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: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/22/19 at 1:04 am

I feel like 2000-2005 always had its own unique cultural identity...The fashion was still very reminiscent of the late 90’s but also very different and unique. Music was more diverse but for the most part music was very bubbly and there was a laid back vibe in the hip hop genre as well as the pop rock genre. 2006-2009 seems more modern and seems to be glorified for its digital advancements And web applications such as Youtube, The Wii, Nintendo DS lite, The Iphone 3/3gs. I feel like people glorify the late 2000’s more as true 2000’s identity and just lump 2000-2005 with washed up late 90’s culture. I feel 2000-2005 doesn't get much recognition in the nostalgia department. It sucks because my main childhood took place in the early to mid 2000’s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/22/19 at 1:09 am

Yup the late 2000s were lame they were just a precursor to the 2010s. Just a modern version of the 2000s or the 2000s on steroids. It was just a stepping stone for the 2010s. It lacked authenticity and identity and was defined by new technology and is remembered by new technological trends and the music and culture was just really bad.

I hate to say this because I don't wanna go there and potentially offend younger people, but I do think there is a major disconnect between kids of the early 2000s and kids of the late 2000s. It's not like '90s kids where whoever was a '90s kid pretty much related well to each other. The 2000s feel like two completely different decades split in half because that's how changeful the decade was so kids who grew up in the late 2000s simply grew up way more differently than kids born in the early 2000s. The former grew up with a lot more technology around influencing them. The early '00s had some new technology but it was very tame and primitive still and not as in-your-face and ubiquitous.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Zelek3 on 12/22/19 at 11:00 pm

Maybe but like I said before, early 2000s nostalgia is dead online, sadly (had a short run from 2015-2018). Now in 2018-2019, it's late 2000s-early 2010s nostalgia that racks in millions of views on Youtube videos.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 12/23/19 at 2:33 am


I hate to say this because I don't wanna go there and potentially offend younger people, but I do think there is a major disconnect between kids of the early 2000s and kids of the late 2000s.


No s_h_i_t sherlock, that's because they grew up in opposite ends of the decade.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: shadowcookie on 12/23/19 at 4:58 am


Maybe but like I said before, early 2000s nostalgia is dead online, sadly (had a short run from 2015-2018). Now in 2018-2019, it's late 2000s-early 2010s nostalgia that racks in millions of views on Youtube videos.


A lot of people our age are becoming slightly nostalgic for the late 2000s and early 2010s too because we’re getting pretty far removed from our teenage years. Still seems a bit early though.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/23/19 at 8:50 am


Maybe but like I said before, early 2000s nostalgia is dead online, sadly (had a short run from 2015-2018). Now in 2018-2019, it's late 2000s-early 2010s nostalgia that racks in millions of views on Youtube videos.

It's not dead. YouTube is only one platform. I still see early 2000s nostalgia online.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/23/19 at 9:56 am

2006-2009 is a random assortment of years. 2006 goes with 2005 and 2009 goes with the 2010s.

2007/2008 were high tech but they were still very 2000s. We were still dancing to R&B, listening to rap and rock, and the mall was still the premiere hangout spot. Most people actually still owned SDTVs and computers ran on Windows XP, and the iPhone's main selling point was that it was an iPod with phone capabilities, not that it had apps (it did not get an app store until late 2008).

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/23/19 at 11:20 am


2006-2009 is a random assortment of years. 2006 goes with 2005 and 2009 goes with the 2010s.

2007/2008 were high tech but they were still very 2000s. We were still dancing to R&B, listening to rap and rock, and the mall was still the premiere hangout spot. Most people actually still owned SDTVs and computers ran on Windows XP, and the iPhone's main selling point was that it was an iPod with phone capabilities, not that it had apps (it did not get an app store until late 2008).

Yeah, 2006-2008 still looks pretty 2000s to me despite all the technology and electro influences creeping in pop/r&b music.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: wixness on 12/23/19 at 12:12 pm


I feel like 2000-2005 always had its own unique cultural identity...The fashion was still very reminiscent of the late 90’s but also very different and unique. Music was more diverse but for the most part music was very bubbly and there was a laid back vibe in the hip hop genre as well as the pop rock genre. 2006-2009 seems more modern and seems to be glorified for its digital advancements And web applications such as Youtube, The Wii, Nintendo DS lite, The Iphone 3/3gs. I feel like people glorify the late 2000’s more as true 2000’s identity and just lump 2000-2005 with washed up late 90’s culture. I feel 2000-2005 doesn't get much recognition in the nostalgia department. It sucks because my main childhood took place in the early to mid 2000’s



I think the reverse is true for the last part - the early 2000s gets much more credit to the point that everything after that is mistaken for being from that part of the decade (e.g. the TV series Skins, which someone mistook it for being part of the early 2000s).


I am someone who prefers the mid and late 2000s simply because it was the time I grew up in; I can understand the appeal of the early 2000s, but it's not something I can relate to as easily.


I do feel like that the early 2000s probably had a stronger cultural identity, especially since it had stuff from the 90s. I don't know what happened from around 2004-2006 since it was a while after 9/11 happened, and a recession was yet to happen, but pop culture took a different direction then.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/23/19 at 2:06 pm


2006-2009 is a random assortment of years. 2006 goes with 2005 and 2009 goes with the 2010s.

2007/2008 were high tech but they were still very 2000s. We were still dancing to R&B, listening to rap and rock, and the mall was still the premiere hangout spot. Most people actually still owned SDTVs and computers ran on Windows XP, and the iPhone's main selling point was that it was an iPod with phone capabilities, not that it had apps (it did not get an app store until late 2008).

No it isn't. In 2006 there were changes and more tech around. Not to mention music was dominated by fast synth pop in 2006 opposed to R&B pop in 2005. Bad movies came out in '06 too. Everything started to suck in 2006.

Who was dancing to R&B?  ??? Nelly Furtado and Pussycat Dolls are not R&B... Justin Timberlake's Sexy Back is not R&B...

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/23/19 at 4:19 pm


Maybe but like I said before, early 2000s nostalgia is dead online, sadly (had a short run from 2015-2018). Now in 2018-2019, it's late 2000s-early 2010s nostalgia that racks in millions of views on Youtube videos.


