Windows Vista
-Bush was in office when the year started
-"The Office" was in its prime

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Arrowstone on 03/11/15 at 3:49 pm

Ah yes, the Bieber-haircut before Bieber. Or the "jewfro" for curls. Anyhow, quite "big hair" compared to today.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/11/15 at 7:29 pm

Pop culturally that's debatable but calendar wise of course 2009 is a 00s year!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/11/15 at 7:30 pm


Now, that's pure decadeology.

Sure, the 9-year will have more in common with the upcoming 0,1 or 2-year than with the previous, but I doubt that 2009 was that different from the 2006-08 era...


I agree, but pop culturally I think the 10s did began in 09.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/11/15 at 7:31 pm

And don't forget YouTube was going through some changes.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/11/15 at 7:44 pm


And don't forget YouTube was going through some changes.


YouTube went through the worst changes! IMO give me 07-08 YouTube any day of the friggin week!!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 03/12/15 at 1:42 am


YouTube went through the worst changes! IMO give me 07-08 YouTube any day of the friggin week!!


Only for nostalgic reasons? Youtube was useless before 2009 IMO. No HD, only short clips, only a small collection of videos. I don't think anymbody wants this back.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 03/12/15 at 3:52 am


I agree, but pop culturally I think the 10s did began in 09.


Pop cultural eras are usually shorter than 10 years. Every decade has some pop cultural mini eras. I can't for example imagine that 2017 or 18 will have too many things in common with 2009, but we will still be in the 10s then.

2009 may have been the light version of the 2010-13 era, but the year gets more and more irrelevant. Right now, I think we are in a mid 10s era which covers the years 14-16 or early 17. 2019 will be much different from 2015 again.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 03/12/15 at 8:34 am


2009 may have been the light version of the 2010-13 era, but the year gets more and more irrelevant. Right now, I think we are in a mid 10s era which covers the years 14-16 or early 17. 2019 will be much different from 2015 again.


2009 is already irrelevant. Even 2010 is.

I consider 2014 to be the true start of the 2010s pop culturally.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/12/15 at 9:48 am

2009, the worse year of my life.  :\'(

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 03/12/15 at 1:56 pm


In 2009 I got my first slider phone and thought the world of it! People with money had Blackberries. It was also the year TV went all digital and the cable company charges for every TV that has it.  >:( Twitter existed too in social media, but wasn't huge yet. Games now aren't just FPS, but need more originality. Xbox360 and PS3 had totally overtaken the two earlier systems by 2009 though in just three years.

TV didn't go digital until 2011.
But I agree, blackberrys are what I meant by smartphones.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 03/12/15 at 1:59 pm


Only for nostalgic reasons? Youtube was useless before 2009 IMO. No HD, only short clips, only a small collection of videos. I don't think anymbody wants this back.

No HD in 09 until the end of the year.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/12/15 at 6:19 pm


YouTube went through the worst changes! IMO give me 07-08 YouTube any day of the friggin week!!


and this was before Google collaborated with them.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/12/15 at 6:19 pm


Only for nostalgic reasons? YouTube was useless before 2009 IMO. No HD, only short clips, only a small collection of videos. I don't think anybody wants this back.


I think I prefer the YouTube of now.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/12/15 at 6:21 pm


2009, the worse year of my life.  :\'(



Why was that?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 03/12/15 at 8:16 pm


TV didn't go digital until 2011.
But I agree, blackberrys are what I meant by smartphones.

Where I am it did. To keep our cable everyone had to have converters.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/12/15 at 11:20 pm



Why was that?


Bad grades.
Not getting along with parents (um, let's just say they're still the same people) but they're not as bad now.
Mental health issues.
Not getting along with my nephew, or at least the start of it in September of that year (we get along fine now).
Got kicked off a blog that I liked. The woman disagreed with my views.

2015 is 1 trillion times better!! Thank you God!  :)

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/12/15 at 11:23 pm

My first full year with cable. Or I should say my family.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/12/15 at 11:25 pm

Culturally speaking don't know yet. From what we know now, it is more part of 2010s culture. But we have to wait at least 5 years to truly know the identity where 2009 belongs to. My guess will people will still see some 00'sy stuff when they look back at 2009 from 2020. We just can't see it now because it's too close to our time.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/13/15 at 12:00 am


What again was the issue with you and your nephew? I remember reading about it back in the day when my account was watertowater.


He was just being a 14 year old and I was just being me!  ;D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/13/15 at 12:07 am

The economy was stinky poo in 2009, it was at its lowest in March 2009 I think!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: shadowcookie on 03/13/15 at 2:28 am


Only for nostalgic reasons? Youtube was useless before 2009 IMO. No HD, only short clips, only a small collection of videos. I don't think anymbody wants this back.

I rather liked YouTube in 2009 - but their constant revamps and 'overhauls' got annoying.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Philip Eno on 03/13/15 at 2:45 am


The economy was stinky poo in 2009, it was at its lowest in March 2009 I think!
Is 'stinky poo' a technical financial term?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/13/15 at 5:03 am


Is 'stinky poo' a technical financial term?


Ohhh!  :o

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/13/15 at 10:27 am


Pop cultural eras are usually shorter than 10 years. Every decade has some pop cultural mini eras. I can't for example imagine that 2017 or 18 will have too many things in common with 2009, but we will still be in the 10s then.

2009 may have been the light version of the 2010-13 era, but the year gets more and more irrelevant. Right now, I think we are in a mid 10s era which covers the years 14-16 or early 17. 2019 will be much different from 2015 again.


I understand what ya sayin!! 8)

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/13/15 at 10:35 am



Why was that?


2009 sucked for me too!! The reasons are similar to Millenium Mansion 07 but from my experience it was more of getting older and changing I turned 14 that year! :-\\ It was a very awkward time for me personally going from the 00s era to the 10s era was a VERY big change for me!! Having a sheeshty economy,many celebs dying(MJ),crappy tv, movies weren't that good till the latter half of the year,kids were starting to act like douchebags to me in school. It all just frigggin sucked ass!! >:( I don't want the 09-11 years back AT ALL!! My early-mid teen years were VERY unenjoyable!! 8-P

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/13/15 at 10:41 am

2009 is a type of year, where me and friends of mine discuss the 00s we NEVER associate that year with the other years of the decade MAYBE the early part of the year but the not the latter half(fall). When I started the 8th grade during the 09-10 school year ALOT of things had just felt COMPLETELY different to me and some of other friends too!!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/13/15 at 10:44 am


Yes.  In 2009...

-MySpace was still relevant
-Emo/scene culture was still big; nobody was talking about hipsters yet
-Remember Bieber hair?  Nobody had heard of Justin Bieber until late that year but if you were an affluent, suburban teen or twentysomething guy you probably had that haircut
-Top 40 still had a fair amount of ringtone rap and post grunge
-The iPad wasn't out yet.  The iPhone was expensive and it was the only option if you wanted a smartphone
-Digital cameras were still relevant
-Computers still came with Windows Vista
-Bush was in office when the year started
-"The Office" was in its prime
/
Bush may have been in office when the year started but 09 for me was strictly an Obama year!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/13/15 at 10:46 am


2009 is already irrelevant. Even 2010 is.

I consider 2014 to be the true start of the 2010s pop culturally.


Wow! you think the 10s peaked in 2014? Myself and other people I talk too think 2011 was when it peaked culturally.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 03/13/15 at 12:18 pm


Wow! you think the 10s peaked in 2014? Myself and other people I talk too think 2011 was when it peaked culturally.


No, not peaked, began. 2010-2013 had a late '00s influence on pop culture and it didn't completely disappear until 2014. Maybe 2011 was the peak of early 2010s pop culture, but we still have the rest of the mid 2010s and the entire late 2010s. I think the second half of this decade is going to be what people will remember of the 2010s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/13/15 at 1:10 pm


No, not peaked, began. 2010-2013 had a late '00s influence on pop culture and it didn't completely disappear until 2014. Maybe 2011 was the peak of early 2010s pop culture, but we still have the rest of the mid 2010s and the entire late 2010s. I think the second half of this decade is going to be what people will remember of the 2010s.


Yea it had some 2008-09 influences, but once again I think the 10s began early IMO! I know that we are going to have different views on this subject. But to each his own! 8) Probably if you think the late 00s were the most quintessential years of that decade, that's PROBABLY why you have that belief!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/13/15 at 1:13 pm


No, not peaked, began. 2010-2013 had a late '00s influence on pop culture and it didn't completely disappear until 2014. Maybe 2011 was the peak of early 2010s pop culture, but we still have the rest of the mid 2010s and the entire late 2010s. I think the second half of this decade is going to be what people will remember of the 2010s.


2013??? :-\\ 2010-12 had some 08/09 influences, BUT specifically late 2013 did not feel like the other years AT ALL to me!! Also, Musically that early 10s sound is still kind of around!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 03/13/15 at 1:38 pm


Probably if you think the late 00s were the most quintessential years of that decade, that's PROBABLY why you have that belief!


I think the mid '00s were the most quintessential years of the 2000s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/13/15 at 2:18 pm


I think the mid '00s were the most quintessential years of the 2000s.

I think the early 2000s (2000-2003) are.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/13/15 at 3:47 pm


Where I am it did. To keep our cable everyone had to have converters.


You mean those black boxes?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/13/15 at 3:49 pm


I rather liked YouTube in 2009 - but their constant revamps and 'overhauls' got annoying.


I know Shadow, every month that YouTube got revamped, it was annoying.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/13/15 at 6:31 pm


I think the mid '00s were the most quintessential years of the 2000s.


Oh, so do I :)!!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/18/15 at 9:21 am

A lot of people think the late 00s culture belong to the 10s and while that's true, they forget a lot of stuff from the late 00s was also popular in the 00s overall. Like the show "The Office" is a classic 00s show but its popularity was huge in the late 00s. Also Slide phones were popular, MySpace was still being used, many people still had flip phones and Windows XP and Vista was being used by many.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 03/19/15 at 4:03 pm


Culturally speaking don't know yet. From what we know now, it is more part of 2010s culture. But we have to wait at least 5 years to truly know the identity where 2009 belongs to. My guess will people will still see some 00'sy stuff when they look back at 2009 from 2020. We just can't see it now because it's too close to our time.


I agree with this.  I have already explained why I believe 2009 fits with the '00s.  As each year passes it becomes more and more an '00s year.  2008 seems purely '00s at this point.  In 2011 people were saying it was the beginning of the '10s.  I think looking back its likely we will see a transition era that lasted from 2008-2012 much like the transition from '90s to '00s that lasted from 1998-2001.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/19/15 at 4:36 pm

2009 actually had both 00s and 10s vibes, but it seems more last decade because of some important details.

Fashion of that year

http://kingsparknotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Class-of-2013-in-2009.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAi7cseC_mE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgU6mifcWhc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nFZmc2UWXA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUZ1Myeq6sg

https://vimeo.com/10061177

Social Media

https://smartnewsnc.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/client-9.jpg

http://www.socialmediadefined.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/facebook-profile.bmp

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/instant-messaging-2.jpg

http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/humor/images/youtube-2009.jpg

Cellphones

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P3WTK4q_Oz8/SxKvW2vYCrI/AAAAAAAAAAs/htq5UrhhQQE/s320/46.jpg

http://www.n1wireless.com/img-1-lx2009._733.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/06/technology/personaltech/cell.slide.1.samsung.jpg

http://i.crn.com/crntwimgs/slideshows/2009/cellphones_testcenter/Slide10.jpg

Movies

https://bobertpaulson.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/tvs-votes-for-2009.jpg


Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/19/15 at 5:42 pm


2009 actually had both 00s and 10s vibes, but it seems more last decade because of some important details.

Fashion of that year

http://kingsparknotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Class-of-2013-in-2009.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAi7cseC_mE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgU6mifcWhc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nFZmc2UWXA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUZ1Myeq6sg

https://vimeo.com/10061177

Social Media

https://smartnewsnc.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/client-9.jpg

http://www.socialmediadefined.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/facebook-profile.bmp

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/instant-messaging-2.jpg

http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/humor/images/youtube-2009.jpg

Cellphones

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P3WTK4q_Oz8/SxKvW2vYCrI/AAAAAAAAAAs/htq5UrhhQQE/s320/46.jpg

http://www.n1wireless.com/img-1-lx2009._733.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/06/technology/personaltech/cell.slide.1.samsung.jpg

http://i.crn.com/crntwimgs/slideshows/2009/cellphones_testcenter/Slide10.jpg

Movies

https://bobertpaulson.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/tvs-votes-for-2009.jpg

Yeah oddly enough as the years go by the more 09'/10' look more like the 00's. In 2012 I would have said no way and 2009 would be part of the 10's for sure. For now it seems like a transitional period and mix between the two decades. All we know about the 10s is the Obama/electro pop era but things may change a lot in the second half of the decade so we can't be 100% sure yet.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/19/15 at 5:47 pm


Yeah oddly enough as the years go by the more 09'/10' look more like the 00's. In 2012 I would have said no way and 2009 would be part of the 10's for sure. For now it seems like a transitional period and mix between the two decades. All we know about the 10s is the Obama/electro pop era but things may change a lot in the second half of the decade so we can't be 100% sure yet.
I agree.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 03/19/15 at 7:00 pm


Yeah oddly enough as the years go by the more 09'/10' look more like the 00's. In 2012 I would have said no way and 2009 would be part of the 10's for sure. For now it seems like a transitional period and mix between the two decades. All we know about the 10s is the Obama/electro pop era but things may change a lot in the second half of the decade so we can't be 100% sure yet.


True.  There are decades, the '60s for instance, that came to be defined mostly by events and cultural trends of their later years.  Few people realize that much of the '60s, especially pre-1964, was virtually indistinguishable from the 1950s.

If there is a shift between now and 2020, the new culture may ultimately come to define the '10s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 1:27 am


Seriously, it has so little in common with the previous year let alone the rest of the '00s. Its got the 2010s written all over it. HDTVs became mainstream, Facebook truly became relevant, far more 2000s youtube videos are from that year than any other(something with the rest of the internet), smartphones overtook dumbphones, Dial-up usage becoming rare(10% US pop.), some people claiming to have joined twitter, etc. In fact it seems like every year of a decade that ends in a "9" is very different from the rest. 1999 had DVDs and, 1989 had the internet proper, 1979 had "80s" music.


I'll give you 1979, but 1989 was still a late 80s year.

This was still on Ice Cream trucks at that time:

https://longwhitekid.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/45-15-likes-tip-tops-alf-novelty-ice-cream-box-front-based-on-the-wildly-popular-tv-series-of-course-issued-around-1988.jpg


'89 may have been the first year of the Bush 1 era, but the early 90s didn't start until these things showed up:

https://vote4mccain.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/cross20colours.jpg

https://beyondrudolph.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/rosebud.jpg

https://itsastickup.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/power_drencher_90.jpg

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/20/15 at 7:28 am

https://longwhitekid.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/45-15-likes-tip-tops-alf-novelty-ice-cream-box-front-based-on-the-wildly-popular-tv-series-of-course-issued-around-1988.jpg

ALF was 80's.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Philip Eno on 03/20/15 at 7:35 am


https://longwhitekid.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/45-15-likes-tip-tops-alf-novelty-ice-cream-box-front-based-on-the-wildly-popular-tv-series-of-course-issued-around-1988.jpg

ALF was 80's.
ALF is an American sitcom that aired on NBC from September 22, 1986 to March 24, 1990.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 9:52 am


https://longwhitekid.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/45-15-likes-tip-tops-alf-novelty-ice-cream-box-front-based-on-the-wildly-popular-tv-series-of-course-issued-around-1988.jpg

ALF was 80's.


Exactly. I was pointing out to the OP that 1989 was the last full year of the 1980s still.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 10:00 am


Seriously, it has so little in common with the previous year let alone the rest of the '00s. Its got the 2010s written all over it. HDTVs became mainstream, Facebook truly became relevant, far more 2000s youtube videos are from that year than any other(something with the rest of the internet), smartphones overtook dumbphones, Dial-up usage becoming rare(10% US pop.), some people claiming to have joined twitter, etc. In fact it seems like every year of a decade that ends in a "9" is very different from the rest. 1999 had DVDs and, 1989 had the internet proper, 1979 had "80s" music.


No one can answer this question until the 2020s show up.

You see, most of the new stuff introduced in the 1980s saw success in/seeped into the 1990s.

Example 1:

1986
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EhiUABvU3Fg/TVRDIynYiXI/AAAAAAAAACk/lKL-
6rN1cEQ/s1600/2%2Bimagen.jpg


1996
https://fernrocks.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/fileproject-alf-dvd.jpeg

The new culture of the 1990s blew up/was still seen in the 2000s.

Example 2:

1998
https://thirdlizardo.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/powerpuff_girls.gif

2002
https://bubbawheat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/powerpuff-girls-movie.jpg

The new faces of the 2000s are prominent/still around in the 2010s.

Example 3:

2002

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_He0XfCiTUP0/TUCSvNN8RZI/AAAAAAAAACY/CwAdqy-86jc/s1600/Avril_Lavigne_-_Let_Go-Frente.jpg

2013

https://contextblues.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/avril_lavigne_album_a_p.jpg


So far, I would argue that 2009 was a late 00s year. Yes, I'd have to say 2009 is a 00s year.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 03/20/15 at 10:04 am

I watched ALF in the mid 90s, and again in the mid/late 2000s when I bought the DVDs.
In Germany, it originally ran from 1988-92, so it was an 80s and 90s show for us.

In the earlier 90s, it always ran very late and I was not allowed to watch it. I think around 7 PM.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 10:18 am


I watched ALF in the mid 90s, and again in the mid/late 2000s when I bought the DVDs.
In Germany, it originally ran from 1988-92, so it was an 80s and 90s show for us.

In the earlier 90s, it always ran very late and I was not allowed to watch it. I think around 7 PM.


Wow,

So that would mean the first episode to feature Jake O. aired in 1990 for you.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DS9ao15Hhl0/Ti15S_8-TnI/AAAAAAAAAC8/tt5HzDo0EoY/s1600/alf_okmoniks.jpg

While that was shown in Germany, we had the Full House episode with the same actor in it, over here in America.

https://fullhousereviewed.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/screen-shot-2011-07-20-at-11-45-20-pm.png

Don't ask how I knew that. I watched for DJ Tanner only.  ;D

On a side note, I remember watching reruns of ALF and Out of this World (the show with the female alien, Evie) in 1992.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 03/20/15 at 11:52 am

I associate Alf with the '80s even though it ran into the '90s.  Likewise I associate the show 'Friends' with the '90s even though it ran until 2004.

Avril Lavigne is associated with the early '00s.  She hasn't had hits since that were as big as her hits in 2002 and 2003.  Can't comment on the Powerpuff Girls because I was a little old for them by the time they hit.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 1:06 pm


I associate Alf with the '80s even though it ran into the '90s.  Likewise I associate the show 'Friends' with the '90s even though it ran until 2004.

Avril Lavigne is associated with the early '00s.  She hasn't had hits since that were as big as her hits in 2002 and 2003.  Can't comment on the Powerpuff Girls because I was a little old for them by the time they hit.


You're right, Alf spent more years in the 1980s than he did in the 90s. I think of Friends as a 90s show as it was most important to the decade.

Avril definitely comes to mind whenever I think of the 2000s.

The point I was trying to make was all of the new pop culture of any decade turns up in the next one somehow.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 03/20/15 at 1:10 pm


Avril Lavigne is associated with the early '00s.  She hasn't had hits since that were as big as her hits in 2002 and 2003.  Can't comment on the Powerpuff Girls because I was a little old for them by the time they hit.


What about her 2007 hit "Girlfriend"?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/20/15 at 2:30 pm

You're right, Alf spent more years in the 1980s than he did in the 90s. I think of Friends as a 90s show as it was most important to the decade.

They cancelled ALF in 1990.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 2:42 pm


They cancelled ALF in 1990.


The finale lead to "Project ALF" in 1996.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 03/20/15 at 2:49 pm


So that would mean the first episode to feature Jake O. aired in 1990 for you.


Yeah, probably. I haven't watched it in 1990, though. I was still too young back then.
The first time I have heard about Jake was somewhere around 1993 or 94. Not on TV, but I had this episode on an audio cassette tape. They actually sold ALF as an audio version in Germany, too! The series was very popular over here.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 2:56 pm


Not on TV, but I had this episode on an audio cassette tape. They actually sold ALF as an audio version in Germany, too! The series was very popular over here.


Cool, we only had this in America:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ndQm0dbWyY0/UI_UU9iIlaI/AAAAAAAAGd4/lAsq24EkXlg/s1600/Cover.jpg

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 03/20/15 at 3:20 pm


1979 had "80s" music.


I don't see how 1979 had '80s music. The music from then sounds very '70s. Same with 1980. 1981 was declining, but it was still there.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 5:57 pm


I don't see how 1979 had '80s music. The music from then sounds very '70s. Same with 1980. 1981 was declining, but it was still there.


I take back what I said earlier, 1979 was still a 70s year. To me, the 80s didn't begin until 1981.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 03/20/15 at 6:09 pm



The point I was trying to make was all of the new pop culture of any decade turns up in the next one somehow.


You are right.  That always ends up to be the case.  It's either things like popular TV shows from the previous decade lasting well into the next one like Friends did in the '00s or the Office did in the '10s, or a has-been pop star from the previous decade trying to stage a comeback.  New Kids On The Block did this in 2008 and it was a huge flop. 

I will be interested to see if Avril Lavigne regains any kind of popularity today.  Usually when previous decade stars try to stage a comeback it doesn't work.  There are some exceptions.  Enrique Iglesias for instance was popular during the late '90s and early '00s and disappeared.  He came back in 2010.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/20/15 at 8:00 pm


I will be interested to see if Avril Lavigne regains any kind of popularity today.  Usually when previous decade stars try to stage a comeback it doesn't work.  There are some exceptions.  Enrique Iglesias for instance was popular during the late '90s and early '00s and disappeared.  He came back in 2010.


You're right on the ball with that, bchris02.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/20/15 at 11:24 pm


I take back what I said earlier, 1979 was still a 70s year. To me, the 80s didn't begin until 1981.


Agreed, so basically Reagan ended the 70s!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/21/15 at 3:09 am


I don't see how 1979 had '80s music. The music from then sounds very '70s. Same with 1980. 1981 was declining, but it was still there.


There are some songs from 1979 that sounds very 80s,

My Sharona, Brass in Pocket, Message in a bottle (by The Police), and more. I almost forgot to mention that the song Video Killed The Radio Star came out in 1979, not 1981 (when the video came out). The video came out in '81 but the song had came out two years earlier. If I didn't know, I would've thought that song came out in 1980 or 1981.

Overall, the sound was still very 70s, but there were signs that the 80s was on the horizon.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/21/15 at 7:07 am


There are some songs from 1979 that sounds very 80s,

My Sharona, Brass in Pocket, Message in a bottle (by The Police), and more. I almost forgot to mention that the song Video Killed The Radio Star came out in 1979, not 1981 (when the video came out). The video came out in '81 but the song had came out two years earlier. If I didn't know, I would've thought that song came out in 1980 or 1981.

Overall, the sound was still very 70s, but there were signs that the 80s was on the horizon.


Don't leave out this one:

https://godsandalcoves.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/cars_front.jpg

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/21/15 at 7:14 am


I don't see how 1979 had '80s music. The music from then sounds very '70s. Same with 1980. 1981 was declining, but it was still there.


I think it was the sounds that made 1979 sound like the 80's.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 03/21/15 at 7:25 am


Cool, we only had this in America:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ndQm0dbWyY0/UI_UU9iIlaI/AAAAAAAAGd4/lAsq24EkXlg/s1600/Cover.jpg


Yeah, we also hat this song. It was kind of popular around mid 1988.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/21/15 at 8:25 am


I think it was the sounds that made 1979 sound like the 80's.


Agreed.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: XYkid on 03/21/15 at 11:54 am

No, it is definetly a 2000s year. Emo and scene fashion was still common, more people shopped at Abercrombie, pop punk and post grunge rock music was still on the radio, thrift stores were not cool yet and most of today's fashion would be seen as 'ugly'.
A lot of things from 2009 already seem slightly dated in my eyes.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 03/21/15 at 12:16 pm

2009 was still the pre-smartphone era. It had more in common with the mid 2000s than with 2013 for instance.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 03/21/15 at 2:11 pm


Agreed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnRVA2GJMc0


like for example this Jones Girls song was made in 1979 but it sounds like the early 1980's.↑

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 03/21/15 at 4:22 pm


No, it is definetly a 2000s year. Emo and scene fashion was still common, more people shopped at Abercrombie, pop punk and post grunge rock music was still on the radio, thrift stores were not cool yet and most of today's fashion would be seen as 'ugly'.
A lot of things from 2009 already seem slightly dated in my eyes.


I don't really see how today's fashion is ugly. Then again, you did say you lived in Seattle where people are more edgy and experimental, but still. Where I live, conventional attractiveness is slowly creeping back in after the androgynous styles of the early 2010s. I think 2009 fashion is unsightly myself. Then again, I have a different style, but so much different clothing is being sold in stores that it's almost impossible to tell what is in style and what's not.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 03/21/15 at 4:51 pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnRVA2GJMc0


like for example this Jones Girls song was made in 1979 but it sounds like the early 1980's.↑


I was too young to remember 1979, but judging by what's listed in the history books, the pop culture, relics and important events of 1978 and 1990 (one of my favorite years) give away the entire 80s decade.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 03/23/15 at 11:46 am


Where I am it did. To keep our cable everyone had to have converters.

Where I am, it was still analogue.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/bdt14.htm

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 03/23/15 at 11:53 am


I don't see how 1979 had '80s music. The music from then sounds very '70s. Same with 1980. 1981 was declining, but it was still there.

One article I read described some of the songs from that year as "80s".

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Fearsword on 04/14/15 at 2:39 am

Well 2009 has little in common with most of the years of the 00s, however it has little in common with today.

Here is a breakdown of 2000s and 2010s culture that existed in 2009. (I'm Australian, so some of these things might not make sense)

2000s

. Gold Coast and GWS hadn't entered the AFL yet
. Kevin Rudd still PM(before Julia Gillard backstabbed him in 2010. Political stability defines the 2010s in Australia. Current Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott had his own leadership challenged in February this year)
. Flip phones still relevant
. iPads, or pretty much any tablet, were non-existent
. You didn't need Gmail to login to YouTube
. PS2 games were still being made
. 6th generation gaming
. Song's popularity wasn't defined by YouTube views(No "Baby", "Friday" ,"Gangnam Style" or "What does the fox Say?".
. MySpace was still talked about
. Rove was still airing
. All Saints was still airing
. Nickelodeon still had variety(SpongeBob wasn't on every 2nd show)
. Dreamworks and Pixar still king in animation
. Harry Potter movies still coming out
. Australian Idol's last season before it was replaced by the X Factor in 2010 as Australia's reality singing show
. The Office was in its prime that year
. Emo and Post-Grunge still relevant with bands like Shinedown, Three Days Grace, Breaking Benjamin, Hinder, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Nickeback, Foo Fighters(The latter 2 ashamedly still popular)
. No Instagram

2010s
. Obama
. Bad economy
. iPhones and Androids (although nowhere near as ubitiquous as now)
. Electropop music(Lady Gaga, La Roux, Katy Perry, Black Eyed Peas, Kesha)
. New era in Australian TV begins that year with shows like Masterchef, The Project, Packed to the Rafters,
. The old Big brother wasn't airing anymore
. Analog TVs no longer relevant
. DJ's go mainstream with David Guetta and Calvin Harris recruiting popular artists for their songs. "Sexy Bitch"
. Facebook was the most popular social networking site
. 21/12/2012 doomsday panic begins with the release of the movie "2012"

I would conclusively say the 2009 is still a 2000s year with the amount of "00s" pop culture in that year, but it wouldn't be part of the Zeitgeist.

Here is how I define the 00s and 10s timeframes

2000s
Prelude: 1997-pre 9/11 2001
Zeitgeist: 9/11-2007
Echo: 2008-mid 2011
Quintessential Year: 2004

2010s
Prelude: 2008-mid 2011
Zeitgeist: late 2011-2016?
Echo: 2017?-?
Quintessential Year: 2014(Decade hasn't ended yet, but it was a significant year with the rise of ISIS)
(Unsure, Zeitgeist could end in 2016 with election of new president.)




Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/14/15 at 9:09 am

Technically yes, but I think culturally it has more in common with the years after than the years before.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/14/15 at 9:40 am


You're right, Alf spent more years in the 1980s than he did in the 90s. I think of Friends as a 90s show as it was most important to the decade.

Avril definitely comes to mind whenever I think of the 2000s.

The point I was trying to make was all of the new pop culture of any decade turns up in the next one somehow.


Alf ended in March 1990, so I think calling it a "90s show" is only true in the most technical sense. I'm not even 100% sure any episodes were even filmed in 1990. Though I'd guess the last one was probably recorded in January or maybe February of that year.

Though there was an ALF movie in 1996 and the character was still pretty popular I think.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/14/15 at 9:41 am


One article I read described some of the songs from that year as "80s".


