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: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: sonic2005 on 11/28/15 at 11:39 am

it seems when most people are discussing the 2000s its always the early or late 00s when it comes to nostalgia people say they miss the early 00s
do you feel like the mid 00s is often left in the shadows??

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/28/15 at 3:33 pm

I guess because it came after the early 2000s and before the late 2000s both were impactful time periods for MANY different reasons. The mid 2000s kind a seem in between if you know what I mean! ;D

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: SpyroKev on 11/28/15 at 4:34 pm

I say give it more time. Mid 2000s nostalgia will kick in for them once the 2010s end. As I look back 2004-2006, the nostalgia is seriously there. Its odd to me how their nostalgia can skip to the late 2000s when the late 2000s barely had atmosphere.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: Howard on 11/28/15 at 4:57 pm


I say give it more time. Mid 2000s nostalgia will kick in for them once the 2010s end. As I look back 2004-2006, the nostalgia is seriously there. Its odd to me how their nostalgia can skip to the late 2000s when the late 2000s barely had atmosphere.


Yeah, I agree give the nostalgia feel about another 5-10 more years.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: #Infinity on 11/28/15 at 5:09 pm

For one thing, the mid 2000s didn't really have as much of an identifiable feel the way the early and late 2000s did.  They were predominantly defined by transition - post-9/11 patriotism slowly evolved into anti-Bush backlash, 50 Cent and Eminem gradually got overtaken by snap artists like Chris Brown and T-Pain, sixth generation video games slowly got overtaken by seventh generation ones (particularly the DS and XBOX 360 during this period), pop punk slowly made way for pop emo, iPods and iTunes grew more and more popular, and the Web 1.0 gradually transformed into the Web 2.0.  2004 and 2006 were pretty different years; by contrast, 2003 was not so different from late 2001.  I loved 2004 but hated late 2005 and early 2006 (though the late 2000s were an improvement from the latter period).  Sure, the mid 2000s definitely had their key figures, such as Lil' Jon and Lindsay Lohan, but they mostly felt caught in-between two axes of influence (the early 2000s and late 2000s), as opposed to being a solid, coherent era of their own.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: 80sfan on 11/28/15 at 6:38 pm

At the time, the mid-00s seemed to get more attention than the early.

2003-2005. Crunk was everywhere. Rap was in full gear. The recession of the early 00s was over. Myspace was popular.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: bchris02 on 11/28/15 at 7:35 pm


I guess because it came after the early 2000s and before the late 2000s both were impactful time periods for MANY different reasons. The mid 2000s kind a seem in between if you know what I mean! ;D


This.

The mid-00s weren't as significant from a cultural, political, or world events standpoint as the early '00s and late '00s were.  As long as you didn't live in New Orleans in 2005 or as long as you didn't have to fight in Iraq, those years were pretty tranquil.  The country for the most part had moved past 9/11 and was enjoying an economic boom off the back of the real-estate industry.  They were good years, but not real significant.  Looking back in my own life, I often confuse the events of 2005 and 2006 because the two years were so similar and so unremarkable. 

These years definitely had their own culture though and its also where the groundwork was laid for the late '00s and that in itself makes the era significant.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: mqg96 on 11/28/15 at 7:35 pm


At the time, the mid-00s seemed to get more attention than the early.

2003-2005. Crunk was everywhere. Rap was in full gear. The recession of the early 00s was over. Myspace was popular.


The mid 2000's was 2004-2006. Myspace was just getting started in August 2003 and the early 2000's recession still continued throughout most of 2003. Although, I'd still consider 2003 as a transitional year though. 2003 was kinda like half early 2000's and half core 2000's overall.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/28/15 at 7:47 pm


This.

The mid-00s weren't as significant from a cultural, political, or world events standpoint as the early '00s and late '00s were.  As long as you didn't live in New Orleans in 2005 or as long as you didn't have to fight in Iraq, those years were pretty tranquil.  The country for the most part had moved past 9/11 and was enjoying an economic boom off the back of the real-estate industry.  They were good years, but not real significant.  Looking back in my own life, I often confuse the events of 2005 and 2006 because the two years were so similar and so unremarkable. 