I see a lot of early 2000’s and y2k trends coming back right now. I think when it comes to childhood nostalgia the early 2000’s gets lumped with the 90’s because well kid culture wasn’t all that different from the late 90’s to early 2000’s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/23/19 at 4:20 pm


I see a lot of early 2000’s and y2k trends coming back right now. I think when it comes to childhood nostalgia the early 2000’s gets lumped with the 90’s because well kid culture wasn’t all that different from the late 90’s to early 2000’s.

Which is sad because early 2000s have nothing to do with the '90s. 1999 has nothing to do with the '90s either. The 1990s were dead around 1998.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/23/19 at 4:23 pm


Yup the late 2000s were lame they were just a precursor to the 2010s. Just a modern version of the 2000s or the 2000s on steroids. It was just a stepping stone for the 2010s. It lacked authenticity and identity and was defined by new technology and is remembered by new technological trends and the music and culture was just really bad.

I hate to say this because I don't wanna go there and potentially offend younger people, but I do think there is a major disconnect between kids of the early 2000s and kids of the late 2000s. It's not like '90s kids where whoever was a '90s kid pretty much related well to each other. The 2000s feel like two completely different decades split in half because that's how changeful the decade was so kids who grew up in the late 2000s simply grew up way more differently than kids born in the early 2000s. The former grew up with a lot more technology around influencing them. The early '00s had some new technology but it was very tame and primitive still and not as in-your-face and ubiquitous.


Yeah I agree with a lot of this. Kids of the late 2000’s grew up in kind of a different world when I think about it. Mainly because the internet was so advanced by the time they were able to remember. Before they were in middle school IPhones and smartphones where becoming the norm where as for our age it happened in high school. The world back then in the early 2000’s was different. The way we lived, communicated and the culture was more simplistic. I miss it.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/23/19 at 4:27 pm


Which is sad because early 2000s have nothing to do with the '90s. 1999 has nothing to do with the '90s either. The 1990s were dead around 1998.


I agree. I feel like the 90’s ended by 1999. Everything was all about the year 2000 by that point. The movies from 1998-2003 were all influenced by the new millennium and its futuristic hope. I really miss that time in movies and music because at least for me many directors were getting so creative with all the futuristic Y2K stuff. Like I remember going to see Spy Kids in the movies circa 2001. For our age group movies like those were based on fantasy and hope where as I don’t see stuff like that as much anymore :(. Everything in Spy Kids practically came true if you look at the movie in todays world hahaha.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/23/19 at 4:32 pm


2006-2009 is a random assortment of years. 2006 goes with 2005 and 2009 goes with the 2010s.

2007/2008 were high tech but they were still very 2000s. We were still dancing to R&B, listening to rap and rock, and the mall was still the premiere hangout spot. Most people actually still owned SDTVs and computers ran on Windows XP, and the iPhone's main selling point was that it was an iPod with phone capabilities, not that it had apps (it did not get an app store until late 2008).


I have to disagree. A lot of the trends and kid culture from the first half of the 2000’s died in 2006-2007 and new shows as well as game consoles started coming in. Like when the wii and ds lite first came out in late 2006 it felt like we were no longer in the analog world of gaming anymore. In 2004 most people still used a compact cd player but by 2006 everyone bought the colorful ipod nanos. Sure we still used some technology from the early 2000’s but new (and great) tech came out in 2006 and practically sheeshted on all the tech that came out in 2003.

Also rnb was pretty dead in 2006/2007 and wasn’t topping the charts like how it was in the late 90’s up to 2005. 2005 had the “Emancipation of Mimi” which practically took over that entire year. 2006/2007 was different musically. The whole Britney Spears, Nelly Furtado and Justin Timberlake era of that time started electro pop in the late 2000’s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: shrinkingviolet on 12/23/19 at 10:11 pm


Maybe but like I said before, early 2000s nostalgia is dead online, sadly (had a short run from 2015-2018). Now in 2018-2019, it's late 2000s-early 2010s nostalgia that racks in millions of views on Youtube videos.
I think early 2000s nostalgia will make a comeback.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: shadowcookie on 12/24/19 at 3:40 am


2006-2009 is a random assortment of years. 2006 goes with 2005 and 2009 goes with the 2010s.

2007/2008 were high tech but they were still very 2000s. We were still dancing to R&B, listening to rap and rock, and the mall was still the premiere hangout spot. Most people actually still owned SDTVs and computers ran on Windows XP, and the iPhone's main selling point was that it was an iPod with phone capabilities, not that it had apps (it did not get an app store until late 2008).

And most people didn’t have smartphones in 2007/2008 which is obviously a very big difference from today.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: batfan2005 on 12/24/19 at 8:20 am


No it isn't. In 2006 there were changes and more tech around. Not to mention music was dominated by fast synth pop in 2006 opposed to R&B pop in 2005. Bad movies came out in '06 too. Everything started to suck in 2006.

Who was dancing to R&B?  ??? Nelly Furtado and Pussycat Dolls are not R&B... Justin Timberlake's Sexy Back is not R&B...


PCD was 2005, btw. I associate 2005 with 2006-2009 more than 2000-2004. People on here talk about the 2006 shift and make JT's album like it's Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit, but overall 2006 was too culturally bland much like 2019 to have a noticeable shift. I pretty much only remember 2006 for hearing "You're Beautiful" by James Blunt on repeat on the air. The electro sound started getting more noticeable in 2005 with songs like "Lose Control" by Missy Elliott, "Feel Good Inc" by the Gorillaz, and Gwen Stefani (not so much "Holla Back Girl" but her other songs). Also the Xbox 360 and PSP came out in 2005, and TV shows like The Office and How I Met Your Mother. It was also when MySpace grew in popularity, and when YouTube launched.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/24/19 at 10:16 am


PCD was 2005, btw. I associate 2005 with 2006-2009 more than 2000-2004. People on here talk about the 2006 shift and make JT's album like it's Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit, but overall 2006 was too culturally bland much like 2019 to have a noticeable shift. I pretty much only remember 2006 for hearing "You're Beautiful" by James Blunt on repeat on the air. The electro sound started getting more noticeable in 2005 with songs like "Lose Control" by Missy Elliott, "Feel Good Inc" by the Gorillaz, and Gwen Stefani (not so much "Holla Back Girl" but her other songs). Also the Xbox 360 and PSP came out in 2005, and TV shows like The Office and How I Met Your Mother. It was also when MySpace grew in popularity, and when YouTube launched.