1979 overall is still extremely 70s but yeah there was some New Wave music that was successful in that year. I think the 80s style began right in 1980 and spilled maybe 1 or 2 years into the early 1990s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/14/15 at 9:43 am


No, it is definetly a 2000s year. Emo and scene fashion was still common, more people shopped at Abercrombie, pop punk and post grunge rock music was still on the radio, thrift stores were not cool yet and most of today's fashion would be seen as 'ugly'.
A lot of things from 2009 already seem slightly dated in my eyes.


I think the emo/scene thing was still pretty popular even in 2012 actually, though it was starting to change into hipsterdom at that point. I would say its heyday started in 2005 and ended in 2012.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 04/14/15 at 10:01 am

Yes, I would say so. Future generations are going to think of the mid-late 2000s when they hear "The 2000s".

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 04/14/15 at 11:17 am


Though there was an ALF movie in 1996 and the character was still pretty popular I think.


I don't think ALF was that popular anymore in the mid 90s. I don't even remember this movie, even though I have watched the old ALF episodes on TV during that time. From what I have heard, the movie was not popular at all. I think, the fact that the Tanners didn't appear in the movie, made the whole story quite disappointing.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 04/14/15 at 2:22 pm


Alf ended in March 1990, so I think calling it a "90s show" is only true in the most technical sense. I'm not even 100% sure any episodes were even filmed in 1990. Though I'd guess the last one was probably recorded in January or maybe February of that year.

Though there was an ALF movie in 1996 and the character was still pretty popular I think.


ALF was more of a late 80's show.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: XYkid on 04/15/15 at 1:00 pm


I think the emo/scene thing was still pretty popular even in 2012 actually, though it was starting to change into hipsterdom at that point. I would say its heyday started in 2005 and ended in 2012.
Emo faded out of popularity pretty fast after 2009, scene remained fairly relevant until about 2012. This is coming from someone who lived in California at the time.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/15/15 at 3:35 pm


Emo faded out of popularity pretty fast after 2009, scene remained fairly relevant until about 2012. This is coming from someone who lived in California at the time.


True I guess. To me, they are one and the same.  ;D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheEarly90sGuy on 04/16/15 at 3:54 pm


ALF was more of a late 80's show.


You took the words right out of my mouth.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 04/16/15 at 4:19 pm


You took the words right out of my mouth.


It started in 1986 and it's finale was in 1990.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/17/15 at 3:08 pm


It started in 1986 and it's finale was in 1990.


Yeah I don't think it airing a couple months into 1990 really makes it anything less than purely an 80s show.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 04/18/15 at 5:34 am

Breaking Bad was an early 10s show, IMO, even though it dubuted in 2008. ALF can be both; a late 80s or early 90s show.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/18/15 at 8:04 pm


Breaking Bad was an early 10s show, IMO, even though it dubuted in 2008. ALF can be both; a late 80s or early 90s show.


Yeah I agree, the "style" isn't 00s at all. Isn't it single camera? That seems like more of a 10s thing.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: XYkid on 04/20/15 at 1:02 am


Yeah I agree, the "style" isn't 00s at all. Isn't it single camera? That seems like more of a 10s thing.
Yeah Breaking Bad is a 10s show in my eyes as eell, although Jesse's fashion sense is very 2000s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 04/20/15 at 10:38 am


Yeah Breaking Bad is a 10s show in my eyes as eell, although Jesse's fashion sense is very 2000s.


I would say Breaking Bad is an early 2010s show, but not a "real" 2010s show. And you're right that the fashion is very 2000's (the whole show's fashion was '00s).

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 04/20/15 at 10:39 am


Yeah I agree, the "style" isn't 00s at all. Isn't it single camera? That seems like more of a early '10s thing.


Fixed it!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 04/20/15 at 10:43 am


I would say Breaking Bad is an early 2010s show, but not a "real" 2010s show.


What's the difference?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 04/20/15 at 1:34 pm


What's the difference?


2010 through 2019 is the 2010s decade, but the early 2010s (2010-2013) was just an extension of the 2000's. The real 2010's (the part of the decade that future generations will think of) started in 2014. There were no more 2000's leftovers that year. Breaking Bad ended in 2013. Therefore, I just consider it a 2000's holdover.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/20/15 at 1:56 pm


2010 through 2019 is the 2010s decade, but the early 2010s (2010-2013) was just an extension of the 2000's. The real 2010's (the part of the decade that future generations will think of) started in 2014. There were no more 2000's leftovers that year. Breaking Bad ended in 2013. Therefore, I just consider it a 2000's holdover.

An extension of 2009 yes. I hope to goodness you do not mean the decade in general! I actually saw NO 2000s holdovers in 2011-2013. Point some examples out to me that you saw during those years.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 04/20/15 at 2:16 pm


An extension of 2009 yes.


I agree. And since 2009 was not very '05-2000's like, the early 10's were nothing else than an extension of the very late 00s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 04/20/15 at 4:49 pm


An extension of 2009 yes. I hope to goodness you do not mean the decade in general! I actually saw NO 2000s holdovers in 2011-2013. Point some examples out to me that you saw during those years.


Not the decade in general, but I would go earlier than 2009. I'll explain the '00s holdovers I saw in the early 2010's below.


I agree. And since 2009 was not very '05-2000's like, the early 10's were nothing else than an extension of the very late 00s.


Not 2005. 2005 felt like a different time in the early 2010s. But the early 2010s had a 2006-ish vibe to them.

In response to both, I was 14 in 2010, and I remember girls were still wearing clothing from 2006. Here is Cassie Ventura from that year:
http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Cassie-cassie-827218_1280_1024.jpg
There were only some differences from early 2010s fashion. Skinny jeans, waist belts, extreme side-partings, bump-it hair accessories, lots of jewelry, it was a flashy time. Although the early 2010s were a bit more colorful than the mid-late 2000's, most of the clothing was still acceptable to wear.

For guys, here is Paramore in 2006:
http://gallery.paramore.org/albums/01%20Nuevo/Photoshoots/2006/010%20Kerrang%20Magazine%20-%20Nashville%20TN%20-%20October%204%20-%20by%20Scarlet%20Page/ParamoreDOTorg012.jpg
That kind of 2006 look was still around then, but more colorful. The hairstyles were the same to a T back then, and vans were a big deal in those years. I had two pairs, and I wanted more. Vans were an instant way to spice up your look. Not anymore, but back then yes.

Back in 2012 I couldn't see a difference between 2006 and then-today. Now, I feel like we have finally moved away from that year starting around 2013.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 04/21/15 at 4:31 am


Not 2005. 2005 felt like a different time in the early 2010s. But the early 2010s had a 2006-ish vibe to them.


Somehow, yes, but not in terms of technology or music. As somebody has already pointed out, electropop was not yet popular in 2006. 2006 music had still more in common with early 2000s music than you think.

2006 was also the pre-smartphone era. I also think that it was still the Pre-Facebook era. I have used Facebook in 2007... and I don't think it had much in common with today's facebook.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/21/15 at 11:34 am

I agree LT, I feel if you think 06-09 was the heart of the 2000s decade, then I could understand why someone would feel the early 10s seemed like an extension. But while living in them I did not think so. I'm sticking by what I originally thought. I still believe the 10s began early!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 04/21/15 at 1:32 pm


I'm sticking by what I originally thought. I still believe the 10s began early!


That doesn't make sense. How can the decade start early if it didn't even exist yet? It started on January 1, 2010. If a trend started in the 2000's, it's a 2000's holdover. This includes Breaking Bad, skinny jeans, electropop, neon colors, and high top sneakers. All of these were popular in the early 2010s, but started in the 2000's. All of these are not around anymore, so they're not true 2010s things. They were just holdovers from the 2000's.

This decade is only half over. We have yet to decide what will define the decade. However, the real 2010s are 2014-present. Everything that will be associated with the decade will occur within the second half of the decade.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/21/15 at 1:56 pm


That doesn't make sense. How can the decade start early if it didn't even exist yet? It started on January 1, 2010. If a trend started in the 2000's, it's a 2000's holdover. This includes Breaking Bad, skinny jeans, electropop, neon colors, and high top sneakers. All of these were popular in the early 2010s, but started in the 2000's. All of these are not around anymore, so they're not true 2010s things. They were just holdovers from the 2000's.

This decade is only half over. We have yet to decide what will define the decade. However, the real 2010s are 2014-present. Everything that will be associated with the decade will occur within the second half of the decade.

OK! ;) To each his own! BTW Do you consider Obama a 00s holdover?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Arrowstone on 04/21/15 at 3:59 pm


That doesn't make sense. How can the decade start early if it didn't even exist yet? It started on January 1, 2010. If a trend started in the 2000's, it's a 2000's holdover. This includes Breaking Bad, skinny jeans, electropop, neon colors, and high top sneakers. All of these were popular in the early 2010s, but started in the 2000's. All of these are not around anymore, so they're not true 2010s things. They were just holdovers from the 2000's.

This decade is only half over. We have yet to decide what will define the decade. However, the real 2010s are 2014-present. Everything that will be associated with the decade will occur within the second half of the decade.


I consider the period 2008-2012 an inbetween period like I see the millennium period or maybe 1989-1992.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/21/15 at 4:37 pm


I consider the period 2008-2012 an inbetween period like I see the millennium period or maybe 1989-1992.

or late 2008-summer 2011

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 04/22/15 at 5:49 am

I am not going to discuss about in-between eras if it's only 3 years ago that this "in-between" era is over. I still think of about 2009-15 having similar aesthetics.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 04/22/15 at 6:05 am


That doesn't make sense. How can the decade start early if it didn't even exist yet? It started on January 1, 2010. If a trend started in the 2000's, it's a 2000's holdover. This includes Breaking Bad, skinny jeans, electropop, neon colors, and high top sneakers. All of these were popular in the early 2010s, but started in the 2000's. All of these are not around anymore, so they're not true 2010s things. They were just holdovers from the 2000's.

This decade is only half over. We have yet to decide what will define the decade. However, the real 2010s are 2014-present. Everything that will be associated with the decade will occur within the second half of the decade.

True, the decade isn't finished yet, but when it is over you can't say the late years will define it all. Sometimes the height of a decade isn't toward it's end, don't say it can't burn out faster than that. I think the 2000's peak was the middle. The late part just had a different feel to it. 2009 was very much a 2000's year, but when the 2000's wound down. There will always be holdover and changes being set in place the last years of the previous. The 10's started in '10.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 04/22/15 at 4:41 pm


2006 was also the pre-smartphone era. I also think that it was still the Pre-Facebook era. I have used Facebook in 2007... and I don't think it had much in common with today's facebook.


Facebook was popular with college students in 2007 but most high school students and some college students used MySpace (and did until 2009).  I also don't consider the true smartphone era to have begun until around 2010.  In the late '00s techies had iPhones but most people didn't.  Androids didn't exist yet so if you wanted a smartphone you had to go with the iPhone.  There were no tablets as we know them today in 2009.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Philip Eno on 04/23/15 at 1:00 am


Facebook was popular with college students in 2007 but most high school students and some college students used MySpace (and did until 2009).  I also don't consider the true smartphone era to have begun until around 2010.  In the late '00s techies had iPhones but most people didn't.  Androids didn't exist yet so if you wanted a smartphone you had to go with the iPhone.  There were no tablets as we know them today in 2009.
Facebook was originally set up for college students.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 04/23/15 at 11:34 am


Somehow, yes, but not in terms of technology or music. As somebody has already pointed out, electropop was not yet popular in 2006. 2006 music had still more in common with early 2000s music than you think.

2006 was also the pre-smartphone era. I also think that it was still the Pre-Facebook era. I have used Facebook in 2007... and I don't think it had much in common with today's facebook.

I'm suprised anyone was on Facebook back then instead of myspace. Its like using Bing before it overtakes Google...
I joke ;D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 04/23/15 at 2:03 pm


Facebook was originally set up for college students.


Now everyone can use Facebook.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 04/23/15 at 2:50 pm


True, the decade isn't finished yet, but when it is over you can't say the late years will define it all. Sometimes the height of a decade isn't toward it's end, don't say it can't burn out faster than that. I think the 2000's peak was the middle. The late part just had a different feel to it. 2009 was very much a 2000's year, but when the 2000's wound down. There will always be holdover and changes being set in place the last years of the previous. The 10's started in '10.


You're right. Since you actually lived the 2000's, if you feel that they peaked in the middle, you're probably right. You're also right about the leftovers continuing into the following decade. I think it's really awesome how street smart you are.

Regarding the 2010s, it is possible that it will burn out before the end. However, I now am in the same place as you were in the mid 2000's (late teens/early 20's). To me, the 2010's don't feel very "peaky" right now. Development into it's own true identity feels really slow and right now we are in a nondescript period where the "canvas" feels blank. Perhaps we are in a transitional period.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 04/23/15 at 4:13 pm


Regarding the 2010s, it is possible that it will burn out before the end. However, I now am in the same place as you were in the mid 2000's (late teens/early 20's). To me, the 2010's don't feel very "peaky" right now. Development into it's own true identity feels really slow and right now we are in a nondescript period where the "canvas" feels blank. Perhaps we are in a transitional period.


I agree with this and I am about 10 years older than you.  2010s culture is likely a few years away from peak still.  I also believe Sam Smith is more relevant to 2010s culture as a whole than Lady Gaga.

The 2000s peaked between 2006 and 2008.  Personally I would say 2008 was the peak but can easily see 2006 or 2007.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Fearsword on 04/29/15 at 7:28 pm

Tbh, the 2010s is one of the few decades that actually started on time

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/29/15 at 8:16 pm


I agree with this and I am about 10 years older than you.  2010s culture is likely a few years away from peak still.  I also believe Sam Smith is more relevant to 2010s culture as a whole than Lady Gaga.

The 2000s peaked between 2006 and 2008.  Personally I would say 2008 was the peak but can easily see 2006 or 2007.

I don't know man 2004 and 2005 were as naughties as you could get IMO

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 04/29/15 at 11:56 pm


I don't know man 2004 and 2005 were as naughties as you could get IMO


True, but everything that was in motion in 2004 and 2005 peaked around the 2007-08 time frame.  If you compare 2008 and 2004, the biggest differences was 2008 no longer had the lingering late '90s trends that 2004 did.  Things that were getting started in 2004 were peaking in 2008.  The year 2008 was as '00s as you could possibly get.  2009 was as well but it definitely felt past-peak and many early '10s trends came in like lightning that year.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/30/15 at 4:03 pm


True, but everything that was in motion in 2004 and 2005 peaked around the 2007-08 time frame.  If you compare 2008 and 2004, the biggest differences was 2008 no longer had the lingering late '90s trends that 2004 did.  Things that were getting started in 2004 were peaking in 2008.  The year 2008 was as '00s as you could possibly get.  2009 was as well but it definitely felt past-peak and many early '10s trends came in like lightning that year.


I was watching Pixel Perfect last night, a Disney Channel movie filmed in 2003 and I was surprised how 90s it looked and felt. The girl in it even did the "talk to the hand" thing.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 04/30/15 at 9:07 pm


I was watching Pixel Perfect last night, a Disney Channel movie filmed in 2003 and I was surprised how 90s it looked and felt. The girl in it even did the "talk to the hand" thing.

TPEu4zosnlA
Oh lord, you're right lol.

Always seems weird to have lived through a time where people wore things that seem extremely "chunky" and "tacky" today.
You should see my family picture around 2003-04. My sister was pretty much wearing that girl in whites clothes.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 04/30/15 at 9:21 pm

Reminds me of this satrical movie from the same year.
nkmZLKPbn-I

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 04/30/15 at 10:52 pm


TPEu4zosnlA
Oh lord, you're right lol.

Always seems weird to have lived through a time where people wore things that seem extremely "chunky" and "tacky" today.
You should see my family picture around 2003-04. My sister was pretty much wearing that girl in whites clothes.


That chick in that movie is so hot.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Slim95 on 05/01/15 at 12:41 am

2005 was the year that defined the 00s the most to me.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/01/15 at 11:01 am


2005 was the year that defined the 00s the most to me.

Yup 2004 and 2005 were the years.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/01/15 at 2:16 pm


Yup 2004 and 2005 were the years.


Why were they more '00s than 2007 and 2008?

Emo and MySpace were just getting started in 2004 and had not peaked.  YouTube debuted in 2005 but wasn't widely-known until at least 2006.  Friends was still on the air and a lot of late '90s fashion was still popular.  XP was out but a majority of PCs still ran Windows 98 or 2000.  Hot Topic was still a goth store.  XBOX 360 and PS3 were not a thing yet.  I could think of many, many more examples.

If somebody wanted a complete picture of what the '00s were about, they could get it in 2007, 2008, or even 2009.  2004 and 2005 were too early.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Slim95 on 05/01/15 at 2:28 pm




If somebody wanted a complete picture of what the '00s were about, they could get it in 2007, 2008, or even 2009.  2004 and 2005 were too early.

08' and 09' already had 2010s culture. 2004 and 2005 was a mix of the new and the old which is what the 2000s were, a technologically enhanced version of the 90s or a mix of the 90s and the new generation. At this time MySpace was already popular, Facebook and YouTube were released (not popular yet but it was clear the social networking movement has begun), most people had Windows XP and music was as 00's as you can get. In Da Club is a signature 2000s song and it was released in 2003. 2004 and 2005 defined the 00's the most to me. 2006 you already started having changes and hints of what the next decade will bring.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/01/15 at 2:39 pm


08' and 09' already had 2010s culture. 2004 and 2005 was a mix of the new and the old which is what the 2000s were, a technologically enhanced version of the 90s or a mix of the 90s and the new generation. At this time MySpace was already popular, Facebook and YouTube were released (not popular yet but it was clear the social networking movement has begun), most people had Windows XP and music was as 00's as you can get. In Da Club is a signature 2000s song and it was released in 2003. 2004 and 2005 defined the 00's the most to me. 2006 you already started having changes and hints of what the next decade will bring.


I consider "Crank Dat Soulja Boy" as more the quintessential 2000s song, morso than "In Da Club."

I also don't see much 2010s in 2006-08.  2009 yes; Obama was in and Lady Gaga was popular, but even the recession zeitgeist was on its way out by 2012.  2009 had more in common with 2005 than it does 2015.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 05/01/15 at 2:45 pm

2008 and 2009 had 10s culture, but the decade ends on December 31st, 2009. The culture of the late 00s belonged to the 2000s the same way early 2000s culture did. If you were sent back to 2005 or even 2004, you would totally miss the late 2000s atmosphere; for example the early electropop music. In 2004, a lot of people still used dial up and TV was not HD. Most people still used CRTs, whereas LCDs and HDTV was mainstream in the late 2000s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/01/15 at 4:10 pm


2008 and 2009 had 10s culture, but the decade ends on December 31st, 2009. The culture of the late 00s belonged to the 2000s the same way early 2000s culture did. If you were sent back to 2005 or even 2004, you would totally miss the late 2000s atmosphere; for example the early electropop music. In 2004, a lot of people still used dial up and TV was not HD. Most people still used CRTs, whereas LCDs and HDTV was mainstream in the late 2000s.


One thing that places 2008 and 2009 firmly within the '00s is the fact there were no tablets.  There also weren't any smartphones other than the iPhone (which was primitive compared to today, expensive, and not a lot of people had it.)  You still saw commonly saw CRTs in the office as late as 2009.  I know the office I worked in didn't do away with them until 2011.  One thing people commonly point to as an example of how the late '00s had '10s culture was early electropop, but the Gaga and Ke$ha sound of that era has little resemblance to today's electropop.  Also, Lady Gaga didn't hit big until the autumn of 2008 and Ke$ha wasn't until late 2009. Most of 2008 was virtually identical to 2007 musically.  Post-grunge was still around even in 2009 and hip-hop was still dominated by "Dirty South" artists with a distinct sound that marks most hip-hop produced between 2005 and 2010.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/01/15 at 8:37 pm


Why were they more '00s than 2007 and 2008?

Emo and MySpace were just getting started in 2004 and had not peaked.  YouTube debuted in 2005 but wasn't widely-known until at least 2006.  Friends was still on the air and a lot of late '90s fashion was still popular.  XP was out but a majority of PCs still ran Windows 98 or 2000.  Hot Topic was still a goth store.  XBOX 360 and PS3 were not a thing yet.  I could think of many, many more examples.

If somebody wanted a complete picture of what the '00s were about, they could get it in 2007, 2008, or even 2009.  2004 and 2005 were too early.


:-\\ ???You really consider the XBOX 360 and PS3 more quintessential 00s game consoles than the PS2,and original XBOX......... Please explain

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/01/15 at 8:41 pm


I consider "Crank Dat Soulja Boy" as more the quintessential 2000s song, morso than "In Da Club."

I also don't see much 2010s in 2006-08.  2009 yes; Obama was in and Lady Gaga was popular, but even the recession zeitgeist was on its way out by 2012.  2009 had more in common with 2005 than it does 2015.

I still remember 2009 very well. With Obama being in office,Lady Gaga and Katy Perry style music becoming popular. I think late 2009 has a lot more in common than today than 2005. If you had sent the 10 year old me from 2005 to see the 14 year old me in 2009 I'd be kind of surprised.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/02/15 at 10:57 am


:-\\ ???You really consider the XBOX 360 and PS3 more quintessential 00s game consoles than the PS2,and original XBOX......... Please explain


I consider the late 2000s to be the defining years of the decade, so with that in mind yes the Xbox 360 and PS3 are the quintessential consoles of the decade.

The PS2 came out in the late '90s. I never had an original Xbox so I have no nostalgia associated with it.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/02/15 at 11:06 am


I still remember 2009 very well. With Obama being in office,Lady Gaga and Katy Perry style music becoming popular. I think late 2009 has a lot more in common than today than 2005. If you had sent the 10 year old me from 2005 to see the 14 year old me in 2009 I'd be kind of surprised.


Maybe its because I am older, but looking back I see a lot more change from 2010 to 2015 than from 2005 to 2009. There were differences yes. 2009 had a "past peak" feel to it when it came to '00s fads. Things like scene, emo, MySpace, flip phones, snap rap, etc were still around but were on their way out especially during the second half of the year.  The fact they were still around at all though places the year in the '00s. In my opinion, the 2010s didn't begin until Apple released the iPad in 2010.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/02/15 at 1:43 pm


I consider the late 2000s to be the defining years of the decade, so with that in mind yes the Xbox 360 and PS3 are the quintessential consoles of the decade.

The PS2 came out in the late '90s. I never had an original Xbox so I have no nostalgia associated with it.

PS2 came out in 2000

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 05/02/15 at 2:13 pm

YouTube debuted in 2005 but wasn't widely-known until at least 2006

and just the other day, they celebrated 10 years. :)

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 05/02/15 at 2:16 pm


:-\\ ???You really consider the XBOX 360 and PS3 more quintessential 00s game consoles than the PS2,and original XBOX......... Please explain


The PS2 didn't have the small apps, It was just a small fragile notebook-like console. The PS3 had everything you wanted such as Hulu, Netflix and YouTube.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 05/02/15 at 2:17 pm


PS2 came out in 2000


I had a PS2 and the after a few years I traded it in for a PS3 and never looked back. :)

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/02/15 at 4:36 pm


I had a PS2 and the after a few years I traded it in for a PS3 and never looked back. :)

Ps2 is my fav console of all time! It was kind of like my NES! :) ;) N64 was GREAT don't get me wrong but then I got the PS2 I was mindblown! :D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/02/15 at 4:40 pm


Maybe its because I am older, but looking back I see a lot more change from 2010 to 2015 than from 2005 to 2009. There were differences yes. 2009 had a "past peak" feel to it when it came to '00s fads. Things like scene, emo, MySpace, flip phones, snap rap, etc were still around but were on their way out especially during the second half of the year.  The fact they were still around at all though places the year in the '00s. In my opinion, the 2010s didn't begin until Apple released the iPad in 2010.

Yup, a 10 year age difference can be quite big!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Slim95 on 05/03/15 at 12:00 am

I don't know, it's hard to say without having a biased perspective. 2005-2009 feels more of a leap to me personally because I was starting my teenage years and everything was changing for me. But if you look at it from an objective point of view, you could say more has changed from 2009 to 2015. I can definitely say technology has changed way more from 2009-2015 than 2005-2009.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 05/03/15 at 5:24 am

The reason why the "gap" between 2009-2015 seems bigger than the gap between 2005-2009 can be explained very easily. 2009-15 is 6 years whereas 2005-09 is only 4 years. Only 2 years ago, I definitely though that 2009 culture was still relevant.

From today's perspective, 2005 and 2009 were very close, but it was not back then. The pop music style definitly changed around 08, so driving around in a car and listening to the radio was much different in 2005 compared to 2009...
2005 also had Windows XP, whereas in 2009, XP was already outdated and a lot of people used Vista or even Windows 7.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/03/15 at 9:50 am


The pop music style definitly changed around 08, so driving around in a car and listening to the radio was much different in 2005 compared to 2009...


A lot of people say this but looking back I don't really see it.  Yes, Lady Gaga and Katy Perry would have been in the rotation in 2009, but 2009 also still had a lot of post-grunge, auto-tuned hip-hop, and pop artists like Beyonce and Kelly Clarkson.  2009 wasn't exactly the same as 2005 musically but it was a lot closer to 2005 than it is to 2015.  What you didn't have was Ariana Grande, Carly Rae Jepsen, or anything of that style.  You didn't have One Direction or Sam Smith. To be honest, I consider 2009 to be the best year musically of the '00s and better than any year of the '10s.  I feel like the music of 2009 was "my" music.  I don't feel the same about the music today.


2005 also had Windows XP, whereas in 2009, XP was already outdated and a lot of people used Vista or even Windows 7.


Windows 7 didn't come out until October of 2009.  Vista was unpopular and most people continued using XP though the Vista era.  XP was the dominant operating system in 2009 just like 2005.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/03/15 at 11:55 am


A lot of people say this but looking back I don't really see it.  Yes, Lady Gaga and Katy Perry would have been in the rotation in 2009, but 2009 also still had a lot of post-grunge, auto-tuned hip-hop, and pop artists like Beyonce and Kelly Clarkson.  2009 wasn't exactly the same as 2005 musically but it was a lot closer to 2005 than it is to 2015.  What you didn't have was Ariana Grande, Carly Rae Jepsen, or anything of that style.  You didn't have One Direction or Sam Smith. To be honest, I consider 2009 to be the best year musically of the '00s and better than any year of the '10s.  I feel like the music of 2009 was "my" music.  I don't feel the same about the music today.

Just a little critique, Beyonce and Kelly Clarkson are still around today.... Hell, I don't even recall Kelly being popular in 2009 like she was in 03.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 05/03/15 at 1:32 pm


Ps2 is my fav console of all time! It was kind of like my NES! :) ;) N64 was GREAT don't get me wrong but then I got the PS2 I was mindblown! :D


I had a PS2 for a couple of years, I didn't like the way it was built cause I kept tripping all over it and it was fragile.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Fearsword on 05/04/15 at 7:33 am

The reason I think there was less change between  2005-2009 than 2009-now is because as we move further away from that time period, it will feel more and more similar. Back in 2009, I was shocked about how different it looked from even 2007 with the explosion of Electropop artists like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, La Roux and hip hop artists like 50 cent, akon, lil Wayne losing popularity, and of course Obama's election. Plus Facebook overtook MySpace, but MySpace was still somewhat talked about. Also, Twitter became really popular that year as well

However, in 2015, with the ubitiquity of Smartphones and tablets, MySpace completely dead, new artists(Sam smith, one direction, Iggy Azalea, Ariana Grande, Fun), 8th generaton gaming(Xbox one, ps4, wii u), royal wedding plus the 2 babies, 6th generation gaming completely dead, windows 8, Instagram, 2nd Disney Renaissance in full swing, Iraq war ending and ISIS rising. I realise now that 2005 and 2009 were probably not that different at all now that we've experienced 2009-2015.


Looking back 4 years ago today however, 2015 feels almost identical to 2011 in terms of pop culture. Infact I would put 2011 as the start date of the cultural 2010s

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/04/15 at 9:07 am


The reason I think there was less change between  2005-2009 than 2009-now is because as we move further away from that time period, it will feel more and more similar. Back in 2009, I was shocked about how different it looked from even 2007 with the explosion of Electropop artists like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, La Roux and hip hop artists like 50 cent, akon, lil Wayne losing popularity, and of course Obama's election. Plus Facebook overtook MySpace, but MySpace was still somewhat talked about. Also, Twitter became really popular that year as well

However, in 2015, with the ubitiquity of Smartphones and tablets, MySpace completely dead, new artists(Sam smith, one direction, Iggy Azalea, Ariana Grande, Fun), 8th generaton gaming(Xbox one, ps4, wii u), royal wedding plus the 2 babies, 6th generation gaming completely dead, windows 8, Instagram, 2nd Disney Renaissance in full swing, Iraq war ending and ISIS rising. I realise now that 2005 and 2009 were probably not that different at all now that we've experienced 2009-2015.


Looking back 4 years ago today however, 2015 feels almost identical to 2011 in terms of pop culture. Infact I would put 2011 as the start date of the cultural 2010s

Very interesting to hear your thoughts on this topic! :)

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/04/15 at 11:21 am


The reason I think there was less change between  2005-2009 than 2009-now is because as we move further away from that time period, it will feel more and more similar. Back in 2009, I was shocked about how different it looked from even 2007 with the explosion of Electropop artists like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, La Roux and hip hop artists like 50 cent, akon, lil Wayne losing popularity, and of course Obama's election. Plus Facebook overtook MySpace, but MySpace was still somewhat talked about. Also, Twitter became really popular that year as well

However, in 2015, with the ubitiquity of Smartphones and tablets, MySpace completely dead, new artists(Sam smith, one direction, Iggy Azalea, Ariana Grande, Fun), 8th generaton gaming(Xbox one, ps4, wii u), royal wedding plus the 2 babies, 6th generation gaming completely dead, windows 8, Instagram, 2nd Disney Renaissance in full swing, Iraq war ending and ISIS rising. I realise now that 2005 and 2009 were probably not that different at all now that we've experienced 2009-2015.