These years definitely had their own culture though and its also where the groundwork was laid for the late '00s and that in itself makes the era significant.


Hence why I am starting have a lot of love for the mid 2000's. It was like a dream world before it all started to change (for better and for worse) in the late 2000's. Heck I started noticing a shift around in mid 2007, when the Housing Bubble began to pop and when technology advancement was at an all time fast rate with the announcement of the iPhone, the internet becoming a neccisity as we see it today, social media getting big, HDTVs starting to become common and HD Video Game consoles, cell phones everywhere and texting now huge, etc.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/28/15 at 7:48 pm


The mid 2000's was 2004-2006. Myspace was just getting started in August 2003 and the early 2000's recession still continued throughout most of 2003. Although, I'd still consider 2003 as a transitional year though. 2003 was kinda like half early 2000's and half core 2000's overall.


I agree, 2003 is weird but overall I would consider it more of an early 00's year even though mathematically its more of a hybrid between early/mid 00's

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/28/15 at 9:44 pm

I can see why someone would say this. All the nostalgia does do to the early 2000's. That being said: 2000-2002 for life!

I noticed a lot of 2003 debate here and since I am such an early 00's enthusiast I'll just give my opinion.
Mostly coming from my personal experience during the year I'd say 2003 was pretty different than 2000-2002 was.

From an American viewpoint, it was the first year without any of the teenybopper stuff. It just barely survived into 2001 and 2002 but you still had the final single and album releases by the big groups except for B2K. I don't remember anything else teen pop related coming out in 2003. In Europe, I'd say 2003 is probably the last year for that stuff.

This is also the year DVD and Broadband overtook Dial Up and DVD which are two things that were very common in the 2000's. It wasn't until 2004 that the ipod overtook the CD Player (to my memory) but it was getting there. There is a 50 Cent video (the name escapes me at the moment) and he is using an ipod at the beginning which to me, looking back it it, it feels like a sign of the times.

My Chemical Romance and Green Day started the recording of two albums that would go on to define what is was to be a rock band in the mid and late 2000's. The fact that they were recording albums this big screams out transition to me. Same with Fall Out Boy. Listen to their "Evening Out With Your Girlfriend" that was released in early 2003. Some songs sound like Pop Punk from 1996 and then listen to their "Take this To Your Grave" from mid 2003. It sounds like the bridge between the Pop Punk me and my friends listened to from 1996-2002 and the stuff coming out from 2004 to now.

Nu Metal was on it's last legs in 2003. It didn't feel like that during the rest of the early 2000's. Being a teen/young adult during the Nu Metal era was funny. I remember seeing Korn on the radio and TV all the god damn time! It was either Korn, Limp Bizkit (yes, even after Wes left they were still referred to as one of the biggest bands of all time), Papa Roach, Linkin Park, System of a Down or Slipknot. That was the main angsty rock music to go to. 2003 is when we started moving away from that. Once 2004 hit, all those bands changed their style (like Papa Roach) or went into hiding (like Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park who did come back in 2007 after a style change).

It's also the last year that Emo meant bands like Jimmy Eat World (who were the very face of emo in 2001 and 2002. You mention Emo and people would say "oh, you mean Jimmy Eat World!") and then it completely changed into what it is known for today around 2004.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: Mat1991 on 11/28/15 at 10:16 pm

The mid '00s were the same years as my junior high and early adolescence, which was a very awkward and difficult time in my life and because of that, I have no nostalgia at all for that period, and I doubt I ever will.