You said what I was going to say and more.

Re: 2005 having all the kid trends of 2000-2004. Someone here said the DS launched in 2006, it actually launched in late 2004. Most Y2K era kid shows were over by 2003/2004, not 2005 (and any that lasted to 2005 were likely there in 2007/2008 too anyway). Pokémon Johto, Digimon, DBZ, Spongebob/Fairly Odd Parents/Yu-gi-oh (their supposed golden age at least), Cartoon Network golden age, Gameboy Advance 5th Gen gaming etc. almost all of that died in 2004 if not 2003.

The iPod also got popular in 2004 when it became compatible with Windows, not 2007.

Anyway, I think I've said all I've wanted to say on 2005. I feel bad for pooing on people's nostalgia.  ;D

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/24/19 at 11:12 am


No it isn't. In 2006 there were changes and more tech around. Not to mention music was dominated by fast synth pop in 2006 opposed to R&B pop in 2005. Bad movies came out in '06 too. Everything started to suck in 2006.

Who was dancing to R&B?  ??? Nelly Furtado and Pussycat Dolls are not R&B... Justin Timberlake's Sexy Back is not R&B...

Huh? R&B was alive and well in the late 2000s. Usher, Justin Timberlake, Rihanna, Ne-Yo, Beyonce, Chris Brown, and T-Pain were scoring #1 hits in this era. 2009 was when R&B was on the decline and it was no longer popular in 2010.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/24/19 at 1:37 pm


The electro sound started getting more noticeable in 2005 with songs like "Lose Control" by Missy Elliott, "Feel Good Inc" by the Gorillaz, and Gwen Stefani (not so much "Holla Back Girl" but her other songs).

That doesn't really count. Most of what you're referring to are songs that sample funk/r&b songs. Artists have been sampling funk forever and have done so prior to 2005, including years directly before 2005. For example, 1, 2 step in 2004 & Rock Your Body in 2003. The real shift did happen with SexyBack/Timbaland in 2006.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/24/19 at 1:48 pm

Well whatever you can disagree if you want. I still felt a noticable change in '06. Not as much as '08 of course but still different from '05. Different music, different tech, different movies, different shows, etc. Disney was different, Hannah Montana and High School Musical came out in '06 which changed the landscape. Video games were different later in the year with the release of the Wii. Windows Vista got released later in the year too. PCD did come out in 2005 but got popular in 2006... The slow R&B Mariah Carey sound from 2005 was gone.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/24/19 at 1:51 pm


PCD was 2005, btw. I associate 2005 with 2006-2009 more than 2000-2004. People on here talk about the 2006 shift and make JT's album like it's Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit, but overall 2006 was too culturally bland much like 2019 to have a noticeable shift. I pretty much only remember 2006 for hearing "You're Beautiful" by James Blunt on repeat on the air. The electro sound started getting more noticeable in 2005 with songs like "Lose Control" by Missy Elliott, "Feel Good Inc" by the Gorillaz, and Gwen Stefani (not so much "Holla Back Girl" but her other songs). Also the Xbox 360 and PSP came out in 2005, and TV shows like The Office and How I Met Your Mother. It was also when MySpace grew in popularity, and when YouTube launched.


Loose control by Missy Elliott was not electro pop or a form of electro pop in the slightest. It was a form of crunk that was inspired by 80’s stepping music. Gorillaz inc. “Feel Good” was definitely not electro pop. The precursor for electro pop started in 2006/2007 when JT came out with sexy back and Britney came out with Himme more and piece of me

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/24/19 at 2:03 pm


Huh? R&B was alive and well in the late 2000s. Usher, Justin Timberlake, Rihanna, Ne-Yo, Beyonce, Chris Brown, and T-Pain were scoring #1 hits in this era. 2009 was when R&B was on the decline and it was no longer popular in 2010.


In the late 2000’s Rihanna was not rnb she was a form of pop music. T-Pain was also hip hop not rnb and Beyonce was transitioning from hip hop/rnb to pop in the late 2000’s. Usher’s album in 2008 was highly saturated in electro sounding beats as well. Rnb was definitely taking a turn in the late 2000’s. It wasn’t the 2000’s rnb that we all new and loved. When I think of 2000’s rnb I mostly think of Jagged edge, Usher (2001-2004), Destiny’s Child, Beyoncé (2003-2006), 112, Ashanti, Alicia Keys (2001-2003), Mariah Carey, Justin Timberlake (2002-2003), Nsync, etc.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/24/19 at 2:15 pm


In the late 2000’s Rihanna was not rnb she was a form of pop music. T-Pain was also hip hop not rnb and Beyonce was transitioning from hip hop/rnb to pop in the late 2000’s. Usher’s album in 2008 was highly saturated in electro sounding beats as well. Rnb was definitely taking a turn in the late 2000’s. It wasn’t the 2000’s rnb that we all new and loved. When I think of 2000’s rnb I mostly think of Jagged edge, Usher (2001-2004), Destiny’s Child, Beyoncé (2003-2006), 112, Ashanti, Alicia Keys (2001-2003), Mariah Carey, Justin Timberlake (2002-2003), Nsync, etc.

Take a Bow by Rihanna went #1 in 2008.
Halo, If I Were a Boy by Beyonce were top 5 hits in 2008/2009
Touch My Body by Mariah Carey went #1 in 2008
With You by Chris Brown went #2 in 2008
No One by Alicia Keys went #1 in 2007
Love In This Club by Usher was electro-influenced R&B.
T-Pain definitely made R&B songs.

Just because the late 2000s doesn't have the same R&B as the the early-mid 2000s doesn't make it less R&B.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/24/19 at 2:23 pm


You said what I was going to say and more.

Re: 2005 having all the kid trends of 2000-2004. Someone here said the DS launched in 2006, it actually launched in late 2004. Most Y2K era kid shows were over by 2003/2004, not 2005 (and any that lasted to 2005 were likely there in 2007/2008 too anyway). Pokémon Johto, Digimon, DBZ, Spongebob/Fairly Odd Parents/Yu-gi-oh (their supposed golden age at least), Cartoon Network golden age, Gameboy Advance 5th Gen gaming etc. almost all of that died in 2004 if not 2003.