Looking back 4 years ago today however, 2015 feels almost identical to 2011 in terms of pop culture. Infact I would put 2011 as the start date of the cultural 2010s


I don't remember La Roux being a big deal in 2009, at least in the U.S.  She came on the scene in 2010 and I remember that her song Bulletproof sounded very fresh compared to a majority of what was on the radio at the time.

For as big a deal as Lady Gaga was in 2009, the excitement sure died down after the album "Born This Way" in 2011.  In fact, none of her 2010s hits topped the ones she had in 2008 and 2009.  Her top three hits, Poker Face, Bad Romance, and Just Dance, were all from 2009.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/05/15 at 3:52 pm


I don't remember La Roux being a big deal in 2009, at least in the U.S.  She came on the scene in 2010 and I remember that her song Bulletproof sounded very fresh compared to a majority of what was on the radio at the time.

For as big a deal as Lady Gaga was in 2009, the excitement sure died down after the album "Born This Way" in 2011.  In fact, none of her 2010s hits topped the ones she had in 2008 and 2009.  Her top three hits, Poker Face, Bad Romance, and Just Dance, were all from 2009.

Well, you could say that fall 2008-summer 2011 was it's own period kinda like the millennium era was! Do you think?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/05/15 at 5:21 pm


Well, you could say that fall 2008-summer 2011 was it's own period kinda like the millennium era was! Do you think?


Perhaps, but 1999 was a lot farther from 1995 musically than 2009 was from 2005.  Likewise, 2005 was a lot farther from 2000 than 2015 is from 2010.  The 1998-2002 era had a distinct sound different from the core '90s and core '00s.  The 2008-2012 era isn't quite a clear cut.  2009 had a few cutting edge artists (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry) ushering in a new sound but a majority of the songs that were popular that year weren't that different from the mid '00s.  The most groundbreaking stuff of 2009 came out in the fall of that year going into 2010.  In my opinion the most accurate way to say it is that the '00s transitioned into the '10s right on time.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/07/15 at 1:27 pm


I consider the late 2000s to be the defining years of the decade, so with that in mind yes the Xbox 360 and PS3 are the quintessential consoles of the decade.

PS2,XBOX 360, and the Wii will be the most remembered consoles of the 00s! Don't mean to sound like fanboy! But, PS2 was the highest selling video game console ever! It had a much greater impact than PS3 ever did!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 05/07/15 at 1:37 pm


PS2,XBOX 360, and the Wii will be the most remembered consoles of the 00s!


My console of the 00s was my PC! Never really had a console, except for the Gameboy and GBC, but this was the 90s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 05/07/15 at 1:45 pm


PS2,XBOX 360, and the Wii will be the most remembered consoles of the 00s! Don't mean to sound like fanboy! But, PS2 was the highest selling video game console ever! It had a much greater impact than PS3 ever did!


PS2 was so small and tiny, I almost tripped on it in the past in my room.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/07/15 at 2:01 pm


My console of the 00s was my PC! Never really had a console, except for the Gameboy and GBC, but this was the 90s.

I've played PC one time. The graphics were TOP NOTCH!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Fearsword on 05/11/15 at 1:32 am

The opinion of a majority of people on this thread believe 2009 is an 00s year.

But this Popdust article from 2013 certainly disagrees, at musically anyway.
http://popdust.com/2013/03/15/15-reasons-2009-was-the-year-that-everything-changed-in-pop-music/

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 05/11/15 at 9:08 pm


The opinion of a majority of people on this thread believe 2009 is an 00s year.

But this Popdust article from 2013 certainly disagrees, at musically anyway.
http://popdust.com/2013/03/15/15-reasons-2009-was-the-year-that-everything-changed-in-pop-music/


I agree with that article.  I have a much bigger problem with people saying 2008 was the year that changed everything.  Musically other than a few songs in the fall of that year, the music of 2008 has more in common with 2006 than it does 2010.

2009 on the other hand brought real change.  However, its important to remember that 2009 still had plenty of '00s holdovers; things that would be gone by 2012.  Most of the biggest songs of 2009 were also in the second half of the year.  I look at 2009 as the year that bridged the 2000s and 2010s musically.  Things shifted pretty quickly once we got into 2010. 

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/11/15 at 9:34 pm


I agree with that article.  I have a much bigger problem with people saying 2008 was the year that changed everything.  Musically other than a few songs in the fall of that year, the music of 2008 has more in common with 2006 than it does 2010.

2009 on the other hand brought real change.  However, its important to remember that 2009 still had plenty of '00s holdovers; things that would be gone by 2012.  Most of the biggest songs of 2009 were also in the second half of the year.  I look at 2009 as the year that bridged the 2000s and 2010s musically.  Things shifted pretty quickly once we got into 2010. 

This.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 05/28/15 at 8:08 am

Well 2009 was the first full year 10's culture started phasing in, so it definitely wasn't a core 00's year, but there were lots of 00's culture still relevant during that year.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: SpyroKev on 06/16/15 at 5:46 pm

Honestly, no not really. Its a official 2000s year, but its more the awakening of 2010. Project X is probably my favorite 2009 movie, but it can easily define 2010 of America.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Fearsword on 06/16/15 at 5:50 pm


Project X is probably my favorite 2009 movie, but it can easily define 2010 of America.
i though project x was released in 2012.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: SpyroKev on 06/17/15 at 4:03 pm


i though project x was released in 2012.


Your right. It was. I could have sworn I saw 2009 somewhere in the credits.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 06/17/15 at 5:21 pm

2009 was the first time that 2010s music was completely dominant.  Lady Gaga's The Fame was pretty much to dry snap-influenced music what Nirvana's Nevermind was to hair metal; even though it would still take a full year before the old trends truly died out, EDM and the colorfully extravagant imagery associated with it were suddenly the hottest things in the media, and artists like Kesha and the Black Eyed Peas (ironically a very 00s group before switching genres) heavily expanded upon this foundation as the year continued.  By late 2009, the transition towards 2010s-style pop was more or less complete.  Simultaneously, as snap and shuffle-beat pop were being overshadowed by EDM, all of the 00s definitive rock subgenera like pop punk, post-grunge, and nu-metal were also fading from the mainstream.  Suddenly, songs like Litzomania and Uprising were exciting audiences far more.  Even with some successful tracks like 21 Guns, Love Drunk, and You're Gonna Go Far, Kid, people were quickly growing a lot more interested in synth and indie rock, rendering traditional guitar rock stale and outdated in the public eye.  2000s music finally took its last breath with According to You by Orianthi, just as hair metal made its final mark with FireHouse's I Live My Life For You.

However, 2009 is way more of a 2010s year for far more than just the music.  For one thing, it was the only year that Barack Obama was president of the United States and the unemployment rate was rotten all the way through.  The whole conservative, materialistic culture that defined the noughties in general was flat-out dead by late 2008.  Late 00s cyber-services like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter were now ubiquitous, and people were exchanging conversations and voicing their opinions far more rapidly and openly than they ever did in the post-9/11 world of the 2000s.  HD video was now standard, as were tablet devices.  It was very much an environment of change, even if Obama did not pass as much legislation as he wanted.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 06/17/15 at 7:10 pm


2009 was the first time that 2010s music was completely dominant.  Lady Gaga's The Fame was pretty much to dry snap-influenced music what Nirvana's Nevermind was to hair metal; even though it would still take a full year before the old trends truly died out, EDM and the colorfully extravagant imagery associated with it were suddenly the hottest things in the media, and artists like Kesha and the Black Eyed Peas (ironically a very 00s group before switching genres) heavily expanded upon this foundation as the year continued.  By late 2009, the transition towards 2010s-style pop was more or less complete.  Simultaneously, as snap and shuffle-beat pop were being overshadowed by EDM, all of the 00s definitive rock subgenera like pop punk, post-grunge, and nu-metal were also fading from the mainstream.  Suddenly, songs like Litzomania and Uprising were exciting audiences far more.  Even with some successful tracks like 21 Guns, Love Drunk, and You're Gonna Go Far, Kid, people were quickly growing a lot more interested in synth and indie rock, rendering traditional guitar rock stale and outdated in the public eye.  Suddenly, songs like Litzomania and Uprising were on the radio far more frequently.  2000s music finally took its last breath with According to You by Orianthi, just as hair metal made its final mark with FireHouse's I Live My Life For You.

However, 2009 is way more of a 2010s year for far more than just the music.  For one thing, it was the only year that Barack Obama was president of the United States and the unemployment rate was rotten all the way through.  The whole conservative, materialistic culture that defined the noughties in general was flat-out dead by late 2008.  Late 00s cyber-services like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter were now ubiquitous, and people were exchanging conversations and voicing their opinions far more rapidly and openly than they ever did in the post-9/11 world of the 2000s.  HD video was now standard, as were tablet devices.  It was very much an environment of change, even if Obama did not pass as much legislation as he wanted.


I think the transition in music was well underway in 2009.  In fact I would say the first wave of electropop (Lady Gaga, Ke$ha) peaked in the fall of 2009 into the first half of 2010.  I wouldn't say the transition was complete though.  There were still some songs during 2009 that are more '00s than '10s.  For one, ringtone rap and autotuned R&B, though past their peak, was still relevant.  Akon and T.I. were still pretty popular that year as was post-grunge bands like Daughtry.

I also want to disagree that tablet devices were standard in 2009.  Tablets hit the scene in 2010 when Apple released the iPad.  Android wasn't around yet.  If you had a tablet PC in 2009, it was a clunky touch-screen laptop running a desktop version of Windows.

http://www.tabletpc2.com/Graphics-2009/Other/Dads%20&%20Grads%202009/Toshiba%20M750%20tablet%20PC.JPG

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 06/17/15 at 10:39 pm


I think the transition in music was well underway in 2009.  In fact I would say the first wave of electropop (Lady Gaga, Ke$ha) peaked in the fall of 2009 into the first half of 2010.  I wouldn't say the transition was complete though.  There were still some songs during 2009 that are more '00s than '10s.  For one, ringtone rap and autotuned R&B, though past their peak, was still relevant.  Akon and T.I. were still pretty popular that year as was post-grunge bands like Daughtry.


I agree with you, that's exactly the point I made.  I referred to songs like 21 Guns and According to You as being very noughties, even though they were popular well after Just Dance was released.  Electropop was huge in 2009, especially by the latter half of the year, but 00s-style artists were still successful on the charts until the beginning of 2010.  It's the same as how hair metal was actually arguably more prevalent on the charts than grunge in 1992, a year after Nirvana stormed into the mainstream, and wouldn't become truly has-been until early 1993.  Years like 1992 and 2009 were basically defined by transition, in which groundbreaking new culture from the tip end of the previous year was steadily growing in influence while the major trends of the preceding decade slowly died out.  Like I said before, I think 2000s music was pretty much completely wiped out of the mainstream after According to You's peak on the charts, which was in early 2010.

I also want to disagree that tablet devices were standard in 2009.  Tablets hit the scene in 2010 when Apple released the iPad.  Android wasn't around yet.  If you had a tablet PC in 2009, it was a clunky touch-screen laptop running a desktop version of Windows.

iPhones were already around for two years, and phone apps were quickly catching on.  True, the transition wasn't quite as complete as it was by 2012 or so, but technology was definitely entering a new era.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 06/18/15 at 1:58 pm


iPhones were already around for two years, and phone apps were quickly catching on.  True, the transition wasn't quite as complete as it was by 2012 or so, but technology was definitely entering a new era.

iPhones were kinda basic back then and had limited functions, especially compared to Blackberry. Android did exist as early as 08 in the form of the HTC Dream, but don't expect much from that.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/27/15 at 11:50 am


If you compare 2008 and 2004, the biggest differences was 2008 no longer had the lingering late '90s trends that 2004 did. 

you mean early 00s trends not 90s!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 06/27/15 at 12:04 pm


you mean early 00s trends not 90s!


Late 90s and early 2000s were more or less the same.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 06/27/15 at 12:55 pm


you mean early 00s trends not 90s!


Yeah like I've always said, 2003 was the final year that any late 90's pop culture was still relevant before 2004 hit, when we entered the core 2000's. The difference between 2008 and 2004 is that 2004 was like the first year of the core 2000's, while 2008 was the year 2010's culture started coming in rapidly and we were no longer in the core 2000's.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/27/15 at 2:54 pm


Yeah like I've always said, 2003 was the final year that any late 90's pop culture was still relevant before 2004 hit, when we entered the core 2000's. The difference between 2008 and 2004 is that 2004 was like the first year of the core 2000's, while 2008 was the year 2010's culture started coming in rapidly and we were no longer in the core 2000's.

exactly!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 06/27/15 at 3:03 pm

I think 2009 was more the transitional year than 2008, but very similar to 1991, a ton of things occurred during the latter half of 2008 that would steadily blossom the following year.  The onset of the Great Recession is equivalent to 1991's dissolution of the USSR, Obama's election parallels the rising popularity of Bill Clinton during the primaries, and Lady Gaga's The Fame and Just Dance single mirror the explosive success of Nirvana's Nevermind and Smells Like Teen Spirit, respectively.  The first half of 2008, however, was still very much core 00s, just as the first half of 1991 was more 80s than 90s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 06/27/15 at 3:11 pm


exactly!


2003 and 04 were very similar years, pop culturally.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 06/27/15 at 4:04 pm


and Lady Gaga's The Fame and Just Dance single mirror the explosive success of Nirvana's Nevermind and Smells Like Teen Spirit, respectively.


The difference is, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" exploded immediately after the music video debuted on MTV. "Just Dance" on the other hand was a song that took several months to even debut on the Billboard Hot 100, and took even longer to top the chart. It was the 3rd most successful song of 2009 (behind "Poker Face" at #2), and was the 35th most successful song of the 2000's. Strangely, "Poker Face" was the 42nd. How does that even happen?

Lady Gaga's music took awhile to find success and her climb was surely a slow one.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 06/27/15 at 4:22 pm


The difference is, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" exploded immediately after the music video debuted on MTV. "Just Dance" on the other hand was a song that took several months to even debut on the Billboard Hot 100, and took even longer to top the chart. It was the 3rd most successful song of 2009 (behind "Poker Face" at #2), and was the 35th most successful song of the 2000's. Strangely, "Poker Face" was the 42nd. How does that even happen?

Lady Gaga's music took awhile to find success and her climb was surely a slow one.


Actually, Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit didn't even debut on the Billboard Hot 100 until December and peaked at #6 on January 11, 1992 (to be fair, the song topped the alternative charts sooner, on November 23, but even then only for one week, outpaced by U2 and RHCP).  Nevermind did not reach #1 on the Billboard 200 until that same week, even though it was released on September 24.  Just Dance also peaked in January, despite being released as a single several months prior.  Both Nirvana and Lady Gaga were receiving tons of airplay in late 1991 and 2008, respectively, but their sales wouldn't truly reflect that until the beginning of the following year.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/27/15 at 5:52 pm


2003 and 04 were very similar years, pop culturally.
Yeah.. It depends on what part of the years you're talking about tbh! From my own experience,the 2003-04 school year was when the culture shifted from early 00s culture to the core mid 00s culture; the last year CN was still in it's prime, last year Toon Disney was still the REAL Toon Disney, the last year Jerry Orbach was on Law and Order, The Practice,the last great season of West Wing,last year of Rugrats, Hey Arnold, Fraiser, Angel and Friends ended and also it was the last year I still considered to Nick to still be a damn good kids network! The Lord of the Rings and Matrix trilogies ended!

Then; 04-05 school year came, I though that core 00s culture was in full swing! Jetix debuted on Toon Disney 8-P , Teen Nick replaced SNICK >:(  and I thought nick had jumped the shark; Cartoon network's city era began! Eminem started to go downhill with encore! 8-P  2004 election, The Incredibles, Collateral, Aviator, Million dollar baby, Mean Girls, and Napoleon Dynamite being released in theaters! Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Boston Legal, Rescue Me,House, Entourage, Veronica Mars,  My tastes were beginning to change as well! I watched more mature programming on tv networks, even more news etc. Rock music was still the same though, but I noticed the Crank and snap rap era started though!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 06/28/15 at 3:36 am


2003 and 04 were very similar years, pop culturally.


I can retrospectively see some differences between them though. I see a few things from '03 that could have easily been confused for the '90s, while '04 is unmistakably 2000's.

I think of 2004 and 2005 as like peanut butter and jelly: It's classic. They're soulmates.

2003 and 2004 I view as peanut butter and honey. Not classic (in the USA), but still makes a good combination nonetheless.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 06/28/15 at 6:28 am


I can retrospectively see some differences between them though. I see a few things from '03 that could have easily been confused for the '90s, while '04 is unmistakably 2000's.

I think of 2004 and 2005 as like peanut butter and jelly: It's classic. They're soulmates.

2003 and 2004 I view as peanut butter and honey. Not classic (in the USA), but still makes a good combination nonetheless.

What from 2003 could be confused with the 90's?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 06/28/15 at 6:44 am


What from 2003 could be confused with the 90's?

Shows like Friends, Frasier, and Buffy, which were still on air during the year but disappeared by 2004.  Musically, pop punk wasn't that different since 1999's Enema of the State, and hip hop was mostly represented by East Coast thugs instead of Lil Jon, with complex, shuffling beats that hadn't evolved tremendously since 1997.  Traditional animation still had a fair presence on the big screen with Brother Bear and Sinbad, but was pretty much completely overtaken by CGI animation by 2004.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 06/28/15 at 6:47 am

Some aesthetics from 2000 and maybe early 2001 can be confused with the 90s; also pop music had quite a lot 90s leftovers, especially "techno" and similar styles. By 2003, this was over. However, some technology which was still in use around 2003/04 could still be from the 90s, especially late 90s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 06/28/15 at 10:02 am


For those who are confused on why late 90's pop culture had died out in 2004 at least here in the United States, here's why from my viewpoint. I always say that 1998-early 2001 was still mostly 90's culture with the earliest signs of 00's culture phasing in. Late 2001-2003 was when there was mostly 00's culture but you still had some 90's pop cultural fad's leftover. There's a reason why people say "late 90's and early 2000's", because we're always talking about 1997-1999 & 2000-2003. By the time 2004 came, there was pretty much was no sign of any 90's pop culture left and it was the start of the core 2000's. There's a lot more to it. This is not just from me, but from what other folks have said as well and I've noticed this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access
"In 2000, most Internet access to homes was provided using dial-up, while many businesses and schools were using broadband connections. In 2000 there were just under 150 million dial-up subscriptions in the 34 OECD countries and fewer than 20 million broadband subscriptions. By 2004, broadband had grown and dial-up had declined so that the number of subscriptions were roughly equal at 130 million each."
As you can see, by 2004, broadband sales had became predominantly popular and dial up declined in most people's households.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace "July 2003"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Facebook "February 4, 2004"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube "February 14, 2005"
Throughout 2003-2005, one by one, 3 years in a row, we had the debuts of Myspace, Facebook, and Youtube. Which was right in between 2004. Which was the start of social media getting real popular.

Friends and Frasier ended in 2004, including Angel as well. Even kid channels like Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Toon Disney, and Disney Channel went through HUGE LOADS of changes throughout 2004 which marked the end of an era and the beginning of the new generation of each of these channels. Logos changing. Shows getting removed and replaced. Including many Nicktoons like Rugrats, Hey Arnold, Rocket Power, etc. & Cartoon Cartoons like Dexter's Lab, Johnny Bravo, Powerpuff Girls, etc. from the 90's that all got cancelled or ended around same year. Lizzie McGuire/Even Stevens era comes to an end. Snick block ended in 2004 and got replaced by Teen Nick. Heck even Toonami was taken to the Saturday night time-slot in 2004 instead of the weekday afternoons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod
"Though the iPod was released in 2001, its price and Mac-only compatibility caused sales to be relatively slow until 2004. The iPod line came from Apple's "digital hub" category, when the company began creating software for the growing market of personal digital devices."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_animation
The last major feature film to use traditional ink and paint was Studio Ghibli's Princess Mononoke (1997); the last major animation production to use the traditional process is Cartoon Network's Ed, Edd n Eddy (1999–2009), although it was forced to switch to digital paint in 2004. Minor productions such as Hair High (2004) by Bill Plympton have used traditional cels long after the introduction of digital techniques. As the cost of both inking and painting new cels for animated films and TV programs and the repeated usage of older cels for newer animated TV programs and films went up and the cost of doing the same thing digitally went down, eventually, the digital ink-and-paint process became the standard for future animated movies and TV programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Ball
In April 2000, the Wonder Ball was re-released with candy in place of the toys. In 2004, the brand was sold to Frankford, which later discontinued the Wonder Ball.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS
"The Nintendo DS (ニンテンドーDS Nintendō DS?) is a dual-screen handheld game console developed and released by Nintendo. The device went on sale in North America on November 21, 2004."
Although the Gameboy Advance SP had just came out a year in a half ago at this time and was still relevant, the release of the Nintendo DS in 2004 marked the end of the Gameboy era for Nintendo and the official start of the DS era.

Now when it comes to VHS to DVD's, that transition really happened throughout the early 2000's, and I believe 2002 was the first year DVD's sales started getting more popular than VHS's, or was it 2003? Then you have the cultural shift in music, well, a lot of people I've noticed tend to say that 2003 was around the time emo music, crunk rap, and R&B got real big. Oh and actually, the Iraq War started in 2003 as well.

So all of these things led up to the official death of 90's pop culture in 2004 IMO and the beginning of the core 2000's, although I know there's a lot more to it, but this is all I got so far.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/28/15 at 10:46 am


For those who are confused on why late 90's pop culture had died out in 2004 at least here in the United States, here's why from my viewpoint. I always say that 1998-early 2001 was still mostly 90's culture with the earliest signs of 00's culture phasing in. Late 2001-2003 was when there was mostly 00's culture but you still had some 90's pop cultural fad's leftover. There's a reason why people say "late 90's and early 2000's", because we're always talking about 1997-1999 & 2000-2003. By the time 2004 came, there was pretty much was no sign of any 90's pop culture left and it was the start of the core 2000's. There's a lot more to it. This is not just from me, but from what other folks have said as well and I've noticed this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access
"In 2000, most Internet access to homes was provided using dial-up, while many businesses and schools were using broadband connections. In 2000 there were just under 150 million dial-up subscriptions in the 34 OECD countries and fewer than 20 million broadband subscriptions. By 2004, broadband had grown and dial-up had declined so that the number of subscriptions were roughly equal at 130 million each."
As you can see, by 2004, broadband sales had became predominantly popular and dial up declined in most people's households.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace "July 2003"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Facebook "February 4, 2004"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube "February 14, 2005"
Throughout 2003-2005, one by one, 3 years in a row, we had the debuts of Myspace, Facebook, and Youtube. Which was right in between 2004. Which was the start of social media getting real popular.

Friends and Frasier ended in 2004, including Angel as well. Even kid channels like Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Toon Disney, and Disney Channel went through HUGE LOADS of changes throughout 2004 which marked the end of an era and the beginning of the new generation of each of these channels. Logos changing. Shows getting removed and replaced. Including many Nicktoons like Rugrats, Hey Arnold, Rocket Power, etc. & Cartoon Cartoons like Dexter's Lab, Johnny Bravo, Powerpuff Girls, etc. from the 90's that all got cancelled or ended around same year. Lizzie McGuire/Even Stevens era comes to an end. Snick block ended in 2004 and got replaced by Teen Nick. Heck even Toonami was taken to the Saturday night time-slot in 2004 instead of the weekday afternoons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod
"Though the iPod was released in 2001, its price and Mac-only compatibility caused sales to be relatively slow until 2004. The iPod line came from Apple's "digital hub" category, when the company began creating software for the growing market of personal digital devices."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_animation
The last major feature film to use traditional ink and paint was Studio Ghibli's Princess Mononoke (1997); the last major animation production to use the traditional process is Cartoon Network's Ed, Edd n Eddy (1999–2009), although it was forced to switch to digital paint in 2004. Minor productions such as Hair High (2004) by Bill Plympton have used traditional cels long after the introduction of digital techniques. As the cost of both inking and painting new cels for animated films and TV programs and the repeated usage of older cels for newer animated TV programs and films went up and the cost of doing the same thing digitally went down, eventually, the digital ink-and-paint process became the standard for future animated movies and TV programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Ball
In April 2000, the Wonder Ball was re-released with candy in place of the toys. In 2004, the brand was sold to Frankford, which later discontinued the Wonder Ball.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS
"The Nintendo DS (ニンテンドーDS Nintendō DS?) is a dual-screen handheld game console developed and released by Nintendo. The device went on sale in North America on November 21, 2004."
Although the Gameboy Advance SP had just came out a year in a half ago at this time and was still relevant, the release of the Nintendo DS in 2004 marked the end of the Gameboy era for Nintendo and the official start of the DS era.

Now when it comes to VHS to DVD's, that transition really happened throughout the early 2000's, and I believe 2002 was the first year DVD's sales started getting more popular than VHS's, or was it 2003? Then you have the cultural shift in music, well, a lot of people I've noticed tend to say that 2003 was around the time emo music, crunk rap, and R&B got real big. Oh and actually, the Iraq War started in 2003 as well.

So all of these things led up to the official death of 90's pop culture in 2004 IMO and the beginning of the core 2000's, although I know there's a lot more to it, but this is all I got so far.

yup yup pretty good points!!!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/28/15 at 10:47 am


I can retrospectively see some differences between them though. I see a few things from '03 that could have easily been confused for the '90s, while '04 is unmistakably 2000's.

I think of 2004 and 2005 as like peanut butter and jelly: It's classic. They're soulmates.

2003 and 2004 I view as peanut butter and honey. Not classic (in the USA), but still makes a good combination nonetheless.

I think in the future; when people think of the 00s, it'll probably be the years 2004-2007/08ish!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/28/15 at 10:57 am

Yes you guys are right! 2000-2001 was a flat out extension of the late 90s! late 2001-mid 2003 were the true early 00s pop culturally but had some 1999 influences! 2004 was when 00s culture peaked petty much! 2000s just like the 60s, took a while to get away from the previous era a little bit!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Inlandsvägen1986 on 06/28/15 at 1:36 pm


I think in the future; when people think of the 00s, it'll probably be the years 2004-2007/08ish!


It could also be assumed that 2010 represents the 2000s best in the people's mind in the future. I don't think it was before 2012,13 or even 14 that the "normal" human being really lived the 2010s culture.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Bestyears08 on 06/28/15 at 2:13 pm

2009 had a different feel from any of the past 2000s years. It really set the stage for the 10s.  In 2009  I was  in my Sophomore year in college and if i somehow were to go back there it wouldn't be too different from today. Music on the radio at the time was electro-pop but no so much edm festival music. People in general did not dress so differently. Styles have changed no doubt but I don't think  a  person would stick out  so much  going back to 09.I could not say that about core 2000s years like 04 & 05 where styles had a distinctive look to them. 08 and 09 were really bridge years between the decades and had their own feel

Another thing I noticed about 08 and 09 is that they were less of a hybrid of the 00s and 10s but had more of its  own distinctive vibe, I remember the summer of 08 going into fall 08  there was a shift in culture even more so than just going by whole years. Early 2008 was a whole different animal from fall 08 and that was  just the span of just 8-10 months .:P

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: violet_shy on 06/28/15 at 7:06 pm

Yes

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Philip Eno on 06/29/15 at 6:47 am


By my calendar it is!

Yes
I think we are in agreement.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 06/30/15 at 11:22 pm

Scott Pilgrim was filmed in 2009. It is a 2010s movie through and through.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 06/30/15 at 11:47 pm


It could also be assumed that 2010 represents the 2000s best in the people's mind in the future. I don't think it was before 2012,13 or even 14 that the "normal" human being really lived the 2010s culture.


It's possible.  Plenty of '00s trends were still relevant in 2009, even if they were past their peak.  Likewise, there were 2010s fads that were in their infancy or had not even emerged yet.

I would go as far to say that if you take music and politics out of the equation, 2009 had more in common with 2005 than it does 2015.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/01/15 at 12:13 am


It's possible.  Plenty of '00s trends were still relevant in 2009, even if they were past their peak.  Likewise, there were 2010s fads that were in their infancy or had not even emerged yet.

I would go as far to say that if you take music and politics out of the equation, 2009 had more in common with 2005 than it does 2015.

Man, that's VERY debatable! I'm pretty torn! In terms of life expirences 2009 has more in common than 2015, but my interests from 2009 were a little closer to 2005! Man that's tough!!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 07/01/15 at 12:47 am


Scott Pilgrim was filmed in 2009. It is a 2010s movie through and through.


Seriously? I watched that movie late last year, and I thought it was very 2000's! The movie was really kitschy. It featured garage rock music (a reference to The Strokes "Is This It" album), very mid-aughts cartoon and comic book themes, and the fashion was very 2002/2003-ish. The clothes that they wore were certainly out of style by the time they filmed the movie.