I don't recall being much into the pop culture at the time, either. I did dabble in the beginnings of the anime craze of the time and developed a very strong interest in all things Japanese (probably the only part of the period I might have some nostalgia for), and I liked Green Day and became a huge fan of Degrassi around 2005. Other than that, I didn't care for anything pop culture-wise.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: 80sfan on 11/28/15 at 11:19 pm


The mid 2000's was 2004-2006. Myspace was just getting started in August 2003 and the early 2000's recession still continued throughout most of 2003. Although, I'd still consider 2003 as a transitional year though. 2003 was kinda like half early 2000's and half core 2000's overall.


Culturally 2004-2006 was, maybe. But it was more like 2003-2006, literally.

2003 wasn't a transition year, at least not to me. 2003 was pretty 00s, if you ask me. By Summer of 2003, the mid-00s was in full swing. Yes, there was probably some sprinkles of 90s, here and there. But 2003 was kind of like 1993, of the 90s to me. Yes, there was some 80s in it ,but it was overall pretty 90s.

50 cent and Beyonce aren't 90s artists to me. Both went solo in 2003.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: bchris02 on 11/29/15 at 11:43 am

I still place 2003 in the early '00s but not the Y2K era.  The year didn't have the teen pop/boy bands, Pokemania, etc that exemplified the Y2K era.  It was still very early '00s however.  Here's why.

Dial-up was still more popular than broadband, despite broadband becoming more popular.  MySpace didn't exist yet and it was still very much a Web 1.0 world.  The crunk and snap rap era was not yet in full swing.  2003 was the last year pop-punk and R&B boy bands like B2K were popular.  Bush was still very popular as the war in Iraq began that year.  Multicam sitcoms were still prevalent that year.  Culturally I would say it definitely belongs with the early '00s but it was the finale.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: #Infinity on 11/29/15 at 12:01 pm

Dial-up was still more popular than broadband, despite broadband becoming more popular.  MySpace didn't exist yet and it was still very much a Web 1.0 world.

MySpace was actually launched in August 2003, though it certainly wasn't a pop cultural force yet.

The crunk and snap rap era was not yet in full swing.

I don't know, the last third of 2003 had both Get Low, as well as Damn!, both of which were top 5 hits (Shake Ya Tailfeather is apparently classified as "crunk" as well, though I personally think it sounds much more early 2000s).  The Neptunes were still the most popular producers at the time, though.

2003 was the last year pop-punk and R&B boy bands like B2K were popular.

I would say 2004 was the last time pop-punk groups were still really successful.  blink-182 didn't break up until 2005 and had one of their biggest songs in 2004 with I Miss You.  There was also Bowling for Soup's 1985, which totally dominated the airwaves that summer, plus Good Charlotte's Predictable and Green Day's American Idiot.  At the same time, 2004 was definitely about the time the mid-late 2000s-style pop-emo trend began to emerge full-force (i.e., Ocean Avenue, Vindicated), so it was clearly transitional, but I'd say pop-punk didn't fully die off until about after the summer of 2005 (after Green Day's Holiday peaked on the charts and when Fall Out Boy and The All-American Rejects became popular).

Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments.  2003 was definitely an early 2000s year, but it was the twilight of the early 2000s.  By the time the year approached its end, pop culture was transforming at a pretty rapid pace.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/29/15 at 12:26 pm


I would say 2004 was the last time pop-punk groups were still really successful.  blink-182 didn't break up until 2005 and had one of their biggest songs in 2004 with I Miss You.  There was also Bowling for Soup's 1985, which totally dominated the airwaves that summer; Good Charlotte's Predictable, and Green Day's American Idiot.  At the same time, 2004 was definitely about the time the mid-late 2000s-style pop-emo trend began to emerge full-force (i.e., Ocean Avenue, Vindicated), so it was clearly transitional, but I'd say pop-punk didn't fully die off until about after the summer of 2005 (after Green Day's Holiday peaked on the charts and when Fall Out Boy and The All-American Rejects became popular).