The iPod also got popular in 2004 when it became compatible with Windows, not 2007.

Anyway, I think I've said all I've wanted to say on 2005. I feel bad for pooing on people's nostalgia.  ;D


The DS lite came out in 2006 actually and the DS came out late 2004. Also the ipod did not gain popularity in 2004 in the least. Only 8.2 million in total were sold from 2001-2004. In late 2005 the release of the ipod nano is what increased its  popularity but still remained under a 50% penetration rate (which means it wasn’t mainstream). it wasnt until the release of the second series in late 2006 when the ipod gained mass popularity. Penetration rates exceeded 50% in 2007 and they were indeed mainstream by that point. If you want I can pull up the stats.

The shows you listed weren’t even a plethora of shows that were started in the y2k era/ first half of the 2000’s, sure some of the shows ended around 2004 but some of the shows also ended around 2006-2007ish as well Shows like catdog (1998-2005), Powerpuff girls (1998-2005), Jimmy Neutron (2002-2006), Phil of the future (2004-2006), That’s so raven (2003-2007), Drake and Josh (2004-2007), etc.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/24/19 at 2:32 pm


Take a Bow by Rihanna went #1 in 2008.
Halo, If I Were a Boy by Beyonce were top 5 hits in 2008/2009
Touch My Body by Mariah Carey went #1 in 2008
With You by Chris Brown went #2 in 2008
No One by Alicia Keys went #1 in 2007
Love In This Club by Usher was electro-influenced R&B.
T-Pain definitely made R&B songs.

Just because the late 2000s doesn't have the same R&B as the the early-mid 2000s doesn't make it less R&B.


Half of the songs that you mentioned were not Rnb tho lol..... You are intertwining the style and vibe of Rnb from the earlier half of the 2000’s and calling songs like “Halo” rnb to fit the narrative that the late 2000’s was still saturated in rnb therefore making it apart of core 2000’s culture. Take a bow by Rihanna was a form of pop music as were both of the songs you mentioned by Beyonce. Touch my Body was Rnb and had a similar sound to We Belong Together (2005), but I think we can all agree that by 2008 rnb was pretty dead and was not as dominant as it was in the early to mid 2000’s. In 2008 it was all about synth pop and electropop. Mariah’s sound in 2008 was unique however touch my body was the only song on that album that hit a number 1 compared to her other songs on Emancipation of Mimi. Shake it off couldn’t even reach number 1 in 2005 bc We Belong Together was number 1 at the time. That’s how popular that sound was in 2005 compared to 2008.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/24/19 at 2:43 pm


Half of the songs that you mentioned were not Rnb tho lol..... You are intertwining the style and vibe of Rnb from the earlier half of the 2000’s and calling songs like “Halo” rnb to fit the narrative that the late 2000’s was still saturated in rnb. Take a bow by Rihanna was a form of pop music as were both of the songs you mentioned by Beyonce. Touch my Body was Rnb and had a similar sound to We Belong Together (2005), but I think we can all agree that by 2008 rnb was pretty dead and was not as dominant as it was in the early to mid 2000’s. In 2008 it was all about synth pop and electropop. Mariah’s sound was unique and was the only song on that album that hit a number 1 compared to her other songs on Emancipation of Mimi. “shake it off couldn’t even reach number 1 in 2005 bc We Belong Together was number 1 at the time. That’s how popular that sound was in 2005 compared to 2008.

But those songs I mentioned are 2000s style type of music and they have more in common with the songs of the mid 2000s than early 2010s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/24/19 at 2:53 pm


But those songs I mentioned are 2000s style type of music and they have more in common with the songs of the mid 2000s than early 2010s.


No they didn’t, in fact most of the songs you mentioned have more of a cultural tie to the early 2010’s if anything as they were highly saturated in electo sounding beats compared to the late 90’s and early 2000’s when y2k rnb was saturated in digital sounding beats. In the mid 2000’s there was more of a go go funk sounding mixture between early 2000’s rnb and modern rnb. In the late 2000’s that sound was completely gone.

Also Neo-soul was a form of funk rnb (coffee house music) that was highly popular in the late 90’s and early 2000’s (Jill Scott, Erykah Badu, Maxwell, D’angelo, Lauryn Hill, Goapele, Angie Stone, Alicia Keys, India Arie etc). Neo-soul was completely dead in the late 2000’s nor was it a style of rnb by that point.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/24/19 at 4:16 pm

I agree with Disney Retro. Music had a newer sound come in in 2006. The hits from Justin Timberlake, Nelly Furtado, Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, and Rihanna would sound out of place in 2004 and 2005. 50 Cent, The Black Eyed Peas, and Ciara passed their peak after 2005 too and music started to change and new artists started to come in. You no longer had that laid back vibe. I know some new artists such as PCD and Rihanna came in '05 but they did not get huge until '06 and the new style of music came then. I am not saying it was as drastic and big as the shift in 2008, of course 2008 had a bigger shift that changed everything. But the change and transition from the mid '00s to late '00s was still there and apperent. Things felt a lot more modern and new. I can remember this looking back. There was newer tech coming in that paved the way for the future. The most notable change in my experience that I noticed was the change in TV and movie programming especially Disney... High School Musical and Hannah Montana would feel totally out of place if they were released a year earlier and Disney Channel (Family Channel here in Canada) really started to suck a lot. Also there were no more good TV shows and movies in general once 2006 hit as well.

I guess this whole discussion is just grasping at straws because the 2000s were really changeful in general you can pick any year and say it felt different to the year prior but in my opinion and experience 2005 and 2006 honestly did feel quite different with different vibe to me. 2006 was the year "everything started to suck".