Scott Pilgrim is an example of something so far behind the times that it was actually ahead! The movie had that hipsterlicious sarcastic irony that is completely absent in modern popular culture (sincerity is what takes the cake these days). To me, that movie was kind of a "2000's recap" putting everything that was cool from 2000-2009 in a single film. When I was watching it, that movie absolutely screamed Generation Y! It's very much something that older and core members could relate to, because that represented what they were interested in.

Speaking as a late millennial/early gen z (sources differ), I couldn't resonate with that movie. It didn't represent people my age.

Besides the kitschy indielicious geekiness of the movie, another dead giveaway that Scott Pilgrim vs the World is totally 2000's and not a true 2010's film is Michael Cera. He isn't relevant anymore. 2011 was the last year he was ever popular. He became popular in 2007. The comic started in 2004. So yeah, it's totally 2000's.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/01/15 at 12:55 am


It's possible.  Plenty of '00s trends were still relevant in 2009, even if they were past their peak.  Likewise, there were 2010s fads that were in their infancy or had not even emerged yet.

I would go as far to say that if you take music and politics out of the equation, 2009 had more in common with 2005 than it does 2015.


Nah, I don't really think 2009 is that similar to 2005 compared to now.  YouTube and Facebook existed but were hardly a thing in 2005; Twitter hadn't been founded at all yet.  Phones were becoming a lot more versatile in 2009, whereas in 2005 they were still pretty limited in capability.  The gaming world was still mostly in the sixth generation in 2005, even though the DS was already out and the XBOX 360 got released at the end of the year.  Musically, 2005 was dominated by crunk and r&b, both of which were declining in 2009 or at the very least becoming more electronic.  Pop punk and post-grunge were still big in 2009, but their success was less consistent (compare, for example, the sales for Green Day's American Idiot to 21st Century Breakdown).  Lady Gaga was the most popular new artist in 2009, and she was a far cry from comeback queen Mariah Carey, who dominated 2005.  The Black Eyed Peas released extremely popular albums in both '05 and '09, but Monkey Business was typical pop urban, whereas The E.N.D. was unambiguously electropop, directly paving the way for the type of music that's still huge now.

In the world of television and cinema, 2009 saw the premiere of both Modern Family and Glee, both very 2010s-style shows.  The Sopranos had been over for two years already, and Breaking Bad was on its second season.  HD format was now standard, and DVD sales were beginning to decline, in part thanks to blu-ray, but also the rise of web services like Netflix.  Popular 2000s film comedians like Steve Carrell, Ben Stiller, and Will Ferrell were being overtaken by Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and the like.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/01/15 at 12:44 pm


Nah, I don't really think 2009 is that similar to 2005 compared to now.  YouTube and Facebook existed but were hardly a thing in 2005; Twitter hadn't been founded at all yet.  Phones were becoming a lot more versatile in 2009, whereas in 2005 they were still pretty limited in capability.  The gaming world was still mostly in the sixth generation in 2005, even though the DS was already out and the XBOX 360 got released at the end of the year.  Musically, 2005 was dominated by crunk and r&b, both of which were declining in 2009 or at the very least becoming more electronic.  Pop punk and post-grunge were still big in 2009, but their success was less consistent (compare, for example, the sales for Green Day's American Idiot to 21st Century Breakdown).  Lady Gaga was the most popular new artist in 2009, and she was a far cry from comeback queen Mariah Carey, who dominated 2005.  The Black Eyed Peas released extremely popular albums in both '05 and '09, but Monkey Business was typical pop urban, whereas The E.N.D. was unambiguously electropop, directly paving the way for the type of music that's still huge now.

In the world of television and cinema, 2009 saw the premiere of both Modern Family and Glee, both very 2010s-style shows.  The Sopranos had been over for two years already, and Breaking Bad was on its second season.  HD format was now standard, and DVD sales were beginning to decline, in part thanks to blu-ray, but also the rise of web services like Netflix.  Popular 2000s film comedians like Steve Carrell, Ben Stiller, and Will Ferrell were being overtaken by Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and the like.


A lot of what you posted is related to music, which has been discussed was in the midst of transformation by 2009 and had come a long ways since 2005. 

Television on the other hand is debatable.  In 2009 some of the newer shows like Glee had come out, but '00s staples were still more than relevant.  The Office probably peaked in popularity that year.  My favorite shows were 24, the three CSIs, and Lost, all very 2000s shows. 

In terms of technology, lets not act like everybody had a smartphone in 2009.  The iPhone was still pretty expensive and the Blackberry was the only real competitor.  Android devices didn't explode until 2010.  The iPad wasn't out yet so for most people, computing was centered on laptops or traditional desktop PCs.  Most of them came with Windows Vista until October of that year.  It was still common to still see CRT TVs and PC monitors that year.  Netflix streaming was out but wasn't very popular because the selection wasn't that great and smart TVs were not yet prevalent.  2009 was the last year MySpace was relevant and twitter really had not caught on yet.

Bottom line is, unless you were on the extreme cutting edge, 2009 had a lot more in common with the 2000s than the 2010s for most people, music and politics aside.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/01/15 at 4:52 pm

In terms of technology, lets not act like everybody had a smartphone in 2009.  The iPhone was still pretty expensive and the Blackberry was the only real competitor.  Android devices didn't explode until 2010.  The iPad wasn't out yet so for most people, computing was centered on laptops or traditional desktop PCs.  Most of them came with Windows Vista until October of that year.  It was still common to still see CRT TVs and PC monitors that year.  Netflix streaming was out but wasn't very popular because the selection wasn't that great and smart TVs were not yet prevalent.  2009 was the last year MySpace was relevant and twitter really had not caught on yet.

Bottom line is, unless you were on the extreme cutting edge, 2009 had a lot more in common with the 2000s than the 2010s for most people, music and politics aside.


Well, tablet devices were still in their primitive state in 2009, but you're forgetting the presence of YouTube, Facebook, Skype, and Twitter (and even the expansion of Wikipedia since the mid-2000s), which were still being accessed mostly from a computer screen, but which are basically the primary foundation of 2010s culture, politically and otherwise.  I remember getting my Facebook account in November of 2008, and I had been visiting YouTube regularly since 2007.  Before that, most of what I did on my computer was posting on internet forums or fiddling around with computer games and software.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/01/15 at 7:37 pm


Television on the other hand is debatable.  In 2009 some of the newer shows like Glee had come out, but '00s staples were still more than relevant.  The Office probably peaked in popularity that year.  My favorite shows were 24, the three CSIs, and Lost, all very 2000s shows.

Lost was considered past it's prime by the late 00s! Just so ya know!! lol

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/02/15 at 8:27 am

I've looked back at the rest of this thread, and one thing that I've noticed is that because 2009 still had a lot of leftover 00s culture, most people categorize it with the 2000s before the 2010s.  However, as with most periods of transition, it was primarily the newer trends that left the bigger impact on popular culture, not the old, leftover ones that were past their prime.  People remember 1992 as the year grunge became big, even though there was still far more hair metal on the Billboard Hot 100 than grunge, while 1981 is remembered for Reagan and MTV, despite the fact that acoustic pianos and guitars were still generally more popular in pop music than synthesizers.

I distinctly recall that as 2009 continued, I truly felt like I was entering a different era.  The Great Recession, Obama being president, EDM like Lady Gaga and the Black Eyed Peas, the gay marriage movement, and Facebook defined the year far more to me than Green Day's 21st Century Breakdown, emo, and Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.  One of my friends from 2009 was already extremely hipster, not scene/goth/emo, as would've been likely a year or two back.  Trends from the mid-late 2000s were still around, but were hardly important or exciting anymore.

The entire feel of the world changed very drastically to me from late 2008 to early 2010, even though I was in high school from 2007 to 2011.  My life didn't suddenly transform when MySpace fell off the map, people stopped using flip phones, pop punk disappeared from the charts, and PS2's stopped being produced, as these things were already gradually becoming passé for a few years before they died completely.  This is very different from the immediate impact I felt when Just Dance was the #1 song on iTunes, Proposition 8 got passed, the Black Eyed Peas changed their musical style with Boom Boom Pow, Obama was elected president, and I got word that we were entering another Great Depression.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/02/15 at 10:16 am


I've looked back at the rest of this thread, and one thing that I've noticed is that because 2009 still had a lot of leftover 00s culture, most people categorize it with the 2000s before the 2010s.  However, as with most periods of transition, it was primarily the newer trends that left the bigger impact on popular culture, not the old, leftover ones that were past their prime.  People remember 1992 as the year grunge became big, even though there was still far more hair metal on the Billboard Hot 100 than grunge, while 1981 is remembered for Reagan and MTV, despite the fact that acoustic pianos and guitars were still generally more popular in pop music than synthesizers.

I distinctly recall that as 2009 continued, I truly felt like I was entering a different era.  The Great Recession, Obama being president, EDM like Lady Gaga and the Black Eyed Peas, the gay marriage movement, and Facebook defined the year far more to me than Green Day's 21st Century Breakdown, emo, and Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.  One of my friends from 2009 was already extremely hipster, not scene/goth/emo, as would've been likely a year or two back.  Trends from the mid-late 2000s were still around, but were hardly important or exciting anymore.

The entire feel of the world changed very drastically to me from late 2008 to early 2010, even though I was in high school from 2007 to 2011.  My life didn't suddenly transform when MySpace fell off the map, people stopped using flip phones, pop punk disappeared from the charts, and PS2's stopped being produced, as these things were already gradually becoming passé for a few years before they died completely.  This is very different from the immediate impact I felt when Just Dance was the #1 song on iTunes, Proposition 8 got passed, the Black Eyed Peas changed their musical style with Boom Boom Pow, Obama was elected president, and I got word that we were entering another Great Depression.


I definitely see your point but I do think holdovers make an impact because different people adopt the new trends at different rates.  2009 did still have some ties to the '00s, though not as strong as 2008.  I didn't jump on the Glee bandwagon until 2010. In 2009 the most anticipated movie, both for me and everyone was Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.

I am not going to dispute that 2009 felt like we were moving into a new era.  I will dispute all day long when people try to say that 2008 doesn't belong with the '00s because I clearly believe it does.  2009 though was different.  You mention 1992 and I would compared 2009 more to 1993.  That was the year that it really felt like we entered a new era, but there were still holdovers from the late 80s-early 90s influencing the culture.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/02/15 at 1:16 pm


I definitely see your point but I do think holdovers make an impact because different people adopt the new trends at different rates.  2009 did still have some ties to the '00s, though not as strong as 2008.  I didn't jump on the Glee bandwagon until 2010. In 2009 the most anticipated movie, both for me and everyone was Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.


2009 also had Avatar, The Hangover, and 2012.  Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was one of the more forgettable movies in the Harry Potter franchise, at least imo.

I am not going to dispute that 2009 felt like we were moving into a new era.  I will dispute all day long when people try to say that 2008 doesn't belong with the '00s because I clearly believe it does.  2009 though was different.  You mention 1992 and I would compared 2009 more to 1993.  That was the year that it really felt like we entered a new era, but there were still holdovers from the late 80s-early 90s influencing the culture.

That describes 1992 to a tee, though.  By 1992, grunge had exploded on the charts, the 16-bit video game console wars were on thanks to Sonic the Hedgehog and the SNES, Clinton was running for president, the first wave of Nicktoons had arrived, and media controversy was starting to pick up due to Cop Killer, games like Mortal Kombat and Night Trap, and shows like Ren & Stimpy and The Simpsons.  The Cosby Show, one of the biggest television series of the 1980s, went off the air in 1992, while Cheers and Saved By the Bell disappeared a year later.  Hair metal and old school hip hop were still popular, but they were starting to lose influence as new musical styles arrived.  1992 was full of comfortably 90s culture, even with some 80s trends lingering over.

1993, on the other hand, had little to no 80s influence whatsoever.  Hair metal was completely dead by the beginning of the year (the last song with any chart significance was Def Leppard's Stand Up and Kick Love Into Motion, although FireHouse's I Live My Life For You achieved popularity a couple years afterwards).  In pop and contemporary r&b, the gated drum sound, particularly prevalent in the late 80s and beginning of the 90s, was more or less extinct, replaced instead by cushier drums and a greater emphasis on synths (compare, for example, Janet Jackson's That's the Way Love Goes to Escapade, or Mariah Carey's Dreamlover to Vision of Love).  The NES, despite still having produced a lot of third party titles in 1992, had little in 1993 besides Kirby's Adventure.  Jurassic Park was the year's biggest film, rendering 80s-style action flicks completely outdated with its revolutionary special effects.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III destroyed whatever merit the Bush '41-era phenomenon had remaining.  Speaking of Bush '41, the traditionally minded president was just elected out of office, making it obvious that the Reagan Revolution was truly over and instead replaced by Clinton's Third Way liberalism.  The closest thing at all to 80s culture that was still prevalent for most of 1993 was certain female hairstyles, which were still pretty crimped and hadn't been affected by Jennifer Aniston yet.  Otherwise, 1993 was basically equivalent to what 2010 was for the 2010s, in which the culture of the previous decade pretty much completely disappeared from the mainstream aside from a few scraps at the beginning like Orianthi's According to You and the final season of Lost.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 07/02/15 at 1:35 pm


I've looked back at the rest of this thread, and one thing that I've noticed is that because 2009 still had a lot of leftover 00s culture, most people categorize it with the 2000s before the 2010s.  However, as with most periods of transition, it was primarily the newer trends that left the bigger impact on popular culture, not the old, leftover ones that were past their prime.  People remember 1992 as the year grunge became big, even though there was still far more hair metal on the Billboard Hot 100 than grunge, while 1981 is remembered for Reagan and MTV, despite the fact that acoustic pianos and guitars were still generally more popular in pop music than synthesizers.

I distinctly recall that as 2009 continued, I truly felt like I was entering a different era.  The Great Recession, Obama being president, EDM like Lady Gaga and the Black Eyed Peas, the gay marriage movement, and Facebook defined the year far more to me than Green Day's 21st Century Breakdown, emo, and Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.  One of my friends from 2009 was already extremely hipster, not scene/goth/emo, as would've been likely a year or two back.  Trends from the mid-late 2000s were still around, but were hardly important or exciting anymore.

The entire feel of the world changed very drastically to me from late 2008 to early 2010, even though I was in high school from 2007 to 2011.  My life didn't suddenly transform when MySpace fell off the map, people stopped using flip phones, pop punk disappeared from the charts, and PS2's stopped being produced, as these things were already gradually becoming passé for a few years before they died completely.  This is very different from the immediate impact I felt when Just Dance was the #1 song on iTunes, Proposition 8 got passed, the Black Eyed Peas changed their musical style with Boom Boom Pow, Obama was elected president, and I got word that we were entering another Great Depression.


I think the 2008 crash was a big deal, if we're talking about eras, yes.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/02/15 at 2:06 pm

To be fair, I will make the point that I think we've moved past the early phase of 2010s culture and entered the mid-2010s since about autumn of 2013, so I can somewhat see why people consider 2009-2012 dated by today's standards.  While most of the new trends since 2013 are really just new incarnations of culture from 2009-2012, I do think the overall vibe of popular culture started to change somewhat.  A few notable things that marked the entrance into the core 2010s:

+ The economy finally starting to improve
+ The Tea Party losing most of its credibility, with much of the Republican Party now moving further towards the center
+ The premieres of Orange Is the New Black and House of Cards
+ The end of The Office and Breaking Bad
+ Some of the first wave electropop artists, like Lady Gaga and Skrillex, falling from fame to make way for Ariana Grande, new Taylor Swift, Lorde, and the like
+ The disco revival in popular music
+ Pharrell Williams becoming popular as a solo artist and not just a producer
+ Major social issues expanding beyond gay rights to also include transgender and African American rights
+ The eighth generation of video gaming entering full swing, thanks to the improved sales of the 3DS and Wii U, as well as the release of the XBOX One and PS4.
+ Distinct 2010s fashions like the fade cut becoming mainstream
+ Blockbuster completely dying and Netflix becoming ubiquitous
+ Tablets being standard
+ The rise of ISIS
+ The Supreme Court deciding state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, thus dramatically accelerating the gay rights movement nationwide

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/02/15 at 3:33 pm


2009 also had Avatar, The Hangover, and 2012.  Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was one of the more forgettable movies in the Harry Potter franchise, at least imo.

That describes 1992 to a tee, though.  By 1992, grunge had exploded on the charts, the 16-bit video game console wars were on thanks to Sonic the Hedgehog and the SNES, Clinton was running for president, the first wave of Nicktoons had arrived, and media controversy was starting to pick up due to Cop Killer, games like Mortal Kombat and Night Trap, and shows like Ren & Stimpy and The Simpsons.  The Cosby Show, one of the biggest television series of the 1980s, went off the air in 1992, while Cheers and Saved By the Bell disappeared a year later.  Hair metal and old school hip hop were still popular, but they were starting to lose influence as new musical styles arrived.  1992 was full of comfortably 90s culture, even with some 80s trends lingering over.

1993, on the other hand, had little to no 80s influence whatsoever.  Hair metal was completely dead by the beginning of the year (the last song with any chart significance was Def Leppard's Stand Up and Kick Love Into Motion, although FireHouse's I Live My Life For You achieved popularity a couple years afterwards).  In pop and contemporary r&b, the gated drum sound, particularly prevalent in the late 80s and beginning of the 90s, was more or less extinct, replaced instead by cushier drums and a greater emphasis on synths (compare, for example, Janet Jackson's That's the Way Love Goes to Escapade, or Mariah Carey's Dreamlover to Vision of Love).  The NES, despite still having produced a lot of third party titles in 1992, had little in 1993 besides Kirby's Adventure.  Jurassic Park was the year's biggest film, rendering 80s-style action flicks completely outdated with its revolutionary special effects.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III destroyed whatever merit the Bush '41-era phenomenon had remaining.  Speaking of Bush '41, the traditionally minded president was just elected out of office, making it obvious that the Reagan Revolution was truly over and instead replaced by Clinton's Third Way liberalism.  The closest thing at all to 80s culture that was still prevalent for most of 1993 was certain female hairstyles, which were still pretty crimped and hadn't been affected by Jennifer Aniston yet.  Otherwise, 1993 was basically equivalent to what 2010 was for the 2010s, in which the culture of the previous decade pretty much completely disappeared from the mainstream aside from a few scraps at the beginning like Orianthi's According to You and the final season of Lost.


Great points.

I would say its safe to say that 2009 was the last year with relevant '00s culture even though the '10s were becoming more established, much like 1992 was the last hurrah for '80s culture. In both instances though, the previous decade's lingering culture did still have an influence on the overall feel of the era so it can't be ignored. By 2010 about all that was left was lingering '00s hairstyles (for both men and women), some '00s TV shows that were past their peak, and the one-off post grunge hit, with September by Daughtry being the last one in the summer of 2010.

With all of that in mind, tying back to the original question in this thread, 2009 WAS an '00s year.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 07/02/15 at 5:02 pm


Well, tablet devices were still in their primitive state in 2009

Tablets were PDAs back then.


Nah, I don't really think 2009 is that similar to 2005 compared to now.  YouTube and Facebook existed but were hardly a thing in 2005; Twitter hadn't been founded at all yet.  Phones were becoming a lot more versatile in 2009, whereas in 2005 they were still pretty limited in capability.

Phones were still pretty feature phone-esque in 2009. Alot of today's staple features were missing back then.

HD format was now standard, and DVD sales were beginning to decline, in part thanks to blu-ray, but also the rise of web services like Netflix.

HD was standardized in 2011. Blu-ray is a less successful DVD of the 90s, it didn't even sell as many players in its first 2 years as DVD did in its first 2 years on the market. though with DVDs becoming archaic and pointless in today's HD world, things might turn around if Netflix doesn't kill both of them first. Speaking of Netflix, weren't they still delivering DVDs to the door in '09?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 07/02/15 at 5:12 pm


HD was standardized in 2011. Blu-ray is a less successful DVD of the 90s, it didn't even sell as many players in its first 2 years as DVD did in its first 2 years on the market. though with DVDs becoming archaic and pointless in today's HD world, things might turn around if Netflix doesn't kill both of them first. Speaking of Netflix, weren't they still delivering DVDs to the door in '09?


DVD is not pointless. DVD quality is good enough; why do you need to see every blade of grass on the floor, every wrinkle on someone's face? I will always use DVD. No streaming service will have everything.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/02/15 at 5:16 pm


DVD is not pointless. DVD quality is good enough; why do you need to see every blade of grass on the floor, every wrinkle on someone's face? I will always use DVD. No streaming service will have everything.

Yeah, when I watch older movies or childhood movies I always use DVDs. But when it comes to action flicks and newer films, blu ray all the way for me!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/02/15 at 5:25 pm

I agree that streaming services still have limitations, especially for movies.  Until streaming services offer an unlimited selection, I think Blu-ray will continue to have its place.

In 2009 Netflix had streaming service, but smart TVs with built-in Netflix was pretty rare at the time.  You needed either a media center PC with HDMI output or you had to watch streaming content on your computer monitor.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 07/02/15 at 7:20 pm


To be fair, I will make the point that I think we've moved past the early phase of 2010s culture and entered the mid-2010s since about autumn of 2013, so I can somewhat see why people consider 2009-2012 dated by today's standards.  While most of the new trends since 2013 are really just new incarnations of culture from 2009-2012, I do think the overall vibe of popular culture started to change somewhat.  A few notable things that marked the entrance into the core 2010s:

+ The economy finally starting to improve
+ The Tea Party losing most of its credibility, with much of the Republican Party now moving further towards the center
+ The premieres of Orange Is the New Black and House of Cards
+ The end of The Office and Breaking Bad
+ Some of the first wave electropop artists, like Lady Gaga and Skrillex, falling from fame to make way for Ariana Grande, new Taylor Swift, Lorde, and the like
+ The disco revival in popular music
+ Pharrell Williams becoming popular as a solo artist and not just a producer
+ Major social issues expanding beyond gay rights to also include transgender and African American rights
+ The eighth generation of video gaming entering full swing, thanks to the improved sales of the 3DS and Wii U, as well as the release of the XBOX One and PS4.
+ Distinct 2010s fashions like the fade cut becoming mainstream
+ Blockbuster completely dying and Netflix becoming ubiquitous
+ Tablets being standard
+ The rise of ISIS
+ The Supreme Court deciding state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, thus dramatically accelerating the gay rights movement nationwide


Hey great points, also, would you consider the decline of DVD's/Blu-ray Disc and the rise of digital on demand to watch movies/shows on Netflix and Hulu, as a trend that defines the core 2010's culture? Or would you say that was around 2009-2012? Kinda like how the early 2000's was the transition from VHS's to DVD's. I wonder if we're in that phase now where DVD's/Blu-ray's are dying off and Netflix or Hulu has been getting big. Heck DVD's may have already been declining a few years ago.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/02/15 at 8:53 pm


Hey great points, also, would you consider the decline of DVD's/Blu-ray Disc and the rise of digital on demand to watch movies/shows on Netflix and Hulu, as a trend that defines the core 2010's culture? Or would you say that was around 2009-2012? Kinda like how the early 2000's was the transition from VHS's to DVD's. I wonder if we're in that phase now where DVD's/Blu-ray's are dying off and Netflix or Hulu has been getting big. Heck DVD's may have already been declining a few years ago.


I'd say the decline itself occurred mostly in 2009-2013, but that by more or less coming full circle, it's taken video format into its mid-2010s era.  DVD's are still being sold, but Blockbuster having gone completely out of business proves directly that physical copies of movies have dramatically lost popularity since the beginning of the decade (the Recession didn't help either, nor did the increased popularity of YouTube).  Most people find it much more convenient to just watch something on Netflix or rent a film on demand than to travel out to their local video store for their copy.  The same type of thing applies to music CDs, although the decline hasn't been nearly as rapid and has been going on for over a decade now.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/03/15 at 1:06 pm


Hey great points, also, would you consider the decline of DVD's/Blu-ray Disc and the rise of digital on demand to watch movies/shows on Netflix and Hulu, as a trend that defines the core 2010's culture? Or would you say that was around 2009-2012? Kinda like how the early 2000's was the transition from VHS's to DVD's. I wonder if we're in that phase now where DVD's/Blu-ray's are dying off and Netflix or Hulu has been getting big. Heck DVD's may have already been declining a few years ago.


I don't think physical media is completely dead yet for movies.  The CD on the other hand is nearing obsolescence because it offers little advantage over purchasing a digital copy.  For video, streaming services still have some limitations.  Also, if you want to own a copy of a movie, physical media is still the way to go.  I personally like to own copies of my favorite movies so I purchase them on Blu-Ray.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 07/05/15 at 11:20 pm


In 2009 Netflix had streaming service, but smart TVs with built-in Netflix was pretty rare at the time.  You needed either a media center PC with HDMI output or you had to watch streaming content on your computer monitor.

More indication that 09 seems to group aa a very primitive 2010s year then a typical 2000s year.

So Netflix is pretty much still a '10s thing since they began streaming at the end of the previous decade. This is kinda why I don't think most years that end in 9 have much in common with their decade. Its like saying Napster is 90s  because it was put up in '99.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/06/15 at 4:48 pm


So Netflix is pretty much still a '10s thing since they began streaming at the end of the previous decade. This is kinda why I don't think most years that end in 9 have much in common with their decade. Its like saying Napster is 90s  because it was put up in '99.


This isn't always the case.  1969 was the quintessential year of the sixties in my opinion.  I would also say 1989 was very near the peak of the '80s.  As you said though, I don't think 1999 had a lot in common with the core 90s but it wasn't really '00s either.  I define 1998-2001 as its own era and Napster was a big part of that.

Netflix is very much a '10s thing.  I don't remember adoption being that widespread in 2009.  I know I personally still went to Blockbuster that year. 

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/06/15 at 5:44 pm


This isn't always the case.  1969 was the quintessential year of the sixties in my opinion.  I would also say 1989 was very near the peak of the '80s.  As you said though, I don't think 1999 had a lot in common with the core 90s but it wasn't really '00s either.  I define 1998-2001 as its own era and Napster was a big part of that.

Netflix is very much a '10s thing.  I don't remember adoption being that widespread in 2009.  I know I personally still went to Blockbuster that year. 

LBJ being president is why I consider 1968 is the quintessential 60s year! He is the political figure of the decade! Hell, there's even a documentary on the year!! lol ;D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/06/15 at 6:29 pm


LBJ being president is why I consider 1968 is the quintessential 60s year! He is the political figure of the decade! Hell, there's even a documentary on the year!! lol ;D


Maybe so, but 1969 was still very much in the heart of "the sixties" so the '9' year doesn't always lack connection with its decade.  Bringing it back to 2009, I think we may have to wait a few more years before we know for sure where it falls.  It's possible that in 2020, we will look back on late 2008-early 2012 as its own distinct era much like we currently look back on the 1998-2001 period as distinct.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/06/15 at 6:48 pm


Maybe so, but 1969 was still very much in the heart of "the sixties" so the '9' year doesn't always lack connection with its decade.  Bringing it back to 2009, I think we may have to wait a few more years before we know for sure where it falls.  It's possible that in 2020, we will look back on late 2008-early 2012 as its own distinct era much like we currently look back on the 1998-2001 period as distinct.


1969 may have had Woodstock, Vietnam, Abbey Road, hippies, etc., but it also had Led Zeppelin's first two albums, Sesame Street, King Crimson's debut, and Richard Nixon as president.  Personally, I'd mark either 1967 or 1968 as the quintessential 60s year.  It was during that time that the Doors and Jimmy Hendrix released their monumental first few albums, the Beatles came out with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Vietnam started to look like a true quagmire, MLK and RFK were assassinated, and social issues were at their most controversial.  Most core 60s culture was still alive and well in 1969, but the presence of early 70s stuff makes that year still seem like the prelude to the following decade, albeit not as obviously as 2009 was to the 2010s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/06/15 at 7:17 pm


Maybe so, but 1969 was still very much in the heart of "the sixties" so the '9' year doesn't always lack connection with its decade.  Bringing it back to 2009, I think we may have to wait a few more years before we know for sure where it falls.  It's possible that in 2020, we will look back on late 2008-early 2012 as its own distinct era much like we currently look back on the 1998-2001 period as distinct.

the 60s is just an interesting era!! lol The culture just evolved over time! It feels like there are three 60s eras! But like Infinity said Nixon became president, Sesame Street, The Brady Bunch, Partridge Family, Scooby Doo debuted on TV! 1968 had the democratic national convention, 68 election, RFK and Dr. King's assassinations, all of the issues of the 60s reached it's breaking point in this crazy and wild year! Also every older person i've spoken to has said this was the most important year of that decade! It's pretty interesting!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 07/07/15 at 2:49 am


Seriously? I watched that movie late last year, and I thought it was very 2000's! The movie was really kitschy. It featured garage rock music (a reference to The Strokes "Is This It" album), very mid-aughts cartoon and comic book themes, and the fashion was very 2002/2003-ish. The clothes that they wore were certainly out of style by the time they filmed the movie.

Scott Pilgrim is an example of something so far behind the times that it was actually ahead! The movie had that hipsterlicious sarcastic irony that is completely absent in modern popular culture (sincerity is what takes the cake these days). To me, that movie was kind of a "2000's recap" putting everything that was cool from 2000-2009 in a single film. When I was watching it, that movie absolutely screamed Generation Y! It's very much something that older and core members could relate to, because that represented what they were interested in.