I thought by that he meant the last time Pop Punk bands of the late 90's/early 00's style were popular, which is true. You're kinda right, though. 2004 did have some of the early 00's leftovers but most of the releases had already adapted to the new sound. Vindicated still sounds very late 90s/early 00's emo to me. It's kind of funny because Peter Parker in that video gives off an Emo vibe in that video because of his glasses and everything. I don't know what I'd say about Yellowcard, though. Ocean Avenue is kind of in the middle of both styles. I'd say that maybe the mid 2000's Pop Punk sound was very popular until maybe 2009 or 2010. 21st Century Breakdown was a pretty big hit if I remember correctly.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: bchris02 on 11/29/15 at 12:39 pm


MySpace was actually launched in August 2003, though it certainly wasn't a pop cultural force yet.


MySpace in 2003 was still a file sharing and storage site.  In 2004 it transitioned to being a social networking site



I don't know, the last third of 2003 had both Get Low, as well as Damn!, both of which were top 5 hits (Shake Ya Tailfeather is apparently classified as "crunk" as well, though I personally think it sounds much more early 2000s).  The Neptunes were still the most popular producers at the time, though.


If you want to go all the way back, Bia Bia in 2001 started "crunk."  I agree though in late 2003 it started to pick up steam.  It peaked in 2005 however.  The video below, absolutely, could not be made in 2015 with our current SJW culture.

czpZvVyQN5o



I would say 2004 was the last time pop-punk groups were still really successful.  blink-182 didn't break up until 2005 and had one of their biggest songs in 2004 with I Miss You.  There was also Bowling for Soup's 1985, which totally dominated the airwaves that summer, plus Good Charlotte's Predictable and Green Day's American Idiot.  At the same time, 2004 was definitely about the time the mid-late 2000s-style pop-emo trend began to emerge full-force (i.e., Ocean Avenue, Vindicated), so it was clearly transitional, but I'd say pop-punk didn't fully die off until about after the summer of 2005 (after Green Day's Holiday peaked on the charts and when Fall Out Boy and The All-American Rejects became popular).


Now that I think of it, punk pop did hold on until 2005.  Sum 41 had a pretty popular song in early 2005 and then Green Day was huge that summer. Overall though, the genre really dropped off in popularity in late 2003.  I Miss You and 1985 were never played very much on the radio in my area. They were played some, but they took a back seat to the hip-hop and R&B during the summer of 2004.

The last pop punk song I remember getting serious radio airplay in my area was Punk Rock 101 in the fall of 2003.

Ajq4Ek-jChA

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 11/29/15 at 6:23 pm


I would say 2004 was the last time pop-punk groups were still really successful.  blink-182 didn't break up until 2005 and had one of their biggest songs in 2004 with I Miss You.  There was also Bowling for Soup's 1985, which totally dominated the airwaves that summer, plus Good Charlotte's Predictable and Green Day's American Idiot.  At the same time, 2004 was definitely about the time the mid-late 2000s-style pop-emo trend began to emerge full-force (i.e., Ocean Avenue, Vindicated), so it was clearly transitional, but I'd say pop-punk didn't fully die off until about after the summer of 2005 (after Green Day's Holiday peaked on the charts and when Fall Out Boy and The All-American Rejects became popular).


Pop-Punk was in an interesting place around this time. 2003 was unquestionably a solid year for the genre, but you could arguably already see the influence of Emo beginning to seep in to it even then. Until the Day I Die by Story of the Year, Blue and Yellow by The Used, and Girl's Not Grey by AFI all reached the top 15 on the Billboard alt charts, and each had a clear "early Emo" vibe. Still there were big "traditional" Pop-Punk hits in '03 too, like Hit That by The Offspring and that Boys of Summer cover by The Ataris.