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: shrinkingviolet on 12/25/19 at 4:00 pm


I agree with Disney Retro. Music had a newer sound come in in 2006. The hits from Justin Timberlake, Nelly Furtado, Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, and Rihanna would sound out of place in 2004 and 2005. 50 Cent, The Black Eyed Peas, and Ciara passed their peak after 2005 too and music started to change and new artists started to come in. You no longer had that laid back vibe. I know some new artists such as PCD and Rihanna came in '05 but they did not get huge until '06 and the new style of music came then. I am not saying it was as drastic and big as the shift in 2008, of course 2008 had a bigger shift that changed everything. But the change and transition from the mid '00s to late '00s was still there and apperent. Things felt a lot more modern and new. I can remember this looking back. There was newer tech coming in that paved the way for the future. The most notable change in my experience that I noticed was the change in TV and movie programming especially Disney... High School Musical and Hannah Montana would feel totally out of place if they were released a year earlier and Disney Channel (Family Channel here in Canada) really started to suck a lot. Also there were no more good TV shows and movies in general once 2006 hit as well.

I guess this whole discussion is just grasping at straws because the 2000s were really changeful in general you can pick any year and say it felt different to the year prior but in my opinion and experience 2005 and 2006 honestly did feel quite different with different vibe to me. 2006 was the year "everything started to suck".

The 2005/2006 school year is when I noticed a huge shift. 2004/2005 school year still felt like the early 2000s imo.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/25/19 at 4:11 pm


I agree with Disney Retro. Music had a newer sound come in in 2006. The hits from Justin Timberlake, Nelly Furtado, Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, and Rihanna would sound out of place in 2004 and 2005. 50 Cent, The Black Eyed Peas, and Ciara passed their peak after 2005 too and music started to change and new artists started to come in. You no longer had that laid back vibe.

I agree, pop music sounded different once 2006 really got settled in. I dont think 2006 was drastically technologically different than 2005 or that we used more technology in 2006 but it gave off a different vibe. When I think of 2006, I think of technology looking much sleeker and modern (for the time). 2006 gave off more digital vibes.

I like that year much better than 2007, which felt dark and digital.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/25/19 at 6:54 pm


The 2005/2006 school year is when I noticed a huge shift. 2004/2005 school year still felt like the early 2000s imo.

Well no it didn't. 2004 and 2005 was NOT early 2000s, not at all. 2004 and 2005 were mid 2000s years along with 2003. I do not want people getting it twisted and mistaking me calling 04 and 05 early 2000s which they absolutely were not. I am saying the late 2000s started in 2006, 2005 was still mid 2000s. You are correct there was a shift 2005 - 2006 and 2006 - 2007 too, but this shift was for the late 2000s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/25/19 at 6:58 pm


I agree, pop music sounded different once 2006 really got settled in. I dont think 2006 was drastically technologically different than 2005 or that we used more technology in 2006 but it gave off a different vibe. When I think of 2006, I think of technology looking much sleeker and modern (for the time). 2006 gave off more digital vibes.

I like that year much better than 2007, which felt dark and digital.

Yes well 2007 was even more of a digital and more techy year. But those things had their foundation in 2006 with the release of new video games and Windows Vista and other things. Of course not everyone adopted the new tech trends, which is why I still had a CRT TV even in '07 and still used Windows XP, but they were around and available to anyone which made it feel more futuristic. You can't say the same for 2005 which did not have the Wii and it was very hard to find and purchase a flat-screen TV that year.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: shrinkingviolet on 12/25/19 at 8:07 pm


Well no it didn't. 2004 and 2005 was NOT early 2000s, not at all. 2004 and 2005 were mid 2000s years along with 2003. I do not want people getting it twisted and mistaking me calling 04 and 05 early 2000s which they absolutely were not. I am saying the late 2000s started in 2006, 2005 was still mid 2000s. You are correct there was a shift 2005 - 2006 and 2006 - 2007 too, but this shift was for the late 2000s.
I was talking about kid culture.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/26/19 at 12:44 am


The 2005/2006 school year is when I noticed a huge shift. 2004/2005 school year still felt like the early 2000s imo.


I agree 2004/2005 school year definitely felt more early 2000’s. Especially the kid culture of that time.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/26/19 at 12:59 am

But the 2004/2005 school year was the peak of mid 00s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/26/19 at 1:25 am


But the 2004/2005 school year was the peak of mid 00s.

I agree. I in no way think it has anything to do with the early 2000s. Early 2000s died in 2003. Mid '00s ended in '06.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/26/19 at 5:18 am


I was talking about kid culture.

Idk 2004/2005 didn't feel early 2000s to me at all. Kid culture or not. And 2005 especially, imo is when a lot of shows directed at kids started to lose it's charm.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/26/19 at 5:18 am


Idk 2004/2005 didn't feel early 2000s to me at all. Kid culture or not. And 2005 especially, is a lot of shows directed at kids started to lose it's charm.

It didn't feel like it at all to me. Early '00s died in '03. It was mid '00s for sure. And I would say both early and mid '00s are part of classic 2000s culture.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/26/19 at 8:32 am


Not at all...How can the starting years of the mid 2000’s be the peak ? That would have been 2005-2006. 2004 was a year that still had some early 2000’s influence to it  (especially early 2004) with Usher’s “Confessions” album (which predominantly sounds early 2000’s and very similar to his 8701 album) as well as Destiny’s Child’s “Fufilled” album. Rnb and hip hop songs were still reminiscent of the early 2000’s with songs like “Slow Jams” by Kanye as well as the release of his first album which was recorded from 1999-2003. Southern hip hop became more popular during the summer of 2004 but in 2005-2007 is when it reached it’s peak in popularity with the whole “laffy taffy”  “lean with it rock with it” and new artists like T-pain coming out. In 2004 we were still using the gameboy advance sp, PS2, gamecube and The show friends was on its final season as well. Mid 2005 to  Mid 2006 was the peak of mid 2000’s culture in my opinion. Gwen Stefani, Mariah Carey, T-Pain,Rihanna, movies like Bring it on all or nothing, Silent Hill, cell phone rap, the razr becoming more popular, reality tv shows like Flavor of Love, Rock of Love, made, next etc. By late 2006 it already felt like the late 2000’s to me.


You mention a lot of changes that happened in summer 2004. 2004-05 school year was after summer 2004.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/26/19 at 8:41 am


Idk 2004/2005 didn't feel early 2000s to me at all. Kid culture or not. And 2005 especially, imo is when a lot of shows directed at kids started to lose it's charm.