Speaking as a late millennial/early gen z (sources differ), I couldn't resonate with that movie. It didn't represent people my age.

Besides the kitschy indielicious geekiness of the movie, another dead giveaway that Scott Pilgrim vs the World is totally 2000's and not a true 2010's film is Michael Cera. He isn't relevant anymore. 2011 was the last year he was ever popular. He became popular in 2007. The comic started in 2004. So yeah, it's totally 2000's.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 07/07/15 at 2:58 am

Absolutely. I think 2009 is the quintessential year of the decade. The inauguration of Obama represented everything that the decade stood for. Listening to something like Cobra Starship's terrible song "Good Girls Go Bad" and 3OH!3's "Don't Trust Me" sound like they couldn't possibly get anymore 2000's. Soulja Boy's "Kiss Me Thru the Phone" sounds completely core '00s. Skinny Jeans, the Justin Bieber haircut, ear gauges, extreme side-partings, neon colors, high-top sneakers, hoodies, and studded belts peaked in popularity that year; they began their slow decline in 2010 before most of them leaving in 2014. All of these things were introduced to the mainstream in 2004 and became the majority in 2006. Nickelback and Britney Spears are the icons of the 2000's.

2009 was the new 1969. It's just eye popping how similar the 2000's were to the 1960's, and 2009 completely represents how much of a repeat the aughts were of an era four decades prior.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/07/15 at 9:07 am


Absolutely. I think 2009 is the quintessential year of the decade.


Whether or not 2009 more of a 2000s year than a 2010s one is debatable; I personally think it's much more 2010s, but other people's definitions seem to vary, depending on how much weight they place on leftover culture on its way out versus brand new stuff that had yet to become entirely the norm.  How in the world, however is 2009 the quintessential year of the 2000s when so much of the culture present in the previous nine years was either long gone or in its decline?

The inauguration of Obama represented everything that the decade stood for.

Obama's election was absolutely the signifier of a new era, one in which grassroots social activism leads to progressive change - the election of a black president was a pretty far cry from the security measures following 9/11 and the Bush tax cuts, and I think fits perfectly with the theme of civil rights discussions that have been cornerstone to 2010s politics.  The economy was deep in the Great Recession, rendering the material, living room-centric culture of the 1990s and 2000s far less relevant, except by those upper class families who didn't lose their jobs or become forced to take a pay cut.  A lot of backlash had been building against the Republican Party since the 2000 Election, but the decade was otherwise defined by the housing bubble and expansion of the free market, the backlash not becoming truly realized until the 2008 election, and even then, by 2009, people were already starting to grow disappointed by Obama's ability to promise change.

Listening to something like Cobra Starship's terrible song "Good Girls Go Bad" and 3OH!3's "Don't Trust Me" sound like they couldn't possibly get anymore 2000's. Soulja Boy's "Kiss Me Thru the Phone" sounds completely core '00s.

I disagree completely about the first two songs you listed, as both are extremely EDM-influenced, despite the fact that Cobra Starship began as a Fall Out Boy-style pop rock band in the mid-2000s, while 3OH!3 was originally a crunk band on their 2007 debut.  If anything, Don't Trust Me is arguably the most 2010s-esque hit of 2009 until Lady Gaga's Bad Romance and Ke$ha's Tik Tok.

Kiss Me Thru the Phone is but one song, and despite its chart success, it didn't leave nearly the same impact on popular culture as Crank That.  Even then, the song is notably more 2010s-style than Crank That, as the chorus is less repetitive, trance synthesizers are everywhere, and the song is more melodic and not just aggressively crass.  It's not completely 2010s, but it's still very distinct from other pop hip hop released earlier in the same year as the original album (which actually came out at the end of 2008, not 2009).  Quite frankly, snap music was completely dead in 2009, despite having peaked the previous year with Lil Wayne, T.I., and Flo Rida.  The closest things to Dirty South/crunk rap that dominated the charts in '09 were Blame It (On the Alcohol) and the aforementioned Kiss Me Thru the Phone, both of which were evolving out of the core 00s style through the integration of heavier electronica influences.

Pop punk and post-grunge were still more popular than indietronica in 2009, but their popularity was definitely well beyond its peak that year.  The biggest releases in rock came from Green Day, who were more popular in 2004/2005 with American Idiot, and Daughtry, who was more popular in 2007-2008 than after his 2009 followup.

Skinny Jeans, the Justin Bieber haircut, ear gauges, extreme side-partings, neon colors, high-top sneakers, hoodies, and studded belts peaked in popularity that year; they began their slow decline in 2010 before most of them leaving in 2014. All of these things were introduced to the mainstream in 2004 and became the majority in 2006.

Skinny Jeans and ear gauges are still quite prevalent today.  The rest of what you listed are more on the fence between 2000s and 2010s.

Nickelback and Britney Spears are the icons of the 2000's.

Both acts were still popular in 2009, but they were much bigger in the early part of the decade.  Britney, frankly, peaked in 1999-2001, in the midst of the teen pop craze from the late 90s, but even if we focus on adult Britney instead of teenybopper Britney, her career highpoint was definitely 2003's In the Zone, not Circus.  Nickelback was most popular for How You Remind Me (whose parent album was released on 9/11), as well as the songs from 2005's All the Right Reasons.  Dark Horse did well, but the group was still mostly overshadowed by all the new stuff invading the airwaves in 2009.

2009 was the new 1969. It's just eye popping how similar the 2000's were to the 1960's, and 2009 completely represents how much of a repeat the aughts were of an era four decades prior.


Like I said before, 1969 was a mixture of core 60s culture interspersed with lots of 70s stuff coming in.  It was a very colorful year for the media, without a doubt, but it wasn't purely 60s the way '67 and '68 were.

2009, on the other hand, didn't even have much core 2000s culture still in its peak.  The most popular things to come out of the year were directly connected to the 2010s (EDM, Avatar, Obama, Modern Family, etc.).

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/07/15 at 4:08 pm


The inauguration of Obama represented everything that the decade stood for.

When I think of the 00s, I think of Bush not our current president!! lmfao!! ;D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 07/07/15 at 5:08 pm


Absolutely. I think 2009 is the quintessential year of the decade. The inauguration of Obama represented everything that the decade stood for.

Not Bush and the war on terror?  ;D

Listening to something like Cobra Starship's terrible song "Good Girls Go Bad" and 3OH!3's "Don't Trust Me" sound like they couldn't possibly get anymore 2000's.
Ok, Good Girls Go Bad is "terrible" ::) The latter could undoubtedly use some work, I agree.
But those songs belong in their own 09-11 sub-era of EDM. They sound nothing like the rest of the 00s or today even.

Soulja Boy's "Kiss Me Thru the Phone" sounds completely core '00s.
Actually, Love lock down and other Alternative hiphop songs represent the core 00s much more. Glam rap that we all hate began in the late 90s and peaked in 2004/5ish with 50 cents album before all but quickly dieing off and becoming a zombie by 2006 when it got replaced in international dominance by Alternative rap artists like Kanye West, Lupe fiasco, Wale, Kid Cudi and K-os among many others. That pop rap/glam rap the only had a handful of notable singles in the late 00s. Alternative was largely king in its own prompt era from 2007, when Graduation album beat out 50 cent's album in the market, and ran until 2011/12 when hiphop mostly began to take a leave.

Skinny Jeans, the Justin Bieber haircut, ear gauges, extreme side-partings, neon colors, high-top sneakers, hoodies, and studded belts peaked in popularity that year; they began their slow decline in 2010 before most of them leaving in 2014. All of these things were introduced to the mainstream in 2004 and became the majority in 2006. Nickelback and Britney Spears are the icons of the 2000's.
Britney is very late 90s/early 00s. Ever since that breakdown, people pretty much stopped tolerating her and she's been trying to stay relevent ever since. I can never understand the publicity Nickleback gets, positive or negative. That rock genre they sing in has been ear grating from the start, and NB like all the other bands like them are just plain jane, middle of the road mediocrity that doesn't really deserve that much attention, again positive or negative.

2009 was the new 1969. It's just eye popping how similar the 2000's were to the 1960's, and 2009 completely represents how much of a repeat the aughts were of an era four decades prior.

I heard it was more like the 1970s in someways,  and 1980s in "loudness".

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 07/07/15 at 5:28 pm


When I think of the 00s, I think of Bush not our current president!! lmfao!! ;D


What I mean is, people really, really, REALLY wanted a black president in the 2000's. I remember back in third grade (2004-2005 school year) my classmates would talk about how cool it would be for America to have a black president.

It also represented expecting one thing and getting something completely else. Obama promised change, but he never did it himself. It was always organizations and celebrities that provoked the change of anything.

People wanted safety: They got terrorism.
People wanted to spend a lot of money: They economy was not good in the 2000's.
People wanted Bush to go away: He got re-elected in 2004.
People wanted free music: They downloaded it illegally.
They wanted "real" television: Most reality TV was fake.
Everyone thought that we would be wearing spacesuits: They just revived bad 1980's fashions.

It seems like people wanted one thing and instead got something completely different. Obama's election was anticipated for years. Not because it was Obama, but because they were eagerly awaiting a black president. 2Pac even talked about this in his 1998 hit "Changes".

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 07/07/15 at 5:57 pm


People wanted safety: They got terrorism.
People wanted to spend a lot of money: They economy was not good in the 2000's.
People wanted Bush to go away: He got re-elected in 2004.
People wanted free music: They downloaded it illegally.
They wanted "real" television: Most reality TV was fake.
Everyone thought that we would be wearing spacesuits: They just revived bad 1980's fashions.

In America ;D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 07/07/15 at 7:01 pm


What I mean is, people really, really, REALLY wanted a black president in the 2000's. I remember back in third grade (2004-2005 school year) my classmates would talk about how cool it would be for America to have a black president.

It also represented expecting one thing and getting something completely else. Obama promised change, but he never did it himself. It was always organizations and celebrities that provoked the change of anything.

People wanted safety: They got terrorism.
People wanted to spend a lot of money: They economy was not good in the 2000's.
People wanted Bush to go away: He got re-elected in 2004.
People wanted free music: They downloaded it illegally.
They wanted "real" television: Most reality TV was fake.
Everyone thought that we would be wearing spacesuits: They just revived bad 1980's fashions.

It seems like people wanted one thing and instead got something completely different. Obama's election was anticipated for years. Not because it was Obama, but because they were eagerly awaiting a black president. 2Pac even talked about this in his 1998 hit "Changes".


What's scary is that a lot of songs and quotes from the past and even hidden subliminal messages in TV shows can prophesize the future, and it has done that in the past. Can't deny what could possibly already be predicted right now that could be coming soon.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/07/15 at 8:20 pm


What I mean is, people really, really, REALLY wanted a black president in the 2000's. I remember back in third grade (2004-2005 school year) my classmates would talk about how cool it would be for America to have a black president.


I'm sure plenty of people were hungering for a black president in previous decades, too.  By your logic, 1981 was the definitive year of the 70s because Ronald Reagan brought what people were most eager for in the 70s, mainly a shift away from political malaise and a lack of hope as a nation.  1991 would be the definitive year of the 80s because Nirvana unleashed all of the lingering anxiety of Generation X from 80s corporatism to a broader level.  Just because people are anticipating change during one period does not mean it defines the decade, not when other trends are actually shaping the culture of the moment.

People wanted safety: They got terrorism.

There was never another international attack on American soil after 9/11, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security helped expand upon the country's safety.  The infringement of civil liberties and other side effects of these actions are another story, but the 2000s were all about confronting terrorism, and in general, I think people's needs were met.

People wanted to spend a lot of money: They economy was not good in the 2000's.

Hardly, at least during most of the decade.  Even though there was a mild recession in the early 2000s, the economy quickly boomed following the Bush Tax Cuts and wouldn't truly tank until near the end, when the free market policies of the era finally began to show their negative consequences on the banking world.

People wanted Bush to go away: He got re-elected in 2004.

That's because a great portion of America still very much supported him in 2004.  Even though there had been a lot of backlash against him since before his inauguration, he still satisfied the chunk of Americans who wanted protection from terrorism, bigger tax cuts, and the implementation of conservative reforms.  His popularity wasn't universally negative until the end of his administration.

They wanted "real" television: Most reality TV was fake.

Reality TV wasn't the only television people watched in the 2000s.  They still had shows like The Sopranos, CSI, and Lost to get into, not to mention YouTube helped bring about a whole new wave of independent filmmakers to wider attention during the latter half of the decade.

Everyone thought that we would be wearing spacesuits: They just revived bad 1980's fashions.

I don't personally see a huge resemblance between the two decades' fashion senses.  The 80s were so much more overstated than the 2000s, which were either neutral or influenced by newer fads of the day like goth and urban.

It seems like people wanted one thing and instead got something completely different. Obama's election was anticipated for years. Not because it was Obama, but because they were eagerly awaiting a black president. 2Pac even talked about this in his 1998 hit "Changes".


Generations are always disappointed by what they don't end up getting.  The fact that you referred to 2Pac, who presumably recorded Changes in 1996 or earlier anyway, shows how the idea of a black president was a thing of the future for a very long time and certainly not just a fad that represented the 2000s and then disappeared after Obama was elected.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 07/07/15 at 8:36 pm


In America ;D


Well duh in America; I'm American. Of course I'm going to talk about what was happening in my home country.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/07/15 at 10:00 pm


People wanted to spend a lot of money: They economy was not good in the 2000's.

Actually, the economy only had a mild recession in the early 00s, the mid 2000s the economy WAS GOOD!!! The late 2000s was when the economy truly went to hell!!!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 07/07/15 at 11:31 pm


Well duh in America


Actually, the economy only had a mild recession in the early 00s
only in America, is the point I was trying to make.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/08/15 at 1:08 am


Whether or not 2009 more of a 2000s year than a 2010s one is debatable; I personally think it's much more 2010s, but other people's definitions seem to vary, depending on how much weight they place on leftover culture on its way out versus brand new stuff that had yet to become entirely the norm.  How in the world, however is 2009 the quintessential year of the 2000s when so much of the culture present in the previous nine years was either long gone or in its decline?


I tend to place a lot of weight on the late 2000s in term of defining the decade as well as, in the case of 2009, leftover culture past its peak yet still relevant.  However, I would definitely not go as far as to say 2009 is the quintessential year.  Personally I believe that belongs to 2007 or possibly 2008.  2009 however was definitely marked by rapid transition from '00s to '10s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 07/08/15 at 7:10 am


What I mean is, people really, really, REALLY wanted a black president in the 2000's. I remember back in third grade (2004-2005 school year) my classmates would talk about how cool it would be for America to have a black president.

It also represented expecting one thing and getting something completely else. Obama promised change, but he never did it himself. It was always organizations and celebrities that provoked the change of anything.

People wanted safety: They got terrorism.
People wanted to spend a lot of money: They economy was not good in the 2000's.
People wanted Bush to go away: He got re-elected in 2004.
People wanted free music: They downloaded it illegally.
They wanted "real" television: Most reality TV was fake.
Everyone thought that we would be wearing spacesuits: They just revived bad 1980's fashions.

It seems like people wanted one thing and instead got something completely different. Obama's election was anticipated for years. Not because it was Obama, but because they were eagerly awaiting a black president. 2Pac even talked about this in his 1998 hit "Changes".


Which ones do you think were fake?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/08/15 at 10:36 am


I tend to place a lot of weight on the late 2000s in term of defining the decade as well as, in the case of 2009, leftover culture past its peak yet still relevant.  However, I would definitely not go as far as to say 2009 is the quintessential year.  Personally I believe that belongs to 2007 or possibly 2008.  2009 however was definitely marked by rapid transition from '00s to '10s.


I can agree with that.  I'd probably mark 2007 as the quintessential year of the 2000s myself, since the advent of YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia were still vital aspects of the decade, even though all three (especially the first two) were much more established by the early 2010s.  It's the same as how the rise of the Internet was an important part of the late 90s, even though the Internet itself is much more important today than it was back then.  2007 also doesn't lack too much culture that defined the early 2000s, aside from the sixth generation of video gaming, but even then, most video game fans seem to consider 2007 one of the best years in gaming ever.  2009, on the other hand, was definitely a heavily transitional year that already felt quite distinct from 2007 by the end.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: SpyroKev on 07/10/15 at 2:56 pm

Lady Gaga was the most popular new artist in 2009, and she was a far cry from comeback queen Mariah Carey, who dominated 2005.

It was turn based for me. We Belong Together was constantly played along with Cater 2 U. My sister would play the heck out of Destiny's Child 2005 debuted album on her way to work. It became apart of my nostalgic memories for that reason.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 07/13/15 at 1:25 am


What from 2003 could be confused with the 90's?


Some of the music, some of the fashion, some of the tv shows that were still popular at the time, the movies and their special effects, the catchphrases, the style of the commercials. It just doesn't look too different from the '90s, IMO.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Arrowstone on 07/13/15 at 3:08 pm

Don't forget the early 00s; things like Lord Of The Rings and music like Evanescence. Those years were important culturally for the 00s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: SpyroKev on 07/14/15 at 6:09 pm


Don't forget the early 00s; things like Lord Of The Rings and music like Evanescence. Those years were important culturally for the 00s.


What's strange to me is I read some posts from users that don't consider 2003 apart of the Early 2000s or as just as old school, which I was very aware of. The vibe in 2003 was different from 2001-2002. It was kind of dull and not as colorful as 2001,2002, 2000, not in a bad way. It just had a mysterious 3 years backwards shift feeling. That's why the Early 2000s are so special to me. 2003 was more of a alternate 2000 to where it seem 2003 was actually before 2001-2002. Especially when I playthrough True Crime Streets of LA. Which is exactly how 2003 was. The file select, everything gives off that old school vibe representing the same year it was release. Some of my favorite songs like Ja Rule - Always on Time, Cam'Ron - Oh Boy, Aaliyah - More Than A Woman, Clipse - Grindin', Usher - U Don't Have To Call, N.O.R.E - Nothin' All were released in 2001-2002, but still sound pretty timeless and in a upper quality. While Jay Z - Excuse Me Miss, Snoop Dogg - Beautiful, Pharrell - Frontin', Ginuwine - In Those Jeans, Chingy - One Call Away and Laducris - Splash Waterfalls, 50 Cent - 21 Questions, all released in 2003 sound so dated and lowered quality. By 2004 the shift faded, making that year more colorful and music in more quality then 2003. 2003 was like a skipped year up dating wise when I think about it.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/16/15 at 12:24 pm


What's strange to me is I read some posts from users that don't consider 2003 apart of the Early 2000s or as just as old school, which I was very aware of. The vibe in 2003 was different from 2001-2002. It was kind of dull and not as colorful as 2001,2002, 2000, not in a bad way. It just had a mysterious 3 years backwards shift feeling. That's why the Early 2000s are so special to me. 2003 was more of a alternate 2000 to where it seem 2003 was actually before 2001-2002. Especially when I playthrough True Crime Streets of LA. Which is exactly how 2003 was. The file select, everything gives off that old school vibe representing the same year it was release. Some of my favorite songs like Ja Rule - Always on Time, Cam'Ron - Oh Boy, Aaliyah - More Than A Woman, Clipse - Grindin', Usher - U Don't Have To Call, N.O.R.E - Nothin' All were released in 2001-2002, but still sound pretty timeless and in a upper quality. While Jay Z - Excuse Me Miss, Snoop Dogg - Beautiful, Pharrell - Frontin', Ginuwine - In Those Jeans, Chingy - One Call Away and Laducris - Splash Waterfalls, 50 Cent - 21 Questions, all released in 2003 sound so dated and lowered quality. By 2004 the shift faded, making that year more colorful and music in more quality then 2003. 2003 was like a skipped year up dating wise when I think about it.


I disagree with this.  The year had a different feel than 2001 or 2002 but I don't think it was a step backward.  2003 was definitely a transition year between the early and mid '00s.  Many of the things that would be mainstays in culture until 2008 and 2009 emerged that year.  That was the first year I started hearing about "emo."  It was the year that short, caesar cuts with frosted tips on guys made way for longer haircuts like the shag and eventually the Bieber swoop.  I remember that year as the year most people started dumping dial-up for broadband.  The war in Iraq began that year which would define U.S. foreign policy for the rest of the decade.  2003 was a very important year when analyzing the monumental shift from the conservative post 9/11 culture to the very liberal culture we had in 2009 that was celebrating the election of Barack Obama.  There was a notable shift on gay rights in 2003, with the monumental supreme court decision Lawrence vs Texas. Musically I think that year had some of the best music of the decade.  It had elements of both early '00s and core '00s sound.  It was the last big year for a few genres like pop-punk.  Tying this all back to 2009, I would say that 2003 was probably the most important year of the decade in terms of getting us to 2009. 

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: SpyroKev on 07/16/15 at 3:15 pm


I disagree with this.  The year had a different feel than 2001 or 2002 but I don't think it was a step backward.  2003 was definitely a transition year between the early and mid '00s.  Many of the things that would be mainstays in culture until 2008 and 2009 emerged that year.  That was the first year I started hearing about "emo."  It was the year that short, caesar cuts with frosted tips on guys made way for longer haircuts like the shag and eventually the Bieber swoop.  I remember that year as the year most people started dumping dial-up for broadband.  The war in Iraq began that year which would define U.S. foreign policy for the rest of the decade.  2003 was a very important year when analyzing the monumental shift from the conservative post 9/11 culture to the very liberal culture we had in 2009 that was celebrating the election of Barack Obama.  There was a notable shift on gay rights in 2003, with the monumental supreme court decision Lawrence vs Texas. Musically I think that year had some of the best music of the decade.  It had elements of both early '00s and core '00s sound.  It was the last big year for a few genres like pop-punk.  Tying this all back to 2009, I would say that 2003 was probably the most important year of the decade in terms of getting us to 2009.


I was speaking based from the feel and music of 2003, my favorite music genres. The 2003 R&B songs I listed, sound as if they could have been released in 1998. The vibe then still felt old school. I wasn't aware of the concepts you mention. I only paid attention to concepts centered around my age.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/16/15 at 6:50 pm


I was speaking based from the feel and music of 2003, my favorite music genres. The 2003 R&B songs I listed, sound as if they could have been released in 1998. The vibe then still felt old school. I wasn't aware of the concepts you mention. I only paid attention to concepts centered around my age.


I get what you are saying.  It was an interesting time for music and was a significant year for several genres as the millennial era transitioned into the core '00s.  2003 was the last big year for pop-punk.  Pure R&B was bigger that year than it has been any year since.  On the flipside, the "crunk" sound that dominated core '00s hip-hop began to really catch on that year.  In rock, emo was on the rise but interestingly post-grunge seemed to take a vacation that year after a huge 2002.

Like 2009, 2003 was a transition year and how one perceives it depends on how much weight they place on older trends past peak that are on their way out vs cutting edge trends on the rise.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: XYkid on 07/17/15 at 9:02 am


I get what you are saying.  It was an interesting time for music and was a significant year for several genres as the millennial era transitioned into the core '00s.  2003 was the last big year for pop-punk.  Pure R&B was bigger that year than it has been any year since.  On the flipside, the "crunk" sound that dominated core '00s hip-hop began to really catch on that year.  In rock, emo was on the rise but interestingly post-grunge seemed to take a vacation that year after a huge 2002.

Like 2009, 2003 was a transition year and how one perceives it depends on how much weight they place on older trends past peak that are on their way out vs cutting edge trends on the rise.
No, 2003 was not the last year for pop punk. I remember hearing a lot of pop punk around 2004/5, of course by that time it was more emo style bands such as Yellowcard and Sugarcult, not so much the bro punk bands like Blink 182 or Sum 41.

1999-2003 - Core era for pop punk
2004-2007 - Pop punk becomes more emo
2008-2009 - Becomes taken over by scene kids (think All Time Low) before fading into the background

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/17/15 at 4:37 pm


No, 2003 was not the last year for pop punk. I remember hearing a lot of pop punk around 2004/5, of course by that time it was more emo style bands such as Yellowcard and Sugarcult, not so much the bro punk bands like Blink 182 or Sum 41.

1999-2003 - Core era for pop punk
2004-2007 - Pop punk becomes more emo
2008-2009 - Becomes taken over by scene kids (think All Time Low) before fading into the background


I agree for the most part. When I think of pop-punk though I think of the Blink 182 style bands.  That style really faded out around 2003, though it was definitely more of an evolution than a sudden shift.  I like that you mention scene kids and All Time Low.  Though people generally want to focus on the rise of electropop and EDM in 2008 and 2009, scene culture was a huge thing around that time and definitely ties the era into the '00s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: SpyroKev on 07/18/15 at 1:29 pm


I get what you are saying.  It was an interesting time for music and was a significant year for several genres as the millennial era transitioned into the core '00s.  2003 was the last big year for pop-punk.  Pure R&B was bigger that year than it has been any year since.  On the flipside, the "crunk" sound that dominated core '00s hip-hop began to really catch on that year.  In rock, emo was on the rise but interestingly post-grunge seemed to take a vacation that year after a huge 2002.

Like 2009, 2003 was a transition year and how one perceives it depends on how much weight they place on older trends past peak that are on their way out vs cutting edge trends on the rise.


If only I explored more music genres back then. My post may have been better.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/18/15 at 3:06 pm


If only I explored more music genres back then. My post may have been better.


Or you could've just done that now, since we live in a time where YouTube is accessible everywhere that has the Internet.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: SpyroKev on 07/18/15 at 3:41 pm


Or you could've just done that now, since we live in a time where YouTube is accessible everywhere that has the Internet.


I rather not. I like to post in these types of forums based from my own memories. Its more knowledgeable to be informed of concepts that's irrelevant now that wasn't at some point. If we just used the internet for resources, what would be the point of majority of these topics. Its interesting when someone knows something you missed out.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 07/18/15 at 5:55 pm


Or you could've just done that now, since we live in a time where YouTube is accessible everywhere that has the Internet.


and don't forget Dailymotion too.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 07/18/15 at 7:09 pm


I agree for the most part. When I think of pop-punk though I think of the Blink 182 style bands.  That style really faded out around 2003, though it was definitely more of an evolution than a sudden shift.  I like that you mention scene kids and All Time Low.  Though people generally want to focus on the rise of electropop and EDM in 2008 and 2009, scene culture was a huge thing around that time and definitely ties the era into the '00s.


The scene kid thing definitely spilled into the early 2010s though. I still saw tons of them around in 2012, after then not so much. Probably depends on where you live though.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/19/15 at 10:48 am


and don't forget Dailymotion too.


There's also Vimeo, Zippcast and many other video-sharing websites that were kinda popular in the mid/late 2000s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 07/19/15 at 1:38 pm


There's also Vimeo, Zippcast and many other video-sharing websites that were kinda popular in the mid/late 2000s.


Dailymotion started a month after YouTube.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: whistledog on 07/19/15 at 2:04 pm

I like cheeseburgers with bacon

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: XYkid on 07/22/15 at 7:26 pm


What from 2003 could be confused with the 90's?
I just saw some pictures  from my family's photo album which were from 2003, and they could pass for being from 98/99.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/22/15 at 7:29 pm


I like cheeseburgers with bacon


jmwWT0Jbdgs

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 07/25/15 at 10:04 pm


Absolutely. I think 2009 is the quintessential year of the decade. The inauguration of Obama represented everything that the decade stood for. Listening to something like Cobra Starship's terrible song "Good Girls Go Bad" and 3OH!3's "Don't Trust Me" sound like they couldn't possibly get anymore 2000's. Soulja Boy's "Kiss Me Thru the Phone" sounds completely core '00s. Skinny Jeans, the Justin Bieber haircut, ear gauges, extreme side-partings, neon colors, high-top sneakers, hoodies, and studded belts peaked in popularity that year; they began their slow decline in 2010 before most of them leaving in 2014. All of these things were introduced to the mainstream in 2004 and became the majority in 2006. Nickelback and Britney Spears are the icons of the 2000's.

2009 was the new 1969. It's just eye popping how similar the 2000's were to the 1960's, and 2009 completely represents how much of a repeat the aughts were of an era four decades prior.


IMO, 2009 was a very influential year. I remember it like it was yesterday. However I wouldn't put it as the quintessential year of the 2000's. I think 2004 would be that year, it was when the War on Terror was entering its peak, the Bush vs Kerry election, the year 90's culture finally died and 2000's culture was peaking. I could go on and on, but I'll keep it short. I notice a lot of people tend to believe that the mid years of the decade were the absolute nouthies (most specifically 2004 & 2005) while others believe the later years (most specifically 2008 & 2009) were the quintessential time of the decade. I think pop culture is a perfect way to settle this debate so I'm going to list a few videos, the first group representing the mid 00's years people tend to place as quintessential and the second group being the late 00's years people tend to represent as quintessential.

Group 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKTJCzmFQIU - 2004
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coxASXXTGhY - 2005

Group 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6XUXNoKYQ - 2008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cCWuDyr4Q -  2009

So which group was more definitive of the 2000's decade I would like to hear all of your guys opinions?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 07/25/15 at 10:10 pm


IMO, 2009 was a very influential year. I remember it like it was yesterday. However I wouldn't put it as the quintessential year of the 2000's. I think 2004 would be that year, it was when the War on Terror was entering its peak, the Bush vs Kerry election, the year 90's culture finally died and 2000's culture was peaking. I could go on and on, but I'll keep it short. I notice a lot of people tend to believe that the mid years of the decade were the absolute nouthies (most specifically 2004 & 2005) while others believe the later years (most specifically 2008 & 2009) were the quintessential time of the decade. I think pop culture is a perfect way to settle this debate so I'm going to list a few videos, the first group representing the mid 00's years people tend to place as quintessential and the second group being the late 00's years people tend to represent as quintessential.