2004 was the first year that Emo really began to emerge as a cultural force on it's own, even though it wouldn't fully do so until Sugar We're Goin' Down came out in 2005. Vindicated by Dashboard Confessional was a fairly big hit that year thanks to Spider-Man 2, and the other song you mentioned, Ocean Avenue, was nearly inescapable on Modern Rock radio stations. Miss You was the last big hit for Blink-182, and American Idiot could be looked at as sort of a "last gasp" for the Pop-Punk genre in general.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/29/15 at 6:45 pm


Pop-Punk was in an interesting place around this time. 2003 was unquestionably a solid year for the genre, but you could arguably already see the influence of Emo beginning to seep in to it even then. Until the Day I Die by Story of the Year, Blue and Yellow by The Used, and Girl's Not Grey by AFI all reached the top 15 on the Billboard alt charts, and each had a clear "early Emo" vibe. Still there were big "traditional" Pop-Punk hits in '03 too, like Hit That by The Offspring and that Boys of Summer cover by The Ataris.


I'd argue that the emo influence was already there by 1996 and moreso in 1997. You already had bands that are pretty much 50/50 on the Emo or Pop Punk scale like the Get Up Kids who got really big around 1999 and then you had bands like the Promise Ring, The Movielife, Saves The Day, Lifetime... I could go on forever. Also, bands like blink-182, The Ataris, The Starting Line, New Found Glory were all Pop Punk bands who had emo influences. On Dude Ranch, Mark Hoppus wrote a song called Emo as a tribute to Jimmy Eat World. New Found Glory also mentioned listening to a lot of emo bands like Jimmy Eat World and The Promise Ring. 

Thing about American Idiot is that album and Three Cheers by My Chemical Romance is that those two albums cemented the new sound and style of Emo and Pop Punk. Things weren't like that before. It was creeping in during 2003 but it was still mostly the old style that I was used to. In 2004 it's like all those genres: Pop Punk, Screamo, Emo and Post-Hardcore just got sucked into this one big thing, went through a style change and make-over and became what everyone now calls Emo Pop.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: #Infinity on 11/29/15 at 7:05 pm

Thing about American Idiot is that album and Three Cheer by My Chemical Romance is that those two albums cemented the new sound and style of Emo and Pop Punk. Things weren't like that before. It was creeping in during 2003 but it was still mostly the old style that I was used to. In 2004 it's like all those genres: Pop Punk, Screamo, Emo and Post-Hardcore just got sucked into this one big thing, went through a style change and make-over and became what everyone now calls Emo Pop.


American Idiot's legacy in rock history is actually rather complicated.  Some of its tracks harken directly back to the mid-late 90s - the title track sounds extremely similar to J.A.R. from the Angus soundtrack from 1995, St. Jimmy resembles a lot of the faster-paced songs from Nimrod, and even Holiday can be vaguely compared to Longview.  However, there are also a bunch of songs that frankly aren't even pop punk at all, like Boulevard of Broken Dreams and Wake Me Up When September Ends, which are easier to simply classify as pop rock or even post-grunge.  What ultimately sets American Idiot apart from Green Day's earlier work, first, are the overtly political lyrics, and second, the rock opera approach that holds the entire album together.  However, neither of these qualities were really that prominent in most pop-punk or emo in the mid-late 2000s; My Chemical Romance composed a lot of songs of a similarly epic quality as the stuff from American Idiot, but for the most part, the radio in 2005-2009 was comprised of straightforward, accessible, relationship-themed pop rock.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/29/15 at 7:19 pm


American Idiot's place in rock's development is actually rather complicated.  Some of its tracks harken directly back to the mid-late 90s - the title track sounds extremely similar to J.A.R. from the Angus soundtrack from 1995, St. Jimmy resembles a lot of the faster-paced songs from Nimrod, and even Holiday can be vaguely compared to Longview.  However, there are also a bunch of songs that frankly aren't even pop punk at all, like Boulevard of Broken Dreams and Wake Me Up When September Ends, which are easier to simply classify as pop rock or even post-grunge.  What ultimately sets American Idiot apart from Green Day's earlier work, first, are the overtly political lyrics, and second, the rock opera approach that holds the entire album together.  However, neither of these qualities were really that prominent in most pop-punk or emo in the mid-late 2000s; My Chemical Romance composed a lot of songs of a similarly epic quality as the stuff from American Idiot, but for the most part, the radio in 2005-2009 was comprised of straightforward, accessible, relationship-themed pop rock.