I agree. I was in middle school by then so maybe not as in tune with kid culture as most but I remember everyone all over GTA San Andreas, Need For Speed, Halo 2, PSPs listening to emo and crunk rap on their iPods and PSPs, and people were watching shows like modern episodic shows like Lost and Desperate Housewives after serialized shows like Friends ended and reality TV reached its peak. If that isn't mid-2000s then I don't know what is. It was also during and the aftermath of the 2004 election and the Bush backlash was beginning, although I guess that wouldn't count as kid culture.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/26/19 at 9:38 am


You mention a lot of changes that happened in summer 2004. 2004-05 school year was after summer 2004.


I’m saying that 2004 had early 2000’s influences to It but it was no way apart of peak mid 2000’s culture in my opinion. If you read my prev. Comment I brought up the fact that 2004 (as a year not a school year) was super transitional, I think 2005 was mid 2000’s thick and thin but 2004 (especially the early half until mid summer) still had early 2000’s influences to them. I Didn’t bring up changes in the summer of 2004 other than cell phone rap becoming popular. I brought up some of the cultural influences from the early 2000’s that remained in 2004 and why mid 2005-mid 2006 was peak mid 2000’s culture (artist, tv shows, music, etc). There’s no way I can listen to Mario Winan’s track “I don’t wanna know” (2004) and call that a mid 2000’s track. 2005-2006 was the year of hurricane katrina and all the Bush back lash. I guess thats mainly how I remember the mid 2000’s. Also 2005-2006 was peak reality TV. Flavor of Love came out in January 2006 and it gave way for a plethora of other reality tv shows like Rock of Love, I love New York, Etc. Also I think we can all agree New York is queen of reality tv hahaha

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/26/19 at 9:45 am


Idk 2004/2005 didn't feel early 2000s to me at all. Kid culture or not. And 2005 especially, imo is when a lot of shows directed at kids started to lose it's charm.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RFixNVzU6P8

This looks pretty early 2000’s to me. Not only that but 2004-2005 was kind of a big transition in my opinion. There were still a ton of early 2000’s culture lingering on but 2004 to me as a year was more of a transition. Kid culture still consisted of hit clips, i zone cameras, video nows and what not but the shows of the late 90’s to early 2000’s were ending during this  year unfortunately (minus shows like kim possible, thats so raven, Powerpuff girls,proud family and cat dog). People were still using pagers in 2004 and 2005 as well. 2005 felt like a solid mid 2000’s year but 2004 felt so transitional.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: shrinkingviolet on 12/26/19 at 10:18 am


Idk 2004/2005 didn't feel early 2000s to me at all. Kid culture or not. And 2005 especially, imo is when a lot of shows directed at kids started to lose it's charm.

I guess I don't remember the mid 2000s that well, because I wasn't really paying attention. I grew up in a smaller town, where people are usually a few years behind everyone else, so my experience might have been very different. I was born in 1994 and as an older 2000s kid, I had no interest in the newer kid stuff that came out around 2004/2005. I was still watching the same shows I was watching during the early 2000s and many people I knew were still using older technology such as VHS, CDs, and dial-up. Heck, I didn't even know about ipods or broadband until 2006. The only mid 2000s things I can remember was Drake and Josh, Neds Declassified, Passion of the Christ, and The Incredibles. I also wasn't paying attention to politics as a kid either, so it had no impact on me. I guess I consider the 2010s to be my decade, because I was old enough to actually experience the decade. 2000-2005 was a very different world for me, because I was still just a kid.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/26/19 at 10:55 am

The 2004-2005 season was definitely mid-2000s. Emo was starting to become popular after the release of My Chemical Romance Three Cheers For Sweet Revenge. Even a lot of pop punk bands like Green Day, Blink 182, and Sum 41 started to become dark and have a dark gothic aesthetic. A lot of shows from the 90s have ended in the first half of 2004. R&B singers like Ciara came into the scene with her signature Crunk&B sound. Speaking of Crunk, that genre was everywhere in 2004-2005. Kelly Clarkson's Breakway album topped the charts. The release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It's the same with 2005-2006 season, that was also the peak of mid 2000s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/26/19 at 11:02 am

Passion of the Christ,

Wow, I had completely forgotten about that movie. The mid-2000s are cursed, I want nothing to do with it.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/26/19 at 12:23 pm


I guess I don't remember the mid 2000s that well, because I wasn't really paying attention. I grew up in a smaller town, where people are usually a few years behind everyone else, so my experience might have been very different. I was born in 1994 and as an older 2000s kid, I had no interest in the newer kid stuff that came out around 2004/2005. I was still watching the same shows I was watching during the early 2000s and many people I knew were still using older technology such as VHS, CDs, and dial-up. Heck, I didn't even know about ipods or broadband until 2006. The only mid 2000s things I can remember was Drake and Josh, Neds Declassified, Passion of the Christ, and The Incredibles. I also wasn't paying attention to politics as a kid either, so it had no impact on me. I guess I consider the 2010s to be my decade, because I was old enough to actually experience the decade. 2000-2005 was a very different world for me, because I was still just a kid.

Nah you're good. People were still using some of those things in 2004/2005. I was still using CDs & floppydisks in 2006, so not everyone upgraded. However, that didn't make the 2004/2005 feel early 2000s to me. I tried to get into the new kid/teen stuff from 2005 but it didn't appeal to me. I mostly stopped watching Nick & Disney altogether. Some of the shows that made me disinterested was Cat Scratch on Nick, Naturally Sadie & Life With Derek on Disney Channel, Mucha Lucha Puffy Ami, and another show I can't remember what it's called, on Cartoon Newtork. Sorry, I just found those shows so stupid. The other classic shows had been running for a while so they just naturally become a little boring to me and some of them even ended. But I did like a few shows in or after 2004 like Fosters Home, Kids Next Door, ICarly...I consider those classics. Disney Channel I just stopped watching all together after the travesties known as Naturally Saddie & Life with Derek. So I basically focused on mature shows but those went down hill a couple years later as well so that sucks lol.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: batfan2005 on 12/26/19 at 1:40 pm


I agree with Disney Retro. Music had a newer sound come in in 2006. The hits from Justin Timberlake, Nelly Furtado, Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, and Rihanna would sound out of place in 2004 and 2005. 50 Cent, The Black Eyed Peas, and Ciara passed their peak after 2005 too and music started to change and new artists started to come in. You no longer had that laid back vibe. I know some new artists such as PCD and Rihanna came in '05 but they did not get huge until '06 and the new style of music came then. I am not saying it was as drastic and big as the shift in 2008, of course 2008 had a bigger shift that changed everything. But the change and transition from the mid '00s to late '00s was still there and apperent. Things felt a lot more modern and new. I can remember this looking back. There was newer tech coming in that paved the way for the future. The most notable change in my experience that I noticed was the change in TV and movie programming especially Disney... High School Musical and Hannah Montana would feel totally out of place if they were released a year earlier and Disney Channel (Family Channel here in Canada) really started to suck a lot. Also there were no more good TV shows and movies in general once 2006 hit as well.