Group 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKTJCzmFQIU - 2004
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coxASXXTGhY - 2005

Group 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6XUXNoKYQ - 2008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cCWuDyr4Q -  2009

So which group was more definitive of the 2000's decade I would like to hear all of your guys opinions?


IMO that belongs to 2006 or 2007, definitely not 2008 or 2009, I don't know where that came from. 2004 or 2005 is debatable though.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 07/25/15 at 10:43 pm


IMO that belongs to 2006 or 2007, definitely not 2008 or 2009, I don't know where that came from. 2004 or 2005 is debatable though.


I agree any year from 2004-2007 is the peak of the 2000's. Though I personally liked the 2000-2003 better

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/26/15 at 2:35 am

I would personally say the 2006-2007 school year was the definitive period of the 2000s decade, since that was when most people finally knew about YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia, even though MySpace was still in its peak.  It was also the crossroads for video game generations, when the sixth generation systems were still being sold, but also when the PS3 and Wii first came out, not to mention the XBOX 360 became more popular.  Musically, you had pop punk, crunk/snap, pop post-grunge, nu-metal, 80s-influenced indie rock, pretty much everything that the decade was all about.

2004 is also contender, from a different perspective, since it contained more of the definitive icons of 2000s culture, even though its representation isn't quite as well rounded, due to the lack of key websites besides MySpace (Wikipedia existed, but it wasn't popular until the turn of 2006).  Regardless, 2004 was probably the first full year that late 90s influence had worn off, and the newer trends of the day were at their freshest.  Lil Jon was more popular this year than any other, as was Usher, plus there were key albums released by Kelly Clarkson, Avril Lavigne, The Killers, Kanye West, Arcade Fire, and Green Day.  The presence of YouTube and Facebook sort of bridges the late 2000s with the early 2010s, but 2004 had a general feel that could only be described as 2000s, not leftover 90s or 2010s prelude.  The reason I go with 2006-2007 instead, however, is because 2004 was missing far more 2000s culture that 2006-2007 did have, than 2006-2007 lacked from 2004.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/26/15 at 11:31 am

Personally I would say the quintessential years of the '00s were by far late 2006-mid 2008.  Here are a few reasons why.

-Scene culture was at its peak.  Nothing more '00s than scene kids and their time was the late '00s.
-MySpace was at its peak.  Facebook was around but primarily used by college students.
-YouTube was popular among college students and was pretty much entirely user-made content and not the commercial content that rules it today
-It was the era of flip-phones and RAZR.  Phones like the Sony Ericson and the Blackberry were the "smartphones" of the day.  Not many people had the first generation iPhone.
-The 7th generation video game consoles were in their prime.  I associate the Xbox 360 and PS3 with the '00s moreso than the '10s.
-PC gaming peaked in 2004 but was still pretty popular going into this era
-Broadband Internet usage was predominant and dial-up was on its way out in the United States (People forget that in 2004, half of all U.S. Internet users still connected by dial-up)
-The hip-hop of the time was the most '00s it ever was.  Ringtone rap, glam rap, Southern rappers like T.I. and Lil Wayne, etc were at their peak.  Long time hip-hop fans hated this era because of the over commercialization of the genre
-Politically, these years were the defining years of the Bush administration as the wars became increasingly unpopular and the economy began to show signs of weakness
-The late '90s holdovers were completely gone by that point

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Catherine91UK on 07/26/15 at 2:24 pm

I agree that 2004-2007 was the peak of the 2000s. I'd say 2006 was the quintessential year due to several things being 'in their peak' as mentioned above.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/26/15 at 10:16 pm


Personally I would say the quintessential years of the '00s were by far late 2006-mid 2008.  Here are a few reasons why.

-Scene culture was at its peak.  Nothing more '00s than scene kids and their time was the late '00s.
-MySpace was at its peak.  Facebook was around but primarily used by college students.
-YouTube was popular among college students and was pretty much entirely user-made content and not the commercial content that rules it today
-It was the era of flip-phones and RAZR.  Phones like the Sony Ericson and the Blackberry were the "smartphones" of the day.  Not many people had the first generation iPhone.
-The 7th generation video game consoles were in their prime.  I associate the Xbox 360 and PS3 with the '00s moreso than the '10s.
-PC gaming peaked in 2004 but was still pretty popular going into this era
-Broadband Internet usage was predominant and dial-up was on its way out in the United States (People forget that in 2004, half of all U.S. Internet users still connected by dial-up)
-The hip-hop of the time was the most '00s it ever was.  Ringtone rap, glam rap, Southern rappers like T.I. and Lil Wayne, etc were at their peak.  Long time hip-hop fans hated this era because of the over commercialization of the genre
-Politically, these years were the defining years of the Bush administration as the wars became increasingly unpopular and the economy began to show signs of weakness
-The late '90s holdovers were completely gone by that point

7th gen began during this era, the Wii was DEFINETLY in its prime but I don't think the generation as a whole was in it's prime until the very late 00s and even early 10s!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: tv on 07/27/15 at 12:13 am


I don't remember La Roux being a big deal in 2009, at least in the U.S.  She came on the scene in 2010 and I remember that her song Bulletproof sounded very fresh compared to a majority of what was on the radio at the time.

For as big a deal as Lady Gaga was in 2009, the excitement sure died down after the album "Born This Way" in 2011.  In fact, none of her 2010s hits topped the ones she had in 2008 and 2009.  Her top three hits, Poker Face, Bad Romance, and Just Dance, were all from 2009.
Yeah GaGa looks like a Paula Abdul type right now. Both artists were kinda transitional between 2 decades.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: tv on 07/27/15 at 12:34 am




I heard it was more like the 1970s in someways,  and 1980s in "loudness".
What do you mean by "Loudness"?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/27/15 at 5:48 am


Yeah GaGa looks like a Paula Abdul type right now. Both artists were kinda transitional between 2 decades.


Lady Gaga still looked and sounded much more like mid-2010s pop divas than mid-late 2000s pop divas, even if she fell off after 2013.  Paula Abdul, on the other hand, was pretty much a continuation of the mid-80s pop sound pioneered by Madonna, just with a slight house influence, but still mostly the same as the previous several years, both musically and in terms of image.  Her songs were dominated by 16th-riddled synthlines, extremely gated snares, and high-pitched cheeriness.  The music she recorded during her prime sounded nothing like anything that popular female artists released from 1993 on.  Just compare Promise of a New Day (1991) to Madonna's Open Your Heart (1986), versus Janet Jackson's That's the Way Love Goes (1993).  Speaking of which, Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814, from 1989, is much, much closer to Control than to janet., even though the distances between both albums and it are roughly the same.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 07/27/15 at 7:45 am


Zippcast

Zippwha?  ???

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 07/27/15 at 7:56 am


-Broadband Internet usage was predominant and dial-up was on its way out in the United States (People forget that in 2004, half of all U.S. Internet users still connected by dial-up)

Heck, in 2009 the percentage was 10%, which is still fairly large when you consider today's 2% being too significant for standardization of streaming games & movies.


-The hip-hop of the time was the most '00s it ever was.  Ringtone rap, glam rap, Southern rappers like T.I. and Lil Wayne, etc were at their peak.  Long time hip-hop fans hated this era because of the over commercialization of the genre

I heard they liked the era because of the rise and eventual domination of other hiphop genres such as alternative or grime. Alot of people frequently cite it as a renaissance era of hiphop lead by Kanye.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/27/15 at 1:53 pm


Heck, in 2009 the percentage was 10%, which is still fairly large when you consider today's 2% being too significant for standardization of streaming games & movies.


I guess the 2% couldn't afford broadband Internet, so they have to keep using that godawful dial-up sheesh which the majority doesn't use anymore.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 07/27/15 at 3:01 pm


I guess the 2% couldn't afford broadband Internet, so they have to keep using that godawful dial-up sheesh which the majority doesn't use anymore.

http://www.cnet.com/news/more-than-2-million-people-still-pay-for-aol-dialup/
Some use it because they couldn't afford better(like me in 2008) and there are some whom, for whatever reason, prefer it to other options.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 07/27/15 at 3:37 pm


Lady Gaga still looked and sounded much more like mid-2010s pop divas than mid-late 2000s pop divas, even if she fell off after 2013.  Paula Abdul, on the other hand, was pretty much a continuation of the mid-80s pop sound pioneered by Madonna, just with a slight house influence, but still mostly the same as the previous several years, both musically and in terms of image.  Her songs were dominated by 16th-riddled synthlines, extremely gated snares, and high-pitched cheeriness.  The music she recorded during her prime sounded nothing like anything that popular female artists released from 1993 on.  Just compare Promise of a New Day (1991) to Madonna's Open Your Heart (1986), versus Janet Jackson's That's the Way Love Goes (1993).  Speaking of which, Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814, from 1989, is much, much closer to Control than to janet., even though the distances between both albums and it are roughly the same.


I look at Lady Gaga as to the '00s what Britney Spears was to the '90s.  Both artists bridged decades but their style and influence had more impact in the subsequent decade than the previous one.  Both artists had a run of similar length with Britney's era being roughly from 1998 to 2004 and Gaga being from 2008-2013.  Both had four albums but peaked on their second. I wouldn't rule out a Gaga resurgence one day like we saw with Britney in the late '00s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 07/27/15 at 4:04 pm

Of course it is, what kind of question is this?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Philip Eno on 07/27/15 at 4:09 pm


Of course it is, what kind of question is this?
Yes indeed, just check any diary or calendar.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/27/15 at 5:13 pm


Of course it is, what kind of question is this?


They're asking if 2009 was a 2000s year culture-wise.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/27/15 at 6:07 pm


Yes indeed, just check any diary or calendar.

They mean POP CULTURALLY, NOT calendar wise! ;D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/28/15 at 3:00 am


I look at Lady Gaga as to the '00s what Britney Spears was to the '90s.  Both artists bridged decades but their style and influence had more impact in the subsequent decade than the previous one.  Both artists had a run of similar length with Britney's era being roughly from 1998 to 2004 and Gaga being from 2008-2013.  Both had four albums but peaked on their second. I wouldn't rule out a Gaga resurgence one day like we saw with Britney in the late '00s.


Britney Spears didn't signal a stylistic shift in popular music the way Lady Gaga did.  True, the new biggest star in the world was born, and artists like Christina Aguilera and Mandy Moore would get constantly compared to her, but teen pop had already been in the mainstream for almost a full two/three years (depending on which region you're from), and Britney herself was basically a solo version of the Spice Girls, who also completely took over the world when they came out and spawned lots of spin-off merchandise to accompany their albums.  The solo teen pop diva was not even new, though, just look at Robyn.

Lady Gaga's debut album and especially her followup EP were a huge turning point for popular music, which up through 2008 had not been nearly as trance-synthesized or eccentric.  Pop stars from 2008, including Britney during her comeback, were all about syncopated drumbeats and not-so-melodic hooks.  After Gaga's Just Dance reached #1 at the beginning of 2009, pop artists would become more and more electropop-oriented, dynamically melodic, and extravagant in their sense of style.  By 2010, pop music had become completely distant from what it was in 2008.  On the other hand, a lot of pop songs from 2000 and 2001, after which Britney had become famous, would not have sounded totally out of place in 1997 or 1998.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: winteriscoming on 07/30/15 at 3:27 am


Lady Gaga still looked and sounded much more like mid-2010s pop divas than mid-late 2000s pop divas, even if she fell off after 2013.  Paula Abdul, on the other hand, was pretty much a continuation of the mid-80s pop sound pioneered by Madonna, just with a slight house influence, but still mostly the same as the previous several years, both musically and in terms of image.  Her songs were dominated by 16th-riddled synthlines, extremely gated snares, and high-pitched cheeriness.  The music she recorded during her prime sounded nothing like anything that popular female artists released from 1993 on.  Just compare Promise of a New Day (1991) to Madonna's Open Your Heart (1986), versus Janet Jackson's That's the Way Love Goes (1993).  Speaking of which, Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814, from 1989, is much, much closer to Control than to janet., even though the distances between both albums and it are roughly the same.


Hell, I'd even say Mariah Carey's early material would fit better in 1985 than it would in 1995. Her first album was written and recorded in 1988-89, and that sound really hadn't gone out of style until 1992 or 1993. Even "Emotions" sounds right in place next to "How Will I Know" or "Like a Prayer".

TLC's first album also has a bit of that gated snare sound and late-80s like cheesiness.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 07/30/15 at 4:51 am


Hell, I'd even say Mariah Carey's early material would fit better in 1985 than it would in 1995. Her first album was written and recorded in 1988-89, and that sound really hadn't gone out of style until 1992 or 1993. Even "Emotions" sounds right in place next to "How Will I Know" or "Like a Prayer".


Definitely.  When Music Box came out, the 80s influence was completely absent on Mariah Carey's records and the 90s style was in full effect.  There's no way Dreamlover would've been made in 1991.

TLC's first album also has a bit of that gated snare sound and late-80s like cheesiness.


Baby-Baby-Baby and Somethin' You Wanna Know for sure, although the rest of the album imo sounds quintessentially early 90s, retaining the new jack swing feel of the late 80s but with 90s instrumentation.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: TheMusicdewd on 08/05/15 at 7:24 pm

To answer the OP's question, yes 2009 is a 2000's year.  If you asked me this back in like 2011 or 2012, I would have said hell no, 2009 is definitely an early 2010's year.  But now that we halfway through the 2010's, I no longer feel that way.  I use to think 2009 was the start of the 2010's culturally because it was year Facebook exploded into popularity, electropop like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry became big, and it was Obama's first year in office.  But now I see some big differences from 2009's pop culture and pop culture of 2015.

For one thing, smartphones were not popular yet in 2009.  Most people were still using simple cell phones like flip phones and slider phones.  The Blackberry was the most popular phone at the time and the smartest phone you could have.  The IPhone was around and had been since 2007, but only the Blackberry did well with the general public.  My mother got her first IPhone back in 2009 and she was the only person I knew who even owned an IPhone back then.  It took some time for the IPhone to really take off in popularity.  IPhones didn't become more common to have until 2010 and didn't become most popular cell phone until 2012.  Android phones weren't around yet either.

The biggest difference between today and 2009, is that tablets like the IPad wasn't even around yet.  The IPad didn't come out until 2010 and didn't become popular until 2011.  Stuff like the Kindle and Nooks weren't not even around yet.  Most people were still using simple IPods for music and didn't have smartphones or tablets to play music.  The IPod was also arguably at its peak in popularity that year.

In terms of music, while electropop became popular in 2009, it still wasn't dominant style of music that year yet, nor was it even called EDM back then.  There was plenty of other genres that were still big that year.  It was the last year that rock was still popular in the mainstream and it was enjoying its last breath.  It was the last year post-grunge was still relevant.  Artists like King of Leon, Green Day, Nickelback, Linkin Park, All American Rejects, and Shinedown all had big hits that year.  Hip-Hop was still hugely popular that year with artists like Eminem, Kanye West, Lil Wayne, Drake, and Flo Rida who all had hits that year.  Artists like Bruno Mars, Adele, Ke$ha weren't popular yet which are definitely 2010's artists. Nobody know who Justin Bieber even was and had to worry about his annoying ass yet, I think that alone makes 2009 a 2000's year.

As far as other things go, emo and scene fashion were still huge.  Although, they would decline in popularity after 2009, hipster fashion wasn't in yet like it would be a few years later, and I don't think people even used the word "hipster," yet.  Video rental stores were still around (although I might be wrong about that), I know stuff like Netflix and Redbox wasn't popular yet.  Thrift shops weren't popular to shop yet either.  It was the last year album sales were still big, as people were still buying CD's even though album sales had been long declining by that point.

So, yes 2009 is more of a 2000's than a 2010's year.  While, I definitely don't see it as a core 2000's year, I don't see as a core 2010's year either.  As someone said earlier in this thread, 2009 was the year that bridged 2000's and 2010's culture together.  It was part of the transition period from the 2000's to the 2010's (2008-2011).  I look at the Late 2008 to Early 2011 period the same way I look at the same way I look at the millennium era (1998-2001), it was a transition period from 2000's culture to Early 2010's culture.  Unfortunately, there isn't a name for the 2008-2011 interval.  For now, I'll just call it the Lady Gaga era.

This is how I see the different eras of the 2000's and 2010's:

1. Millennium Era (Late 1998-Early 2001):
Quintessential year: 1999

2. Early 2000's (Late 2001-Early 2003):
Quintessential year: 2002

3. Mid 2000's (Late 2003-Early 2006):
Quintessential year: 2004

4. Late 2000's (Late 2006-Early 2008):
Quintessential year: 2008

5. Transition from 2000's to 2010's (Lady Gaga Era) (Late 2008-Early 2011):
Quintessential year: 2010

6. Early 2010's (Late 2011-Early 2014):
Quintessential year: 2012

7. Mid 2010's (Late 2014-present):
Quintessential year so far: 2015

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/06/15 at 12:15 am

In terms of music, while electropop became popular in 2009, it still wasn't dominant style of music that year yet, nor was it even called EDM back then.

It may not have been as ubiquitous as it is today, but it was still a seriously dominant form of music that really outmuscled everything else, even if some 2000s genres were still popular.  The Black Eyed Peas, having reinvented themselves as an electropop band, were at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 for exactly half the entire year, while another large chunk was dominated by Lady Gaga's Just Dance, Poker Face, and Bad Romance.  While the rock charts were still mostly dominated by post-grunge and pop punk, you did nonetheless have some bands who were much more electronic score hits, like 3OH!3 with Don't Trust Me and Cobra Starship with Good Girls Go Band.  Pitibull also became much more popular in 2009; he had minor success earlier in the 2000s, but his breakthrough as a dance artist was really I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho), which, while not as electronic as today's EDM, still has all of the basic elements of 2010s dance music.  Even older 2000s mainstays, like Shakira, Akon, and the aforementioned Black Eyed Peas, were transitioning towards a much more electronic, house-oriented sound in 2009.

Hip-Hop was still hugely popular that year with artists like Eminem, Kanye West, Lil Wayne, Drake, and Flo Rida who all had hits that year.  Artists like Bruno Mars, Adele, Ke$ha weren't popular yet which are definitely 2010's artists. Nobody know who Justin Bieber even was and had to worry about his annoying ass yet, I think that alone makes 2009 a 2000's year.

2009 was actually a pretty big turning point for hip hop.  Snap/crunk music was still extremely popular in 2008, which produced Flo-Rida's Low and Lil Wayne's Tha Carter III; in 2009, however, it was pretty much completely absent from the charts.  Eminem, Kanye West, and Drake remained popular into the 2010s; Drake's breakthrough, if anything, was really the key sign that hip hop was entering a new era.  So I definitely wouldn't call 2009 a 2000s year for hip hop.

Also, Ke$ha actually was popular in 2009; she was featured on Right Round, and Tik Tok was released during the later part of the year.

As far as other things go, emo and scene fashion were still huge.  Although, they would decline in popularity after 2009, hipster fashion wasn't in yet like it would be a few years later, and I don't think people even used the word "hipster," yet.  Video rental stores were still around (although I might be wrong about that), I know stuff like Netflix and Redbox wasn't popular yet.  Thrift shops weren't popular to shop yet either.  It was the last year album sales were still big, as people were still buying CD's even though album sales had been long declining by that point.

I see 2009 as more of an unusually neutral year for fashion.  It was definitely well before the dominant fashions of the 2010s made their mark, but at the same time, it was well after the peak of popular 2000s fashions like bushy hair and emo/goth.  I also think CD's went out of fashion well before 2009 (iTunes came out in 2001), even if they still had some prevalence that year.

I don't see 2009 as purely 2010s, and there's definitely still a lot of leftover 2000s culture, but from a general standpoint, it just feels much more connected to the 2010s as a whole than the 2000s.  I can understand why a lot of people would treat the year as part of a hybrid era, rather than as part of a full decade, but I still think Lady Gaga, Obama, and Facebook are much more connected to 2010s culture than they are to things like Lil Jon, George W. Bush, and The Sopranos.  I don't know, I guess I'm just really shocked that far more people seem to categorize 2009 with the 2000s and not the 2010s, when 2009 was when I felt the whole world really start to change.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Arrowstone on 08/06/15 at 5:37 am

I'd like to call 2008-2011 the crisis era.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/06/15 at 10:43 am


I don't see 2009 as purely 2010s, and there's definitely still a lot of leftover 2000s culture, but from a general standpoint, it just feels much more connected to the 2010s as a whole than the 2000s.  I can understand why a lot of people would treat the year as part of a hybrid era, rather than as part of a full decade, but I still think Lady Gaga, Obama, and Facebook are much more connected to 2010s culture than they are to things like Lil Jon, George W. Bush, and The Sopranos.  I don't know, I guess I'm just really shocked that far more people seem to categorize 2009 with the 2000s and not the 2010s, when 2009 was when I felt the whole world really start to change.


Being that 2009 was basically the crossroads between the two decades, I think a lot of it depends on personal experience and how much weight you put on the incoming trends vs the trends on their way out.  If you were on the cutting edge in 2009, then yes I can see why people would say it belongs more to the 2010s.  Not everybody was though.  A few people had iPhones.  Most people still had flip-phones or dumb smartphones like the Sony Ericson.  There were still plenty of scene kids in 2009.  Emo was still a regular part of the vocabulary of a teenager and early twentysomething.  It was also the first year people started talking about hipsters.  Facebook was getting huge but many people still kept up their MySpace accounts for the time being. Lady Gaga was taking the world by storm, but post-grunge did very well that year so not everybody was jumping on the bandwagon.  As for hip-hop, snap and crunk still did well in 2009 on urban stations but I agree it was less dominant on the Top 40 charts.  2009 was the height of the recession, which I associate with the 2000s more than the 2010s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/06/15 at 2:47 pm


Being that 2009 was basically the crossroads between the two decades, I think a lot of it depends on personal experience and how much weight you put on the incoming trends vs the trends on their way out.  If you were on the cutting edge in 2009, then yes I can see why people would say it belongs more to the 2010s.  Not everybody was though.  A few people had iPhones.  Most people still had flip-phones or dumb smartphones like the Sony Ericson.


I still used a flip phone until the Autumn of 2012, but I still felt like the general atmosphere of society had changed a lot in 2009, even if not all 2010s culture was fully established yet.  2008 still had a distinct 2000s feel to it, but in 2009, with Obama being president, gay marriage drastically accelerating, the Tea Party sprouting up, social media being standard, Lady Gaga being the biggest star of the day, etc., I felt like we had entered a brand new era, which was still in its youth (2008 being the elder phase of the 2000s decade).  I wasn't even very cutting edge as a high school sophomore and junior in 2009, but I knew that the dominant cultural trends had changed a lot from my freshman year.

Facebook was getting huge but many people still kept up their MySpace accounts for the time being.

Facebook was on the rise since 2006; by 2009, I remember it being much, much more established than MySpace.  Skype was also well-established by that point; I remember first using it in September 2008.

Lady Gaga was taking the world by storm, but post-grunge did very well that year so not everybody was jumping on the bandwagon.

She and the Black Eyed Peas did far better on the charts than the post-grunge and pop punk bands still popular at the time.  The biggest post-grunge song of 2009 was Daughtry's No Surprise, which wasn't nearly as successful as It's Not Over, Home, and even Over You from his first album.  I remember hearing Green Day's 21 Guns a lot during the 2009-2010 school year, but it was certainly nowhere near as significant a hit as Boulevard of Broken Dreams and Wake Me Up When September Ends were in 2005; the former peaked only at #22, whereas the latter two were both top 10 hits on the Billboard Hot 100.  King's of Leon, I sort of consider a transitional band between the 2000s and 2010s; they have elements of post-grunge, but they also have a significant modern alternative edge, with a lot of their songs bearing a vague resemblance to the indie-infused bands of the 2010s.  Also, while indie/indietronica wouldn't be standard until the spring of 2010, songs of a very cutting edge flavor were already outmuscling the old guitar rock sound of the 2000s, like Ain't No Rest for the Wicked (which received a platinum certification) and Don't Trust Me (which was certified triple platinum).

2009 was the height of the recession, which I associate with the 2000s more than the 2010s,

I see the recession as an extremely early 2010s phenomenon, considering it remained important all the way through the 2012 Election.  Same goes with the Tea Party, who were around since early 2009 but were a significant cultural force in 2010-2012, as well.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/10/15 at 9:07 pm


For one thing, smartphones were not popular yet in 2009.  Most people were still using simple cell phones like flip phones and slider phones.  The Blackberry was the most popular phone at the time and the smartest phone you could have.  The IPhone was around and had been since 2007, but only the Blackberry did well with the general public.  My mother got her first IPhone back in 2009 and she was the only person I knew who even owned an IPhone back then.  It took some time for the IPhone to really take off in popularity.  IPhones didn't become more common to have until 2010 and didn't become most popular cell phone until 2012.  Android phones weren't around yet either.

True. Infact the iPhone between 2007-'10 only sold 26 million worldwide. Only 50,000 here in Canada during the same era.

2009 was actually a pretty big turning point for hip hop.  Snap/crunk music was still extremely popular in 2008, which produced Flo-Rida's Low and Lil Wayne's Tha Carter III; in 2009, however, it was pretty much completely absent from the charts.  Eminem, Kanye West, and Drake remained popular into the 2010s; Drake's breakthrough, if anything, was really the key sign that hip hop was entering a new era.  So I definitely wouldn't call 2009 a 2000s year for hip hop.
Nothing happened in 2009 regarding hophop. It was just another year in the new alterntive/grime/synth internationally dominated era of hiphop. Glam rap died back in 2005 while crunk/snap have never really seen much exposer outside the US. Thanks to the newly established era of hiphop pioneered by Kanye, K-os and Lupe fiasco, new players like Drake and Kid cudi found it easier to break it big. 2006ish-07 was the major turning point for hiphop.

I also think CD's went out of fashion well before 2009 (iTunes came out in 2001), even if they still had some prevalence that year.

The sales of CDs in 2013 still outnumbered thw sale if digital albums. Contrary to the media, digitally purchased albums have been the least popular since thw mediums inception.

Facebook was on the rise since 2006; by 2009, I remember it being much, much more established than MySpace.  Skype was also well-established by that point; I remember first using it in September 2008.
Myspace was still way better established than Facebook and represents the decade better.
Skype existed back then?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/10/15 at 10:10 pm


Skype existed back then?


Yeah. It existed since 2003.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/11/15 at 12:01 am

Nothing happened in 2009 regarding hophop. It was just another year in the new alterntive/grime/synth internationally dominated era of hiphop. Glam rap died back in 2005 while crunk/snap have never really seen much exposer outside the US. Thanks to the newly established era of hiphop pioneered by Kanye, K-os and Lupe fiasco, new players like Drake and Kid cudi found it easier to break it big. 2006ish-07 was the major turning point for hiphop.

I know we've debated about this before, but 2009 was when the new artists really started to grow more prevalent, while crunk/snap disappeared entirely (i.e., no more Lows or Lollipops dominating the charts).  Even though this shift was felt a lot more in the United States than elsewhere, 2009 was pretty much more connected, imo, to the early 2010s than the late 2000s.

The sales of CDs in 2013 still outnumbered thw sale if digital albums. Contrary to the media, digitally purchased albums have been the least popular since thw mediums inception.

Even if the statistics regarding CD sales are true, a lot of people nowadays prefer either to buy their favorite songs individually, or just pirate them.  The fact that MacBooks no longer come with built-in CD-players is a testament to the changing times.

Myspace was still way better established than Facebook and represents the decade better.
Skype existed back then?


I hardly remember anybody talking about or using MySpace seriously in 2009.  Every notable activity or event that year was posted on Facebook, not just the social activities, but also political movements like the 1,000,000 Strong to Overturn Prop 8 group.  I distinctly remember the vast majority of my high school classmates having a Facebook account by 2009, while only a few of them had a MySpace page, and even those who did no longer used it by that point.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/11/15 at 12:37 am


I hardly remember anybody talking about or using MySpace seriously in 2009.  Every notable activity or event that year was posted on Facebook, not just the social activities, but also political movements like the 1,000,000 Strong to Overturn Prop 8 group.  I distinctly remember the vast majority of my high school classmates having a Facebook account by 2009, while only a few of them had a MySpace page, and even those who did no longer used it by that point.


MySpace in 2009 was like emo and scene kids were at that time.  It's popularity was waning very fast, yet it was still popular enough to be relevant.  Facebook was more popular. 

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/11/15 at 6:35 am


I hardly remember anybody talking about or using MySpace seriously in 2009.  Every notable activity or event that year was posted on Facebook, not just the social activities, but also political movements like the 1,000,000 Strong to Overturn Prop 8 group.  I distinctly remember the vast majority of my high school classmates having a Facebook account by 2009, while only a few of them had a MySpace page, and even those who did no longer used it by that point.