I disagree. The production, the style of singing, the whole way it's put together completely sets it apart from the way nimrod, J.A.R. and Longview were put together. It's very mid-00's to me. The late 90's/early 00's Pop Punk was based off of that "we don't know how to play or sing nor do we care" early Punk attitude from the 70's whereas, in the mid-00's, you had these guys singing like they're in choirs or theater productions. The older bands consisted of dudes who looked and acted like slackers and that attitude showed in their music. Even early Fall Out Boy on Evening Out With Your Girlfriend had that attitude. In the mid-00's, it was all about being dark and gloomy. Tons of make up and tight pants and it was a lot more feminine musically and style wise. It was also very pretentious and serious. Pop Punk wasn't like that before. It was more about having fun back in those days. Even Emo was a lot more fun and less pretentious until 2004 when From First to Last and Aiden came out with their debuts. I agree that those songs aren't Pop Punk but I wouldn't call them Post-Grunge either but that's another discussion. The whole album isn't really political at all except for American Idiot and Holiday (but you do have a point. This marked a change in direction for the band's image. Posturing as political activists). The early Pop Punk bands were a lot more straight forward than the mid-00's bands (they also had a lot more heart in it, too, in my opinion). It was all loud guitars and drums Rock (and there is nothing wrong with that. Quality over quantity and they had the attitude) whereas the mid-00's bands were slower and softer and added a bunch of unnecessary elements into their music.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: #Infinity on 11/29/15 at 7:46 pm


I disagree. The production, the style of singing, the whole way it's put together completely sets it apart from the way nimrod, J.A.R. and Longview were put together. It's very mid-00's to me. The late 90's/early 00's Pop Punk was based off of that "we don't know how to play or sing nor do we care" early Punk attitude from the 70's whereas, in the mid-00's, you had these guys singing like they're in choirs or theater productions.


Lyrically, the song American Idiot is a lot more serious and confrontational than Green Day's older work, but how can't you hear the production similarities between that song and J.A.R.?  The instrumentation, riff style, and chord progression are all remarkably similar between the two tracks.  I wouldn't really say American Idiot sounds a whole lot like Green Day's other mid-90s songs, which had different progressions and more distorted guitars, but at the very least, American Idiot bears an incredible musical resemblance to J.A.R.

Subject: Re: do you feel the mid-2000s is over looked??

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/29/15 at 7:58 pm


Lyrically, the song American Idiot is a lot more serious and confrontational than Green Day's older work, but how can't you hear the production similarities between that song and J.A.R.?  The instrumentation, riff style, and chord progression are all remarkably similar between the two tracks.  I wouldn't really say American Idiot sounds a whole lot like Green Day's other mid-90s songs, which had different progressions and more distorted guitars, but at the very least, American Idiot bears an incredible musical resemblance to J.A.R.


The production is a lot more raw, dude. I have friends who work in production studios so I've learned quite a bit about this stuff. It's warmer and fuller and less processed like American Idiot was. The musical starts and stops with the faux-megaphone vocals in the verse make the song so pretentious as if these guys are the rally call to a new revolution. J.A.R. was much more straight forward and felt humble, almost. They recorded J.A.R. on tape whereas American Idiot was recorded digitally which adds a big difference to the sound. Also, on J.A.R. it sounds like they are using tube amps as opposed to solid state amps. I know that during this era they would use a lot of 70's tube amps and guitars; I don't think this song is an exception. Billie Joe is still singing like the lazy stoner he was in 1995 and on American Idiot, he was actually trying to "sing". It's also tuned in D# instead of E standard which gives it a less "heavy" sound. Yes, I can hear how a song like American Idiot would stem from a song like J.A.R. or a similar style but they are not the exact same thing. Also, Insomniac is a lot more confrontational than anything off American Idiot was. More in an angry personal way than a political way (political being 2 songs) but still confrontational.

Check for new replies or respond here...