I guess this whole discussion is just grasping at straws because the 2000s were really changeful in general you can pick any year and say it felt different to the year prior but in my opinion and experience 2005 and 2006 honestly did feel quite different with different vibe to me. 2006 was the year "everything started to suck".


The one part I can agree on is the last few words "everything started to suck". Luckily the suckiness only lasted through 2007 and 2008 was great again. I wasn't a kid back then so I wouldn't know about High School Musical or Hannah Montana, but I do remember discussions about that on here way back then. But overall 2006 and 2005 felt the same to me except that 2005 was way better, so by the change if you meant not for the better I can see that.

I remember 2006 lacking in good movies compared to 2005. It's pretty bad if my favorite movie of the year was that Superman movie. Night at the Museum was pretty good, and I remember everyone talking like Borat with the accent. The music as I mentioned (especially James Blunt), left a lot to be desired. Most people don't remember but Kevin Federline released a rap album that year, lol. The only good things that came out that year were the PS3 and the Wii.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/26/19 at 1:45 pm


The 2004-2005 season was definitely mid-2000s. Emo was starting to become popular after the release of My Chemical Romance Three Cheers For Sweet Revenge. Even a lot of pop punk bands like Green Day, Blink 182, and Sum 41 started to become dark and have a dark gothic aesthetic. A lot of shows from the 90s have ended in the first half of 2004. R&B singers like Ciara came into the scene with her signature Crunk&B sound. Speaking of Crunk, that genre was everywhere in 2004-2005. Kelly Clarkson's Breakway album topped the charts. The release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It's the same with 2005-2006 season, that was also the peak of mid 2000s.


2004 was a big transition late 2004 to early 2005 was the start of mid 2000’s culture in my opinion. Emo was already big in 2002-2003 with the whole evanescence/Avril Lavigne thing going on. It got even bigger in 2005-2006 with fallout boy and My chemical romance. I remember it like yesterday. But 2004 was definitely not the peak of mid 2000’s culture at all. If you accumulate the entire year predicated upon culture, 2004 was the start of a lot of mid 2000’s culture sure but it also had a lot of early 2000’s trends in the beginning of the year until about summer.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/26/19 at 1:59 pm


2004 was a big transition late 2004 to early 2005 was the start of mid 2000’s culture in my opinion. Emo was already big in 2002-2003 with the whole evanescence/Avril Lavigne thing going on. It got even bigger in 2005-2006 with fallout boy and My chemical romance. I remember it like yesterday. But 2004 was definitely not the peak of mid 2000’s culture at all. If you accumulate the entire year predicated upon culture, 2004 was the start of a lot of mid 2000’s culture sure but it also had a lot of early 2000’s trends in the beginning of the year until about summer.

That's what I'm saying, mid-late 2004 was when mid 2000s culture start to take over.  I'm not saying 2004 was the peak of mid 2000s, that title belongs to 2005. I do agree that the 2003-2004 school year had a lot of early 00s leftovers but there were upcoming mid 00s trends as well that time.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/26/19 at 2:20 pm


That's what I'm saying, mid-late 2004 was when mid 2000s culture start to take over.  I'm not saying 2004 was the peak of mid 2000s, that title belongs to 2005. I do agree that the 2003-2004 school year had a lot of early 00s leftovers but there were upcoming mid 00s trends as well that time.


Agreed completely. It’s sometimes hard to tell when culture starts exactly bc of the school year thing. Do you think the culture of one year peaks in the spring/ summer ? It’s hard for me to define 😭

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/26/19 at 2:34 pm

The mid '00s started in early 2003 and the late 2000s started in early 2006. The early 2000s started culturally in late 1998 with the Y2K era being the first part of the early '00s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/26/19 at 2:36 pm


The mid '00s started in early 2003 and the late 2000s started in early 2006. The early 2000s started culturally in late 1998 with the Y2K era being the first part of the early '00s.



I agree With most of what you said minus the
Early 2000’s half. I think it started in mid to late 2004, at least here in the states. Early 2004 just felt so early 2000’s to me. But my nostalgia may be biased because I keep forgetting about the y2k/millennium era which I think lasted till mid/ate 2002.  I still think Y2k is apart of 2000’s cultural identity (not 90’s at all imo).

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/26/19 at 2:53 pm


The mid '00s started in early 2003 and the late 2000s started in early 2006. The early 2000s started culturally in late 1998 with the Y2K era being the first part of the early '00s.


Hey, it was your idea to tie 2000/2001 in with 2004/2005. You made that bed now you gotta lie in it ;D

I know what you were trying to do though. The early 2000s (2000/2001 especially) gets brushed under the 90s and people focus on the atrocious late 2000s and its emos and bad video games as the face of the 2000s instead.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/26/19 at 3:49 pm


Hey, it was your idea to tie 2000/2001 in with 2004/2005. You made that bed now you gotta lie in it ;D

I know what you were trying to do though. The early 2000s (2000/2001 especially) gets brushed under the 90s and people focus on the atrocious late 2000s and its emos and bad video games as the face of the 2000s instead.

Yeah exactly. I only lumped the two together because I feel it is the time the 2000s decade is the most defined and has the most identity. I think it's a shame the '00s are being remembered only by the late part and everything else is getting lumped in with the '90s. 1990s were its own thing, it should not steal from the 2000s identity.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/26/19 at 4:02 pm


I know what you were trying to do though. The early 2000s (2000/2001 especially) gets brushed under the 90s and people focus on the atrocious late 2000s and its emos and bad video games as the face of the 2000s instead.