I'd say 2009 as a full year was the transition in popularity from Myspace to Facebook, maybe since you were already in high school the majority of folks already had Facebook or something. I was in 7th grade from 2008-2009 school year and a lot of people still used Myspace then. Around my 8th grade year (2009-2010) is when I started noticing everybody getting Facebook's while Myspace's popularity had died out. The 2011-2012 school year was the last major school year I noticed Facebook in its prime before Twitter would take over during the 2012-2013 school year.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/11/15 at 6:43 am


I'd say 2009 as a full year was the transition in popularity from Myspace to Facebook, maybe since you were already in high school the majority of folks already had Facebook or something. I was in 7th grade from 2008-2009 school year and a lot of people still used Myspace then. Around my 8th grade year (2009-2010) is when I started noticing everybody getting Facebook's while Myspace's popularity had died out. The 2011-2012 school year was the last major school year I noticed Facebook in its prime before Twitter would take over during the 2012-2013 school year.


Wow, I didn't know people still used Myspace until 2012. I thought people stopped using around 2010 or 2011, since many people moved to Facebook since the early 2010s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/11/15 at 2:05 pm


I know we've debated about this before, but 2009 was when the new artists really started to grow more prevalent, while crunk/snap disappeared entirely (i.e., no more Lows or Lollipops dominating the charts).  Even though this shift was felt a lot more in the United States than elsewhere, 2009 was pretty much more connected, imo, to the early 2010s than the late 2000s.

As I've said, it's pretty interesting how different the music scene un the US was at the time. But to someone in Europe, grime characterizes the era better than those sub-genres and alternative has been a runaway success for much of the decade internationally. I've honestly never heard of those lollipop/lows songs till recently even though I'm not as far from the US as other countries.

Even if the statistics regarding CD sales are true, a lot of people nowadays prefer either to buy their favorite songs individually, or just pirate them.  The fact that MacBooks no longer come with built-in CD-players is a testament to the changing times.
Point is people illegally download songs, otherwise they'll just buy the CD. Even digitally downloaded singles have not hit the historical highs of CDs, I did a research project on this. 

I hardly remember anybody talking about or using MySpace seriously in 2009.  Every notable activity or event that year was posted on Facebook, not just the social activities, but also political movements like the 1,000,000 Strong to Overturn Prop 8 group.  I distinctly remember the vast majority of my high school classmates having a Facebook account by 2009, while only a few of them had a MySpace page, and even those who did no longer used it by that point.

Those above have addressed this for me.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 08/11/15 at 2:22 pm


Yeah. It existed since 2003.


I don't remember Skype in 2003, the only thing I remember in 2003 was Instant Messenger.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/11/15 at 3:11 pm


I don't remember Skype in 2003, the only thing I remember in 2003 was Instant Messenger.


It was new back then, and I think only a few people used it back then. It wasn't until the late 2000s when it became more available to everybody.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/11/15 at 3:47 pm


It was new back then, and I think only a few people used it back then. It wasn't until the late 2000s when it became more available to everybody.

Still didn't hear about it till the early 10s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/11/15 at 3:49 pm

Point is people illegally download songs, otherwise they'll just buy the CD. Even digitally downloaded singles have not hit the historical highs of CDs, I did a research project on this.

Except for acts like Def Leppard and Garth Brooks, whose catalogues aren't on iTunes, why would most people prefer to travel out to their local Best Buy in hopes of finding a copy of the CD they want, as opposed to purchasing it with the click of a button?  iTunes and other digital music services have been very much the norm since at least the mid-2000s, and when most people listen to their music on their mp3 players, anyway, buying a CD doesn't give you any advantage aside from being able to physically own the album.  Even if far more people nowadays pirate their music than purchase it, buying full albums on iTunes certainly isn't an irrelevant part of global culture.


I'd say 2009 as a full year was the transition in popularity from Myspace to Facebook, maybe since you were already in high school the majority of folks already had Facebook or something. I was in 7th grade from 2008-2009 school year and a lot of people still used Myspace then. Around my 8th grade year (2009-2010) is when I started noticing everybody getting Facebook's while Myspace's popularity had died out. The 2011-2012 school year was the last major school year I noticed Facebook in its prime before Twitter would take over during the 2012-2013 school year.


Although I remember only mostly people 14 years old and older having a Facebook page in 2008-2009, the site had still more than established itself as the beacon of social gatherings and discussions in the modern world.  Whatever leftover popularity you speak of regarding MySpace in 2009 is exaggerated, even if most of your middle school hadn't caught on to Facebook yet.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/11/15 at 3:51 pm


Still didn't hear about it till the early 10s.


I guess you were more busier back in the late 2000s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/11/15 at 5:16 pm


I'd say 2009 as a full year was the transition in popularity from Myspace to Facebook, maybe since you were already in high school the majority of folks already had Facebook or something. I was in 7th grade from 2008-2009 school year and a lot of people still used Myspace then. Around my 8th grade year (2009-2010) is when I started noticing everybody getting Facebook's while Myspace's popularity had died out. The 2011-2012 school year was the last major school year I noticed Facebook in its prime before Twitter would take over during the 2012-2013 school year.


Good points.  I was in college from 2004-2008 and through out most of that time, Facebook was for college students and MySpace was for high school students.  I remember starting around 2007 there being a slow shift away from MySpace and to Facebook.  However, it seems like the younger you are, the longer you kept your MySpace.  It remained fairly popular with high school students through around 2008 and middle school students through 2010.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/11/15 at 5:44 pm


Good points.  I was in college from 2004-2008 and through out most of that time, Facebook was for college students and MySpace was for high school students.  I remember starting around 2007 there being a slow shift away from MySpace and to Facebook.  However, it seems like the younger you are, the longer you kept your MySpace.  It remained fairly popular with high school students through around 2008 and middle school students through 2010.


If that's the case, I wonder if there's any people who still have their Myspace page if they were teenagers in 2003?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/11/15 at 7:16 pm


Except for acts like Def Leppard and Garth Brooks, whose catalogues aren't on iTunes, why would most people prefer to travel out to their local Best Buy in hopes of finding a copy of the CD they want, as opposed to purchasing it with the click of a button?  iTunes and other digital music services have been very much the norm since at least the mid-2000s, and when most people listen to their music on their mp3 players, anyway, buying a CD doesn't give you any advantage aside from being able to physically own the album.  Even if far more people nowadays pirate their music than purchase it, buying full albums on iTunes certainly isn't an irrelevant part of global culture.

I think you are confusing purchased singles with pirated singles, the latter is done by the vast majority of people and defeats the purpose of purchasing it. CDs have several advatages over digital, the most notable one being sound quality. 80% of people just pirate their music, the remaining 20% consists of mostly audiophile album buyers, then digital purchasers afterwards. If stats were to combine all downloaded music, the download numbers if digital would balloon significantly.

Although I remember only mostly people 14 years old and older having a Facebook page in 2008-2009, the site had still more than established itself as the beacon of social gatherings and discussions in the modern world.  Whatever leftover popularity you speak of regarding MySpace in 2009 is exaggerated, even if most of your middle school hadn't caught on to Facebook yet.

Nah, he's right. I can attest too.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/11/15 at 7:59 pm


I think you are confusing purchased singles with pirated singles, the latter is done by the vast majority of people and defeats the purpose of purchasing it. CDs have several advatages over digital, the most notable one being sound quality. 80% of people just pirate their music, the remaining 20% consists of mostly audiophile album buyers, then digital downloaders afterwards. If stats were to combine all downloaded music, the download numbers if digital would balloon significantly.


No, I mean literally purchasing songs for about 99 cents on iTunes.  That's what my family, as well as most of my friends did by the second half of the 2000s to get their music, even if others pirated it.  If nobody bought music from the iTunes store, then the service would not have survived for 14 years now.  Most casual listeners do not care about sound quality, and even then, CD's are not the best way to maximize it - that would be vinyls.

Nah, he's right. I can attest too.

2008 was the last time I remember people talking about or referring to MySpace pages on a common basis.  By 2009, everybody from high school age and beyond was using Facebook, and I don't ever remember MySpace being seriously mentioned anymore.  I don't know if that means my high school was unusually cutting edge, but coming from personal experience, I absolutely don't remember MySpace being nearly as popular as Facebook in 2009.  The only period when the two sites were in fair competition with each other was the cultural late 2000s (late 2006 through the end of 2008).

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/11/15 at 10:49 pm


No, I mean literally purchasing songs for about 99 cents on iTunes.  That's what my family, as well as most of my friends did by the second half of the 2000s to get their music, even if others pirated it.  If nobody bought music from the iTunes store, then the service would not have survived for 14 years now.  Most casual listeners do not care about sound quality, and even then, CD's are not the best way to maximize it - that would be vinyls.

You said earlier that "most" people in the past decade wouldn't wait at best buy to snap up a physical copy of a album. I indirectly agreed that they wouldn't but corrected you that said majority does not actually purchase much of their music at all. It mirrors the whole Tydal debacle.
Companies/services can survive just fine with somewhat of a minority audience, see the state of the dedicated gaming handheld market as an example. CDs are cheaper, more versatile and easier to get ahold of than vinyl, but still offer better sound quality than digital formats. The same thing can be said about VHS/betamax/laserdisc. People gravitate to the best quality format with decent support/availability.


2008 was the last time I remember people talking about or referring to MySpace pages on a common basis.  By 2009, everybody from high school age and beyond was using Facebook, and I don't ever remember MySpace being seriously mentioned anymore.  I don't know if that means my high school was unusually cutting edge, but coming from personal experience, I absolutely don't remember MySpace being nearly as popular as Facebook in 2009.  The only period when the two sites were in fair competition with each other was the cultural late 2000s (late 2006 through the end of 2008).

As has been said by others, different institutions in different locations find interest in future trends faster than others. Your area was quick to jump on the FB bandwagon, but my area/institution still clung to Myspace. Youtube even still had direct support to Myspace in 2009 as well as FB and some other third social media site I can't recall right now. Facebook is to the 00s what digital piracy is to the 90s. The big sites exploded into popularity too late in the decade to properly characterize it and belong with the later decades.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/11/15 at 11:20 pm

Companies/services can survive just fine with somewhat of a minority audience, see the state of the dedicated gaming handheld market as an example. CDs are cheaper, more versatile and easier to get ahold of than vinyl, but still offer better sound quality than digital formats. The same thing can be said about VHS/betamax/laserdisc. People gravitate to the best quality format with decent support/availability.

Firstly, handheld games are not a minority audience industry.  The Nintendo DS, for example, sold almost as many units as the PlayStation 2, even though the latter is seen more as the "major" console of the 2000s.  If anything, home consoles have been on the decline since the start of the 2010s.

Second, while it's true vinyls are extremely expensive and not really a popular investment except with the hardest of the hardcore audiophiles, purchasable high-quality sound files are still widely available, and have been for several years.  I remember visiting Juno Download, for example, to buy new songs of my favorite type of music at the time, and for every song, you had the option of buying a 192-bit rate mp3, a 320-bit mp3, or a wav music file.  Some songs were affected by the loudness war, but it certainly wasn't a terrible option.  Not that iTunes doesn't mostly supply pretty high-quality mp3's, either.

As has been said by others, different institutions in different locations find interest in future trends faster than others. Your area was quick to jump on the FB bandwagon, but my area/institution still clung to Myspace. Youtube even still had direct support to Myspace in 2009 as well as FB and some other third social media site I can't recall right now. Facebook is to the 00s what digital piracy is to the 90s. The big sites exploded into popularity too late in the decade to properly characterize it and belong with the later decades.


Out of curiosity, how old were you in 2009?  I ask because I think age bracket plays a major part of when people start to adapt to new trends (i.e., Facebook was just for college students in the mid-2000s, phones weren't used by elementary school students until the 2010s).  I also wonder how long Facebook took to become popular in Canada versus the United States in general.

What I find so ironic, though, is that you're the author of the OP, stating 2009 clearly felt more connected to the 2010s, but now here you are arguing against one of the few people here who sees it as more of an early 2010s-style year than a late 2000s one.  What caused you to apparently change your mind so drastically?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/11/15 at 11:33 pm


Firstly, handheld games are not a minority audience industry.  The Nintendo DS, for example, sold almost as many units as the PlayStation 2, even though the latter is seen more as the "major" console of the 2000s.  If anything, home consoles have been on the decline since the start of the 2010s.

Second, while it's true vinyls are extremely expensive and not really a popular investment except with the hardest of the hardcore audiophiles, purchasable high-quality sound files are still widely available, and have been for several years.  I remember visiting Juno Download, for example, to buy new songs of my favorite type of music at the time, and for every song, you had the option of buying a 192-bit rate mp3, a 320-bit mp3, or a wav music file.  Some songs were affected by the loudness war, but it certainly wasn't a terrible option.  Not that iTunes doesn't mostly supply pretty high-quality mp3's, either.

Out of curiosity, how old were you in 2009?  I ask because I think age bracket plays a major part of when people start to adapt to new trends (i.e., Facebook was just for college students in the mid-2000s, phones weren't used by elementary school students until the 2010s).  I also wonder how long Facebook took to become popular in Canada versus the United States in general.

What I find so ironic, though, is that you're the author of the OP, stating 2009 clearly felt more connected to the 2010s, but now here you are arguing against one of the few people here who sees it as more of an early 2010s-style year than a late 2000s one.  What caused you to apparently change your mind so drastically?


Well here's my opinion on the debate. I was born in 1996 and I first heard about myspace when I was in 5th grade (through my older sisters born in the 80's). I personally didn't know anybody my age that had a myspace until 6th grade and that was the 2007-2008 school year. Now keep in mind I was in middle school for much of the late 00's & high school for the early 10's so my experience would be a little different from yours, but from what I remember;

6th grade: 2007-2008 - myspace (let say about 90% had myspace and 10% had facebook or no social media at all)
7th grade: 2008-2009 - myspace (about 75% my, 25%face)
8th grade: 2009-2010 - transition from myspace to facebook (lets say 50/50)
9th grade: 2010-2011 - facebook (75% face, 25% my, also the last year I noticed anybody using myspace among my age)
10th grade: 2011-2012 - facebook (75% face, 25% twitter)
11th grade: 2012-2013 - transition from facebook to twitter (50/50)
12th grade: 2013-2014 - twitter (75% twitter, 25% face)

Now ever since my freshman year of college twitter has been popular for people my age roughly 90%. Also keep in mind where I live (the northeast btw) around 2012-2013 year there was a shift where other social media sites like instagram and vine started become popular. So in reality there really isn't a dominant social media site just a bunch of popular ones

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/11/15 at 11:42 pm


Well here's my opinion on the debate. I was born in 1996 and I first heard about myspace when I was in 5th grade (through my older sisters born in the 80's). I personally didn't know anybody my age that had a myspace until 6th grade and that was the 2007-2008 school year. Now keep in mind I was in middle school for much of the late 00's & high school for the early 10's so my experience would be a little different from yours, but from what I remember;

6th grade: 2007-2008 - myspace (let say about 90% had myspace and 10% had facebook or no social media at all)
7th grade: 2008-2009 - myspace (about 75% my, 25%face)
8th grade: 2009-2010 - transition from myspace to facebook (lets say 50/50)
9th grade: 2010-2011 - facebook (75% face, 25% my, also the last year I noticed anybody using myspace among my age)
10th grade: 2011-2012 - facebook (75% face, 25% twitter)
11th grade: 2012-2013 - transition from facebook to twitter (50/50)
12th grade: 2013-2014 - twitter (75% twitter, 25% face)

Now ever since my freshman year of college twitter has been popular for people my age roughly 90%. Also keep in mind where I live (the northeast btw) around 2012-2013 year there was a shift where other social media sites like instagram and vine started become popular. So in reality there really isn't a dominant social media site just a bunch of popular ones


Well, to be fair, since you're three school years below me, it makes sense that you felt the transition into Facebook later than I did.  My high school actually started with the 7th grade (though a 6th grade was added in the 2009-2010 school year), and I distinctly remember hardly anybody from the class of 2014 having a Facebook account until they had moved past middle school.  I don't think the major difference is location so much as it is age, and probably the major thing that distinguishes Facebook in the core 2010s versus 2009-2012 is that it's now pretty common for middle schoolers to have an account.  Still, Facebook being very popular with high schoolers in 2009, as well as the simultaneous decline of MySpace is pretty significant.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/11/15 at 11:45 pm


Well, to be fair, since you're three school years below me, it makes sense that you felt the transition into Facebook later than I did.  My high school actually started with the 7th grade (though a 6th grade was added in the 2009-2010 school year), and I distinctly remember hardly anybody from the class of 2014 having a Facebook account until they had moved past middle school.  I don't think the major difference is location so much as it is age, and probably the major thing that distinguishes Facebook in the core 2010s versus 2009-2012 is that it's now pretty common for middle schoolers to have an account.  Still, Facebook being very popular with high schoolers in 2009, as well as the simultaneous decline of MySpace is pretty significant.


That's interesting. Mind if I ask but what year did you graduate?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/11/15 at 11:48 pm


That's interesting. Mind if I ask but what year did you graduate?


I graduated in 2011, though I was one of the older people in my class.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 08/11/15 at 11:49 pm

Facebook became REALLY popular in 2006.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/11/15 at 11:57 pm


Facebook became REALLY popular in 2006.


It was definitely noticeable then, but that was during the time it was still mostly referred to as a "safer version of MySpace," whereas by 2009 I felt it had become the standard social media hub, at least in my age group and beyond.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 08/12/15 at 12:01 am


It was definitely noticeable then, but that was during the time it was still mostly referred to as a "safer version of MySpace," whereas by 2009 I felt it had become the standard social media hub, at least in my age group and beyond.


Yeah, I don't remember it being popular in 2004 right away, it was gaining traction in 2005 definitely, but 2006 was its year!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/12/15 at 12:19 am


I graduated in 2011, though I was one of the older people in my class.


Oh ok so you were in middle/high school for much of the mid-late 00's. So you were there when thing like myspace were just coming out while I caught the tail end of it.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 08/12/15 at 12:21 am

'00-'03- Middle school

'03-'07- High school

'07-'09- Whaaa???

This is the 00s for me!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/12/15 at 12:37 am


'00-'03- Middle school

'03-'07- High school

'07-'09- Whaaa???

This is the 00s for me!


99'-01' - Pre School

01'-07 - Grade School

07'-10' - Middle School

10'-14' - High School

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 08/12/15 at 12:38 am


99'-01' - Pre School

01'-07 - Grade School

07'-10' - Middle School

10'-14' - High School


Wow, I feel old.  ;D  ;D

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/12/15 at 12:41 am


Wow, I feel old.  ;D  ;D


LOL

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 08/12/15 at 2:56 pm


Still didn't hear about it till the early 10s.


same here, I didn't hear anything about it until after 2010.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/12/15 at 3:33 pm


Firstly, handheld games are not a minority audience industry.  The Nintendo DS, for example, sold almost as many units as the PlayStation 2, even though the latter is seen more as the "major" console of the 2000s.  If anything, home consoles have been on the decline since the start of the 2010s.

The DS and PSP sold well because they were in the 00s; a decade where smartphone gaming was basic and hadn't caught on yet. Compare those sales to that of the 3DS and PS Vita and you'll see just how much smartphones have stolen much of the market.

Second, while it's true vinyls are extremely expensive and not really a popular investment except with the hardest of the hardcore audiophiles, purchasable high-quality sound files are still widely available, and have been for several years.  I remember visiting Juno Download, for example, to buy new songs of my favorite type of music at the time, and for every song, you had the option of buying a 192-bit rate mp3, a 320-bit mp3, or a wav music file.
That's great but what incentive does that provide the consumer over purchasing a CD and just ripping the songs to any file format they want? That's not even mentioning that CDs arr techincally cheaper too. A CD if 24 songs may be as little as $14 while 24 songs on itunes are 0.99¢ each. That us also one of the main reasons most people pirate music instead.

Some songs were affected by the loudness war, but it certainly wasn't a terrible option.  Not that iTunes doesn't mostly supply pretty high-quality mp3's, either.
But they are compressed unlike CDs that you can just rip to any format you like without loosing quality.

Out of curiosity, how old were you in 2009?  I ask because I think age bracket plays a major part of when people start to adapt to new trends (i.e., Facebook was just for college students in the mid-2000s, phones weren't used by elementary school students until the 2010s).  I also wonder how long Facebook took to become popular in Canada versus the United States in general.
About 12. I had just ran through the first half of grade 7 when 09 ended. Possibly age brackets and location might have something to do with it. Twitter in 2009 saw 60% of it's userbase in the US, I belive it might've followed a trend typical of emerging social media sites of the time.

Edit: I recall reading a stat a month ago that said the UK and Canada's FB usage in 09 was around 5% or something.

What I find so ironic, though, is that you're the author of the OP, stating 2009 clearly felt more connected to the 2010s, but now here you are arguing against one of the few people here who sees it as more of an early 2010s-style year than a late 2000s one.  What caused you to apparently change your mind so drastically?

I didn't say Myspace all but disappeared in the OP did I? I said it was the first year Facebook became relevent as a contender rather than as some college student underdog it had been during it's abnormally long run in the 00s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/12/15 at 5:59 pm


The DS and PSP sold well because they were in the 00s; a decade where smartphone gaming was basic and hadn't caught on yet. Compare those sales to that of the 3DS and PS Vita and you'll see just how much smartphones have stolen much of the market.


The point was really more that the DS and PSP did not lag drastically behind their home system contemporaries, before and after the advent of smartphone games in the 2010s.

That's great but what incentive does that provide the consumer over purchasing a CD and just ripping the songs to any file format they want? That's not even mentioning that CDs arr techincally cheaper too. A CD if 24 songs may be as little as $14 while 24 songs on itunes are 0.99¢ each. That us also one of the main reasons most people pirate music instead.

From my experience, iTunes albums are usually cheaper than the CD's sold at Best Buy and Target.  The only ways in which CD's give you a cost advantage is if you buy them used from Amazon or FYE for something.

But they are compressed unlike CDs that you can just rip to any format you like without loosing quality.

Sound quality is often compromised from a songs original format when it is fitted onto a CD.  For instance, I have the CD version of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication, and the sound quality is just as horrendous as the iTunes samples, regardless of how I decide to upload the album.  Only certain vinyl versions of Californication sound acceptable, not the commercially sold version.

About 12. I had just ran through the first half of grade 7 when 09 ended. Possibly age brackets and location might have something to do with it. Twitter in 2009 saw 60% of it's userbase in the US, I belive it might've followed a trend typical of emerging social media sites of the time.

Okay, so you were in an age bracket that hadn't caught on to Facebook yet, as I remember during my time in high school.  Makes sense.

I didn't say Myspace all but disappeared in the OP did I? I said it was the first year Facebook became relevent as a contender rather than as some college student underdog it had been during it's abnormally long run in the 00s.


Your arguments here imply that Facebook was not very relevant until sometime in the 2010s, when really it had been a serious contender against MySpace since late 2006, even though it was not yet dominant.  I just found a graph, which compares the popularity of MySpace versus Facebook, and apparently Facebook became the preferred form of social media by December 2008, and its usage dramatically dwarfed that of MySpace as 2009 continued on.

http://www.dreamgrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/facebook-myspace.png

But otherwise, do you still stand by your OP?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/12/15 at 6:38 pm


Okay, so you were in an age bracket that hadn't caught on to Facebook yet, as I remember during my time in high school.  Makes sense.

Your arguments here imply that Facebook was not very relevant until sometime in the 2010s, when really it had been a serious contender against MySpace since late 2006, even though it was not yet dominant.  I just found a graph, which compares the popularity of MySpace versus Facebook, and apparently Facebook became the preferred form of social media by December 2008, and its usage dramatically dwarfed that of MySpace as 2009 continued on.


Like one of the other users said, at least here in the U.S. the higher level in school (middle school; high school; college & up) you were at the time the more likely you had switched over from Myspace to Facebook much earlier around the 2007-2010 period. Now I understand why a lot of folks in your high school already had Facebook instead of Myspace by 2008 or 2009. 

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 08/12/15 at 6:52 pm


Like one of the other users said, at least here in the U.S. the higher level in school (middle school; high school; college & up) you were at the time the more likely you had switched over from Myspace to Facebook much earlier around the 2007-2010 period. Now I understand why a lot of folks in your high school already had Facebook instead of Myspace by 2008 or 2009.

I was in my late teens when I had MySpace. Among people I knew Facebook wasn't big yet. If MySpace had evolved it could have competed, but it may have already been marked as passé even so.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/12/15 at 6:53 pm


It was definitely noticeable then, but that was during the time it was still mostly referred to as a "safer version of MySpace," whereas by 2009 I felt it had become the standard social media hub, at least in my age group and beyond.


Who would actually prefer Facebook as the safer version of Myspace? You are allowed to put down your personal information, along with your first and last name and a photo of yourself in real life publicly on your profile. How is it the safer version of Myspace?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/12/15 at 7:11 pm


I was in my late teens when I had MySpace. Among people I knew Facebook wasn't big yet. If MySpace had evolved it could have competed, but it may have already been marked as passé even so.


Oh yeah I was referring to the transition of Myspace to Facebook around the late 2000's to the very beginning of the 2010's decade, and you were born in 1985 right? Which means back when you were a teenager Myspace would've obviously still been the norm then.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/12/15 at 7:37 pm


The point was really more that the DS and PSP did not lag drastically behind their home system contemporaries, before and after the advent of smartphone games in the 2010s.

We don't expect home consoles to surpass the sales of cheaper handheld hardware. That's why the comparatively poor sales of the 3DS/Vita are so abnormal.

From my experience, iTunes albums are usually cheaper than the CD's sold at Best Buy and Target.  The only ways in which CD's give you a cost advantage is if you buy them used from Amazon or FYE for something.
Must be expensive over there. Albums of typically under $20 around here so yes, iTunes is more expensive.

Sound quality is often compromised from a songs original format when it is fitted onto a CD.  For instance, I have the CD version of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication, and the sound quality is just as horrendous as the iTunes samples, regardless of how I decide to upload the album.  Only certain vinyl versions of Californication sound acceptable, not the commercially sold version.
The loudness war will do that to old albums like Californications. More info on our debate here.
http://mashable.com/2013/01/10/why-are-people-still-buying-cds/

Okay, so you were in an age bracket that hadn't caught on to Facebook yet, as I remember during my time in high school.  Makes sense.
FB was kinda slow to catch on period which is why ia mostly belongs with the 2010s social media as it reigns supreme this decade. My older sibling in high school didn't get an account till 2010.

Your arguments here imply that Facebook was not very relevant until sometime in the 2010s, when really it had been a serious contender against MySpace since late 2006, even though it was not yet dominant.  I just found a graph, which compares the popularity of MySpace versus Facebook, and apparently Facebook became the preferred form of social media by December 2008, and its usage dramatically dwarfed that of MySpace as 2009 continued on.

http://www.dreamgrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/facebook-myspace.png

But otherwise, do you still stand by your OP?

We established this before, but guess what? Most of FB's userbase was still confined to one country at the time and still mostly to college and some high school students. Myspace still had overwhelming support from other social media sites and some still didn't even recignize Facebook yet. It's kind of like arguing that CD buying died in 1999 when Napster hit the scene.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/12/15 at 8:17 pm


FB was kinda slow to catch on period which is why ia mostly belongs with the 2010s social media as it reigns supreme this decade. My older sibling in high school didn't get an account till 2010.
We established this before, but guess what? Most of FB's userbase was still confined to one country at the time and still mostly to college and some high school students. Myspace still had overwhelming support from other social media sites and some still didn't even recignize Facebook yet. It's kind of like arguing that CD buying died in 1999 when Napster hit the scene.


Myspace's prime was in the core 2000's years.

Facebook's prime was a hybrid of late 2000's/early 2010's.

Twitter's prime is now in the core 2010's years.

So to conclude I wouldn't say that Facebook is strictly 2010's social media, it's definitely 2000's at the same time for sure. Maybe not to us but to college students in the mid 2000's and maybe high school students in the late 2000's Facebook is distinguishably 2000's social media for sure. Be aware that Facebook's max popularity here in the U.S. died out towards the end of 2012 and shifted over to Twitter. So we can't just say that Facebook is strictly 2010's, heck if Twitter's been the most popular since 2013, then technically speaking Facebook was more of a cultural late 2000's thing.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 08/12/15 at 8:23 pm


Well here's my opinion on the debate. I was born in 1996 and I first heard about myspace when I was in 5th grade (through my older sisters born in the 80's). I personally didn't know anybody my age that had a myspace until 6th grade and that was the 2007-2008 school year. Now keep in mind I was in middle school for much of the late 00's & high school for the early 10's so my experience would be a little different from yours, but from what I remember;

6th grade: 2007-2008 - myspace (let say about 90% had myspace and 10% had facebook or no social media at all)
7th grade: 2008-2009 - myspace (about 75% my, 25%face)
8th grade: 2009-2010 - transition from myspace to facebook (lets say 50/50)
9th grade: 2010-2011 - facebook (75% face, 25% my, also the last year I noticed anybody using myspace among my age)
10th grade: 2011-2012 - facebook (75% face, 25% twitter)
11th grade: 2012-2013 - transition from facebook to twitter (50/50)
12th grade: 2013-2014 - twitter (75% twitter, 25% face)

Now ever since my freshman year of college twitter has been popular for people my age roughly 90%. Also keep in mind where I live (the northeast btw) around 2012-2013 year there was a shift where other social media sites like instagram and vine started become popular. So in reality there really isn't a dominant social media site just a bunch of popular ones

Twitter didn't really replace Facebook, alot of people use it in addition to Facebook. It has a different format and people use it for different purposes. Alot of tweets I read have more of a reason behind them if you want to say that. Facebook is more to goof around, waste time, and have lighthearted chit chat. According to my observations anyway. Instagram is a phone and tablet app for pictures. SnapChat seems to be a thing among teenagers primarily. Tumblr is a popular platform for so called causes and soapboxing these days. Alot of people have left certain media in exchange for that.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/12/15 at 8:33 pm


Now ever since my freshman year of college twitter has been popular for people my age roughly 90%. Also keep in mind where I live (the northeast btw) around 2012-2013 year there was a shift where other social media sites like instagram and vine started become popular. So in reality there really isn't a dominant social media site just a bunch of popular ones


This was huge right there. It has kinda seemed that way though. I see a lot of people using Twitter for posting what's on their minds while Instagram for just a bunch of pictures. While other folks make their choices on rather they want to use Vine, Tumblr, Snapcat, etc. or not. It does seem like there isn't a dominant website now. Although when I look at certain ad's online, or even go to football games for certain accounts or prizes, the first website that seems to come to mind is "Twitter". Everyone's mixing it up. But hey that kinda works with fashion clothes too. Wasn't there a time during certain decades when there was a specific fashion everybody would stick too. Nowadays everyone wears whatever they want to.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 08/12/15 at 8:42 pm


This was huge right there. It has kinda seemed that way though. I see a lot of people using Twitter for posting what's on their minds while Instagram for just a bunch of pictures. While other folks make their choices on rather they want to use Vine, Tumblr, Snapcat, etc. or not. It does seem like there isn't a dominant website now. Although when I look at certain ad's online, or even go to football games for certain accounts or prizes, the first website that seems to come to mind is "Twitter". Everyone's mixing it up. But hey that kinda works with fashion clothes too. Wasn't there a time during certain decades when there was a specific fashion everybody would stick too. Nowadays everyone wears whatever they want to.

I'd say the big 3 are Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr because you can access them on anything, not just a phone. Not everyone wants to be social on a phone app.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/12/15 at 11:20 pm


Myspace's prime was in the core 2000's years.

Facebook's prime was a hybrid of late 2000's/early 2010's.

Twitter's prime is now in the core 2010's years.

So to conclude I wouldn't say that Facebook is strictly 2010's social media, it's definitely 2000's at the same time for sure. Maybe not to us but to college students in the mid 2000's and maybe high school students in the late 2000's Facebook is distinguishably 2000's social media for sure. Be aware that Facebook's max popularity here in the U.S. died out towards the end of 2012 and shifted over to Twitter. So we can't just say that Facebook is strictly 2010's, heck if Twitter's been the most popular since 2013, then technically speaking Facebook was more of a cultural late 2000's thing.

Facebook is much bigger today than it was in the late 00s. The user base is 4x larger and the site is better established than it was in 2009.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/12/15 at 11:30 pm


I'd say the big 3 are Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr because you can access them on anything, not just a phone. Not everyone wants to be social on a phone app.


Your right with the exception of tumblr. Maybe if your a SJW (lol jk). But in all seriousness tumblr never really caught on that quickly in comparison to facebook or twitter. It just doesn't have the mainstream appeal


Twitter didn't really replace Facebook, alot of people use it in addition to Facebook. It has a different format and people use it for different purposes. Alot of tweets I read have more of a reason behind them if you want to say that. Facebook is more to goof around, waste time, and have lighthearted chit chat. According to my observations anyway. Instagram is a phone and tablet app for pictures. SnapChat seems to be a thing among teenagers primarily. Tumblr is a popular platform for so called causes and soapboxing these days. Alot of people have left certain media in exchange for that.


True! I sort of mentioned that in reality there more than one dominant social media sites. Unlike 2009-2012 when facebook was dominant and 2005-2008 when myspace was dominant. Now we have facebook (though not in its prime anymore), twitter, instagram (yes its a phone app but it still sort of counts and is much bigger than facebook in many ways), SnapChat, & Vine (though the last two are much major hitters for people 3-4 years younger than me. Most people in college use these two rarely in comparison to twitter or instagram)

Also age plays a major factor like infinity mentioned.

I got my first social media account, a myspace account, in 2008 when I was in 7th grade, possibly the last school year myspace was relevant and more popular than facebook (well atleast to middle school kids at the time).

I think you mentioned once that you was born in the mid 80's by some chance?

Well you were probably (or people your age) chatting people on chatrooms like AIM in the late 90's, while I was editing my top 5 in myspace in the late 00's lol

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/13/15 at 9:53 am


Now we have facebook (though not in its prime anymore)

Facebook:
300 million 2009 "in it's prime"
1 billion+ 2015 " though not in its prime anymore"

My have times changed.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/13/15 at 9:57 am

Myspace wasn't relevant in 2009?
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/content_images/1/Figure%201%20-%20Sullivan.jpg

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/13/15 at 10:29 am


Facebook:
300 million 2009 "in it's prime"
1 billion+ 2015 " though not in its prime anymore"

My have times changed.


That's not accurate though, we're talking about at the time it was happening. Compare that 1 billion+ Facebook users to the amount of accounts that Twitter or Instagram have separately right now. That 300 million Facebook users in 2009 was definitely the highest compared to Myspace and definitely Twitter at the time.

Plus, it's pretty obvious that the amount of internet users are going to grow year by year in people's houses especially wifi. It's been doing that since the late 90's I believe, but it was slow then, now the growth has become much faster.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/13/15 at 10:31 am


Myspace wasn't relevant in 2009?
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/content_images/1/Figure%201%20-%20Sullivan.jpg


What I meant was that 2008 was the last full year myspace was more popular than facebook for the most part. The first half of 2009 myspace was still more popular but by the second half of that year things were already heading towards facebook territory. However myspace remained sort of relevant until early 2010

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/13/15 at 10:33 am


Myspace wasn't relevant in 2009?
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/content_images/1/Figure%201%20-%20Sullivan.jpg


Also how old are you? Because age plays a major factor in determining how you remember certain things. If I assume you was born in 97 that would mean you was in 6th grade during the last myspace school year

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/13/15 at 1:34 pm


That's not accurate though, we're talking about at the time it was happening. Compare that 1 billion+ Facebook users to the amount of accounts that Twitter or Instagram have separately right now. That 300 million Facebook users in 2009 was definitely the highest compared to Myspace and definitely Twitter at the time.

Plus, it's pretty obvious that the amount of internet users are going to grow year by year in people's houses especially wifi. It's been doing that since the late 90's I believe, but it was slow then, now the growth has become much faster.

Those numbers tell us that Facebook is much larger(yes even in percentage) today, more popular/well known, than it was in 2009. Yes, Facebook was a bit larger than the runner up social media sites back then, but it still dominates today as well and has a much bigger userbase, and therefore more influence than 2009.

@ocarinafan96
The point was to show that Myspace wasn't "dead" by 2009 as some users here make it out to be, it co-existed with Facebook and was more like a Google+ vs. FB rivalry than a curb stomp, at least not yet. CD buying didn't die or even decline very steeply the minute Napster came out.

96link=topic=51334.msg3281212#msg3281212 date=1439480019]
Also how old are you? Because age plays a major factor in determining how you remember certain things. If I assume you was born in 97 that would mean you was in 6th grade during the last myspace school year

You and I would've been as far as being in the same grade at the time, you would've noticed a difference. As I've said, location plays a part as well.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 08/13/15 at 2:45 pm


I'd say the big 3 are Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr because you can access them on anything, not just a phone. Not everyone wants to be social on a phone app.


don't forget Instagram.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 08/13/15 at 2:46 pm


Myspace wasn't relevant in 2009?
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/content_images/1/Figure%201%20-%20Sullivan.jpg


That's YouTube not MySpace.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/13/15 at 3:26 pm


That's YouTube not MySpace.

Look closer, to the bottom left.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/13/15 at 3:36 pm


That's YouTube not MySpace.


:o You've been on YouTube since 2006, and you don't know that Myspace was still relevant back then?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Howard on 08/13/15 at 3:42 pm


Look closer, to the bottom left.


I still see YouTube, Shemp.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/13/15 at 3:43 pm


I still see YouTube, Shemp.


He meant the share links on the bottom left.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/15/15 at 7:50 pm

Looking back at this thread, I'm gonna say it. 2009 is more of a half 2000s/half 2010s year. It had some stuff that were from the 2000s, but the trends and devices that were going to be cultural fads of the 2010s was starting to rise in this year. Hell, this was even the year when CN Real premiered and it didn't stop until late 2010 or something, despite having live-action shows until 2014.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/15/15 at 10:25 pm


Looking back at this thread, I'm gonna say it. 2009 is more of a half 2000s/half 2010s year. It had some stuff that were from the 2000s, but the trends and devices that were going to be cultural fads of the 2010s was starting to rise in this year. Hell, this was even the year when CN Real premiered and it didn't stop until late 2010 or something, despite having live-action shows until 2014.


2008 sounds more like half 2000's/half 2010's to me, since it was the transitional year from core 2000's to the beginning of 2010's culture phasing. 2009 is strictly no longer core 2000's and it felt like the start of a new decade in sense, the first full year Barack Obama was president and more stuff as well.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 08/15/15 at 10:55 pm

I feel that 2007-2011 is an era in itself, it was the era of the economic recession, and the 2008 stock market crash!

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/15/15 at 11:06 pm


I feel that 2007-2011 is an era in itself, it was the era of the economic recession, and the 2008 stock market crash!


I don't really feel that way.  I think we transitioned to mostly '10s culture at the very tail-end of 2009 going into 2010.  The '10s is the first decade since the 1980s that actually began on time.  Of course, as we go into the late '10s we will be able to look back at the early '10s with better perspective and you may very well be right.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: 80sfan on 08/15/15 at 11:18 pm


I don't really feel that way.  I think we transitioned to mostly '10s culture at the very tail-end of 2009 going into 2010.  The '10s is the first decade since the 1980s that actually began on time.  Of course, as we go into the late '10s we will be able to look back at the early '10s with better perspective and you may very well be right.


I think, economically, those years go together. But maybe pop culturally, they do not.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/15/15 at 11:51 pm


I feel that 2007-2011 is an era in itself, it was the era of the economic recession, and the 2008 stock market crash!


2008-2011 IMO, I would not put 2007 in the same boat as that period for many reasons. But I see what you're trying to refer to though.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/16/15 at 1:01 am

I'd change the boundaries to the era you speak of to September 15, 2008 (the starting point still being more 2000s than 2010s, but still the point when the Great Recession truly took off) through November, 2012.  2012 still had a very early 2010s, Great Recession-era vibe, with the Tea Party still being relevant, the unemployment rate still being terrible, gaming still in its seventh generation, gay marriage still being a heavily contested issue, most mid-2010s musicians not being popular yet, Breaking Bad still being on the air, and OITNB and House of Cards still on their way.  The period between the 2012 Election and the summer of 2013 was a blurry period of transition into the core 2010s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/15 at 8:25 am


2008 sounds more like half 2000's/half 2010's to me, since it was the transitional year from core 2000's to the beginning of 2010's culture phasing. 2009 is strictly no longer core 2000's and it felt like the start of a new decade in sense, the first full year Barack Obama was president and more stuff as well.


To me, the early and mid portion of 2009 was still late 2000s, but in the late portion, 2009 was more 2010s.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/25/15 at 8:24 pm


99'-01' - Pre School

01'-07 - Grade School

07'-10' - Middle School

10'-14' - High School

About the same EXCEPT,
1999-00 preschooler
2000-01 pre K                ;)

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: agoraphobicwhacko on 08/26/15 at 5:25 am

Jesus Christ. Haven't been here in eons, come back and this decadeology crap is rearing its ugly head again even with a sticky topic telling members its banned(for good reason). Not an administrator/moderator in sight to flush it down the toilet where it belongs? Wow.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 08/26/15 at 8:31 am


Looking back at this thread, I'm gonna say it. 2009 is more of a half 2000s/half 2010s year. It had some stuff that were from the 2000s, but the trends and devices that were going to be cultural fads of the 2010s was starting to rise in this year. Hell, this was even the year when CN Real premiered and it didn't stop until late 2010 or something, despite having live-action shows until 2014.

True it had it's blends, but it fits in more with the 2000's than it does with now. You know how some decades have that period of the last couple years and the first year or so of the next that has the new trends coming on and holdovers of the last? That's common. Alot of the stuff popular in the 10's began in the 2000's, just some of it wasn't on the radar or much of a big deal at the time. As for technological trends, Blackberry phones were all the rage in 2009 and didn't last long into the 10's at all. By 2011 androids were available and more affordable to prepaid users.


Jesus Christ. Haven't been here in eons, come back and this decadeology crap is rearing its ugly head again even with a sticky topic telling members its banned(for good reason). Not an administrator/moderator in sight to flush it down the toilet where it belongs? Wow.

Then why come back just to say that?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/26/15 at 8:46 am


True it had it's blends, but it fits in more with the 2000's than it does with now. You know how some decades have that period of the last couple years and the first year or so of the next that has the new trends coming on and holdovers of the last? That's common. Alot of the stuff popular in the 10's began in the 2000's, just some of it wasn't on the radar or much of a big deal at the time. As for technological trends, Blackberry phones were all the rage in 2009 and didn't last long into the 10's at all. By 2011 androids were available and more affordable to prepaid users.


So, most of the trends from this decade came from the 2000s? I don't really think that I would care for that, since most of this decade's culture just seems forgettable, except for 2010. That year would always be nostalgic for me because it had a 2000s atmosphere for me. But, I can get that smartphones and electropop (even though that music genre was only kept in the late 2000s/very early 2010s) were some of the things that you meant.


Then why come back just to say that?


He probably thought this thread wasn't a good idea since it talks about a topic that past InThe00s regulars would think it's taboo. But I don't think you should reply to that post, since he would probably backslash you or something. I honestly don't want to do it since I get really sensitive over people who are negative to me. Especially if they were trolls, despite the fact that this website has a strict no-trolling policy.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/26/15 at 9:32 am

This is how I personally see it:

2008-2009 - the transition between Core 00's/myspace era & Electropop/facebook Era (late 00's/early 10's culture)

2009-2010 - Electropop/facebook Era

2010-2011 - Electropop/facebook Era

2011-2012 - Electropop/facebook Era - Ultimate Electropop School Year

2012-2013 - the transition between Electropop/facebook Era & the Core 10's/Twitter Era

2013-2014 - Core 10's/Twitter Era

2014-2015 - Core 10's/Twitter Era

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: KatanaChick on 08/26/15 at 9:34 am


So, most of the trends from this decade came from the 2000s? I don't really think that I would care for that, since most of this decade's culture just seems forgettable, except for 2010. That year would always be nostalgic for me because it had a 2000s atmosphere for me. But, I can get that smartphones and electropop (even though that music genre was only kept in the late 2000s/very early 2010s) were some of the things that you meant.

He probably thought this thread wasn't a good idea since it talks about a topic that past InThe00s regulars would think it's taboo. But I don't think you should reply to that post, since he would probably backslash you or something. I honestly don't want to do it since I get really sensitive over people who are negative to me. Especially if they were trolls, despite the fact that this website has a strict no-trolling policy.

The stuff from 2009, the skinny jeans, bright colors, and old smart phones are the kinds of things that evolved to be predominantly 10's. They had to start somewhere. Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr were invented in the 2000's and are a big deal in the 10's. Instagram came about in 2010 when those androids were quickly replacing older phones for everyone.

You can't say everyone who is disagreeable is a troll, but the decadeology taboo came about because of trolling from what I've read. These discussions aren't being made to be purposely disruptive, just by people who are nostalgic. I can agree it does get repetitive, but maybe a stickied topic to combine it all together in one discussion area would cut down on it?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/26/15 at 10:19 am


You can't say everyone who is disagreeable is a troll, but the decadeology taboo came about because of trolling from what I've read. These discussions aren't being made to be purposely disruptive, just by people who are nostalgic. I can agree it does get repetitive, but maybe a stickied topic to combine it all together in one discussion area would cut down on it?


I'm not saying that agoraphobicwhacko is a troll. I'm saying that he would probably think this thread isn't a good idea, since he believes that this thread shares a trait with decadeology.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 08/26/15 at 1:43 pm


The stuff from 2009, the skinny jeans, bright colors, and old smart phones are the kinds of things that evolved to be predominantly 10's. They had to start somewhere. Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr were invented in the 2000's and are a big deal in the 10's. Instagram came about in 2010 when those androids were quickly replacing older phones for everyone.


Very early 2010's, but not core. All those things went the way of the uncool in 2012, hence beginning the era we are in today.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/26/15 at 1:58 pm


Very early 2010's, but not core. All those things went the way of the uncool in 2012, hence beginning the era we are in today.


I agree thats the electropop era which was the very end of 00's culture and the very beggining of 10's culture with its own distinct culture

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/26/15 at 2:41 pm


I'm not saying that agoraphobicwhacko is a troll. I'm saying that he would probably think this thread isn't a good idea, since he believes that this thread shares a trait with decadeology.


I find the decadeology label really vague, honestly, because analyzing the progression of social trends is inescapably a huge part of any debate regarding decade culture.  There was one thread that was shut down a couple months ago as "obvious decadeology nonsense" about 2008 being the last year of the classic 2000s (http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=51565.0), which doesn't sound any more decadeologic than this thread, yet the latter has survived for 24 pages and counting, so I really don't understand what puts the former in taboo category, especially when there wasn't any serious trolling in that thread.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/26/15 at 3:39 pm


Very early 2010's, but not core. All those things went the way of the uncool in 2012, hence beginning the era we are in today.


Yeah, I remember between the 2011-2012 school year and the 2012-2013 school year there was an attitude change with the fashion. Before it had that very late 2000's/very early 2010's style of fashion when name brands were still a thing with specific hairstyles, since the 2012-2013 school year it doesn't matter what you wear in this hipster/twitter era and everybody has all kinds of wacky hairstyles now.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/26/15 at 3:44 pm


I find the decadeology label really vague, honestly, because analyzing the progression of social trends is inescapably a huge part of any debate regarding decade culture.  There was one thread that was shut down a couple months ago as "obvious decadeology nonsense" about 2008 being the last year of the classic 2000s (http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=51565.0), which doesn't sound any more decadeologic than this thread, yet the latter has survived for 24 pages and counting, so I really don't understand what puts the former in taboo category, especially when there wasn't any serious trolling in that thread.


This. I still don't understand why that thread was shutdown either, HELLO it's called "inthe00s" for a reason and we're on topic about the culture and what was relevant during the time. It's not a bad thing to make comparisons or analysis from the past to support your opinion. How is that getting off the topic of the thread? Why does somebody get offended over "decadelogy" in general? ::) and yeah I'm surprised this one has managed to last much longer.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: agoraphobicwhacko on 08/26/15 at 9:43 pm


Then why come back just to say that?
I didn't come back just to say that. I came back because this was a great site and hadn't checked it out in ages. I was surprised to see this dominating the site again and it's actually even worse this time around which should have been impossible.  I'm surprised more people aren't saying anything but they probably already did before logging out for the last time, which is what I'm going to do after submitting this post.


But I don't think you should reply to that post, since he would probably backslash you or something.
That's funny. Don't worry, your precious karma will not receive a "backslash" from me.


Especially if they were trolls, despite the fact that this website has a strict no-trolling policy.
Now THAT is funny.



The trolls would be the people doing what it clearly states here not to do. It's obvious though that the site isn't like it used to be and they'll probably let you do this sort of thing just to have some activity here. Years ago this crap would have been flushed but now it gets to thrive. Go figure. The comical thing about it is that the warnings are still here yet completely ignored.

Since they're going to let the lunatics run the asylum, all these warnings, sticky topics,etc. dealing with this should be deleted and replaced with topics stating that it's the main focus of the forum now so long time members shouldn't even bother to check it out anymore. Besides long time members of this community no longer here, I've noticed that even some of the moderators haven't logged in for a year or so, meaning that is probably when this started happening again. Instead of deleting this stuff which is what they should have been doing, looks like they just gave up and walked away.

Since checking out various sections of the forum it looks like its centered around "decadeology" and caters to the type of people who troll youtube. Definitely not up my alley but have fun.

Chucky....

Always loved your site even though I would go long periods without posting. I'm really surprised you let it go in this direction but I understand it to a degree. Forums in general are not as popular as they used to be so I guess you feel the need to cater to these types of people. With a lot of people focusing more on social media when using the internet I guess catering to the bottom of the barrel was necessary. If I was in your position I would have been happy with the community that was already here and I'm sure you still got new members from time to time.

I wont be here to see it but here's my prediction...

This is going to kill the forum just like it almost did a few years ago. These "Is 2009 really 2007?", "Did the 1980s start in 1985?", "2004 is really 1998",etc. discussions are vomit inducing to people with functioning brains.

I wish you luck on dealing with this tripe.


Why does somebody get offended over "decadelogy" in general? ::)
It should be obvious. It's asinine, repetitive, trollish drivel that caters to the lowest common denominator which is why it was stopped years ago.

Don't worry though. It's obvious that Chucky and whatever moderators are still here that haven't jumped ship are going to let you enjoy it. Now you guys get to overdose on "Is 1987 really 1985?" discussions.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/26/15 at 9:56 pm


This is going to kill the forum just like it almost did a few years ago. These "Is 2009 really 2007?", "Did the 1980s start in 1985?", "2004 is really 1998",etc. discussions are vomit inducing to people with functioning brains.

I wish you luck on dealing with this tripe.
It should be obvious. It's asinine, repetitive, trollish drivel that caters to the lowest common denominator which is why it was stopped years ago.

Don't worry though. It's obvious that Chucky and whatever moderators are still here that haven't jumped ship are going to let you enjoy it. Now you guys get to overdose on "Is 1987 really 1985?" discussions.


But we do those discussions because we're nostalgic about our childhood decades (especially with myself being nostalgic with the 2000s). This is basically the only forum on the Internet right now where I wouldn't become a laughingstock, since I respond to most trolls on the other forums. Without this website, I don't know what to do besides looking through other people's crap on the YouTube comment sections. And what's the point of when you said that discussions like "Is 1987 just 1985"? Are you saying that we aren't that smart because we always make discussions that are related to decadeology?

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 08/26/15 at 10:17 pm


2008 sounds more like half 2000's/half 2010's to me, since it was the transitional year from core 2000's to the beginning of 2010's culture phasing. 2009 is strictly no longer core 2000's and it felt like the start of a new decade in sense, the first full year Barack Obama was president and more stuff as well.

Definitely not. Heck I still have walmart printed digital camera photos on my wall from 2008.
2008 is one if the most vivid memories of events I have if the 00s, as it was the year I graduated and went to middle school. Thinking back to the life I used to live and the culture around me, it felt like a very old, very basic world. I can see how 2009 feels like a precursor to the 10s but 08 is way too distant.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/26/15 at 10:22 pm


Definitely not. Heck I still have walmart printed digital camera photos on my wall from 2008.
2008 is one if the most vivid memories of events I have if the 00s, as it was the year I graduated and went to middle school. Thinking back to the life I used to live and the culture around me, it felt like a very old, very basic world. I can see how 2009 feels like a precursor to the 10s but 08 is way too distant.


Probably because you live in Canada, here in the U.S. 2008 is definitely not a core 2000's year, and we're talking about politically, pop culturally, music wise, and worldly all combined together. Just like how 2003 is not a core 2000's year yet but I don't understand why a lot of people consider 2003 as a core 2000's year despite everything fashion and politically wise being core 2000's by then, pop culturally 2003 was still the final year of late 90's influences. 2008 was the transition out from core 2000's to early 2010's culture, while 2003 was the transition out from early 2000's to core 2000's. Here in the U.S. 2004-2007 was truly the core 2000's years in everything that defined the era 100% politically, pop culturally, music wise, and worldly.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/26/15 at 10:29 pm


It should be obvious. It's asinine, repetitive, trollish drivel that caters to the lowest common denominator which is why it was stopped years ago.

Don't worry though. It's obvious that Chucky and whatever moderators are still here that haven't jumped ship are going to let you enjoy it. Now you guys get to overdose on "Is 1987 really 1985?" discussions.


Asinine is just an opinion of yours, not everybody agrees, but repetitive I can definitely understand what you're saying. It's best to do it sparingly to support a topic once in a while but not too repetitively. Look man, if there's anything I'd do to make everyone's lives on this site feel so much better, I'd do so any day. My apologies to you and the administrator (Chucky) and I'll think before I'll post more often if I've been guilty of this so called "decadeology" thing or whatever you call it. It's just that I don't understand how having a discussion with somebody based off certain years if we're comparing them to support a topic based off the pop culture or political world, is considered as "trolling". But I'll be aware though.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/27/15 at 11:34 am

The trolls would be the people doing what it clearly states here not to do. It's obvious though that the site isn't like it used to be and they'll probably let you do this sort of thing just to have some activity here. Years ago this crap would have been flushed but now it gets to thrive. Go figure. The comical thing about it is that the warnings are still here yet completely ignored.


I just wish I understood better what qualifies as decadeology because I'm honestly afraid to post anything at all here if the administrative attitude towards the matter is this unforgiving.

Part of the reason I'm still confused is because of this, quoted from the sticky:

You can go into as much detail or analysis about a year, decade, and so on as you like. Threads like (hypothetical names here) "Why 1994 was great", "My favorite year of the 80s" or "Why the 60s ruled" are okay. Histories and timelines are fine as well.

A better topic might be "What did people think of the 80s in the 90s?" or better still "How were the 80s perceived in the 90s?. That way you open up the discussion to more than one year, and it's all encompassing. It's still a grey area, but I can't create 100 basically identical topics from that question.

If you ask me, this thread is pretty much in the same vein as the "acceptable" examples from the sticky.  If the title omitted the reference to a specific year and was instead called "did the 2000s end early?," then it seems to me it would be completely acceptable, even though the posts would've turned out basically the same.  If you notice, most of the discussion in this thread does not even focus on 2009, instead going down a lot of diverse and interesting tangents; the question in the OP was really more of a starting point than anything else.  The same type of thing goes with the other thread that was locked; I figure it likely would've stayed open if it was called "what was the last year of the classic 2000s?," even though 2008 would probably be mentioned almost just as much as with the original title.  Even with the year-specific title, however, I certainly don't see how this thread is anything as pointless as "Is 1987 really 1985" or "why 2005 was actually 1991." I could understand how "Is 2005 really a 2000s year" would be dumb, but 2009 came at the very end of the 2000s decade, so it makes perfect sense that people would debate whether they remember the transition into what would become 2010s culture occurring that year or not until later.  It's a topic that discusses how people felt about 2009 and the trends that shaped it for them, with mini-histories and timelines of specific culture (both of which are okayed in the sticky, as quoted above) pertaining to the year.  It's not just a meaningless subject with repetitive comparisons between 2009 and years that have nothing to do with 2009.

I don't know what Chucky's specific opinion on this thread, considering he's remained active to this date and still hasn't closed it down, but I would still like the boundaries of decadeology to be outlined more concretely because as much as I want to respect the guidelines of this board, I don't want to feel like I'm putting myself in the same category as a YouTube troll just because I need to refer to one year in order to analyze the specifics of another.  I'm now curious to know just how rude and chaotic these topics got in leading up to the no-tolerance policy on decadeology, because this thread seems pretty civil and fruitful all the way through.  However, if a respected veteran of this site like you thinks these threads are just as horrible as the ones that came before, then I think the ban should at least be re-articulated.  I don't think people here are actively ignoring the sticky so much as they don't see most of the recent year-categorization topics nearly as negatively as the mods saw whatever threads that led to the zero-tolerance policy, so they don't realize when they're crossing the line despite just wanting to discuss their general opinions about certain years.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/27/15 at 11:38 am


2008 was the transition out from core 2000's to early 2010's culture, while 2003 was the transition out from early 2000's to core 2000's.


2008 was pure late 2000s.  It was not core 2000s nor was it 2010s. 

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Shemp97 on 09/02/15 at 7:40 pm


2008 was pure late 2000s.  It was not core 2000s nor was it 2010s.

Depends on what you look at. Aside from the movies, it doesn't separate itself from 2006 that much.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/02/15 at 8:01 pm


Depends on what you look at. Aside from the movies, it doesn't separate itself from 2006 that much.


It's more like 2007 movie-wise if we're talking about 2008.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: ArcticFox on 09/02/15 at 10:04 pm

Yes?  ???

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: bchris02 on 09/02/15 at 10:08 pm


It's more like 2007 movie-wise if we're talking about 2008.


I agree with this.  Movies during the 2007-09 era had their own style.  Mockumentaries were hugely popular at that time as were political comedies.  3D movies were hitting mainstream.  The Marvel explosion of the '10s had not occurred yet.  That was also the end of an era for horror as well as Paranormal Activity completely changed the genre in 2009.

Subject: Re: Is 2009 really a 2000s year?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 09/04/15 at 7:41 pm


I agree with this.  Movies during the 2007-09 era had their own style.  Mockumentaries were hugely popular at that time as were political comedies.  3D movies were hitting mainstream.  The Marvel explosion of the '10s had not occurred yet.  That was also the end of an era for horror as well as Paranormal Activity completely changed the genre in 2009.

Marvel was going through a DARK period until the MCU boom!

Check for new replies or respond here...