Ok, now I get why slim always says the early 2000s is the real 2000s. People do lump it with the 90s (I just say they have 90s influence not that it's full fledged 90s). People define the 2000s as snap music, emo, and iPods when its much more than that. It does get really annoying.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/26/19 at 4:17 pm


Ok, now I get why slim always says the early 2000s is the real 2000s. People do lump it with the 90s (I just say they have 90s influence not that it's full fledged 90s). People define the 2000s as snap music, emo, and iPods when its much more than that. It does get really annoying.

Yup and I go as far as to say there were zero '90s influences as well. It was a different time and era.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: shrinkingviolet on 12/26/19 at 4:25 pm


Yup and I go as far as to say there were zero '90s influences as well. It was a different time and era.
The 90s died in 1998 imo. Also, I think people are obsessed with being apart of the 90s, so they give the 90s credit for the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/26/19 at 4:41 pm


The 90s died in 1998 imo. Also, I think people are obsessed with being apart of the 90s, so they give the 90s credit for the early 2000s.

I agree.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 12/26/19 at 10:24 pm


Ok, now I get why slim always says the early 2000s is the real 2000s. People do lump it with the 90s (I just say they have 90s influence not that it's full fledged 90s). People define the 2000s as snap music, emo, and iPods when its much more than that. It does get really annoying.


But unfortunately, I honestly think that's exactly how most future generations are going to remember the decade as. Mainly because the Late 2000s were the most transformative part of the decade; social media finally becoming standard, 7th generation console wars, emo music/fashion, the Great Recession/Oil Shock, 'Obamania' & 'Bush malaise', the Launch of the iPhone, I could go on and on.

The 2000s remind me a lot of the 1960s, as both decades were decades of massive societal change. The early 2000s were similar to the early 1960s, in the vain that it was a sort of cultural continuation of the conservative elements of the 1950s & 1990s respectively. The mid 1960s and mid 2000s were when things began to be more structurally redrawn, but in a more idealistic sense. The late 1960s and the late 2000s were a culmination of those changes being felt and when 'sh!t' began hitting the fan in tumultuous chaos.

However, this ultimately ended these two decades off in a (semi) good note. 1968 and 2008 were both very turbulent years in American history (1968: RKF/MLK assassinations, race riots, 68' DNC Convention riots, Vietnam protests, Nixon's controversial Presidential campaign; 2008: Oil Shock, tense DNC primary, Gaza bombings, Iraq War, The failure of the Big Banks & subsequent economic crisis that followed) , but both 1969 and 2009 offered a glimpse of optimism for the future. 2007-2009 is going to be seen as "The 2000s; 2000-2003 is going to be seen as "just a continuation of The 1990s Minus 9/11 of course, but I notice that younger generations are sort of disregarding the significance of that event. This is due to their lack of memories of the attacks, especially since many of them weren't even alive. So to them, they honestly see much of 2000-2003 as just a continuation of the much larger contextual era of 'pre-social media', 'pre horrible economy', 'pre smartphones', and pre 'culture wars', among other things, aka when times were a lot more peaceful in a era that they barely, (if at all) experienced.

Sorry to say, but I think the '2000-2003/4 was just a continuation of the 1990s' notion is bound to stick. Especially as people still try to specify only the 'early 2000s' when they speak of anything good that came from the 2000s decade, almost like the early 00s is its own special sanctimonious category, detached from the mid-late 2000s. In some elements of that, I do kind of agree with though (especially technologically).

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/26/19 at 10:28 pm


But unfortunately, I honestly think that's exactly how most future generations are going to remember the decade as. Mainly because the Late 2000s were the most transformative part of the decade; social media finally becoming standard, 7th generation console wars, emo music/fashion, the Great Recession/Oil Shock, 'Obamania' & 'Bush malaise', the Launch of the iPhone, I could go on and on.

The 2000s remind me a lot of the 1960s, as both decades were decades of massive societal change. The early 2000s were similar to the early 1960s, in the vain that it was a sort of cultural continuation of the conservative elements of the 1950s & 1990s respectively. The mid 1960s and mid 2000s were when things began to be more structurally redrawn, but in a more idealistic sense. The late 1960s and the late 2000s were a culmination of those changes being felt and when 'sh!t' began hitting the fan in tumultuous chaos.

However, this ultimately ended these two decades off in a (semi) good note. 1968 and 2008 were both very turbulent years in American history (1968: RKF/MLK assassinations, race riots, 68' DNC Convention riots, Vietnam protests, Nixon's controversial Presidential campaign; 2008: Oil Shock, tense DNC primary, Gaza bombings, Iraq War, The failure of the Big Banks & subsequent economic crisis that followed) , but both 1969 and 2009 offered a glimpse of optimism for the future. 2007-2009 is going to be seen as "The 2000s; 2000-2003 is going to be seen as "just a continuation of The 1990s Minus 9/11 of course, but I notice that younger generations are sort of disregarding the significance of that event. This is due to their lack of memories of the attacks, especially since many of them weren't even alive. So to them, they honestly see much of 2000-2003 as just a continuation of the much larger contextual era of 'pre-social media', 'pre horrible economy', 'pre smartphones', and pre 'culture wars', among other things, aka when times were a lot more peaceful in a era that they barely, (if at all) experienced.

Sorry to say, but I think the '2000-2003/4 was just a continuation of the 1990s' notion is bound to stick. Especially as people still try to specify only the 'early 2000s' when they speak of anything good that came from the 2000s decade, almost like the early 00s is its own special sanctimonious category, detached from the mid-late 2000s. In some elements of that, I do kind of agree with though (especially technologically).

Do you think people in the  next ten years, they will view the early 2010s (2010-2012/3) as a continuation of the 2000s? I hope not because the 2010s came in right on time.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 12/26/19 at 10:30 pm


Do you think people in the  next ten years, they will view the early 2010s (2010-2012/3) as a continuation of the 2000s? I hope not because the 2010s came in right on time.


Hopefully not, but who really knows. I do think that the Late 2000s and the Early 2010s would be seen as one big era, aka the 'Electropop Era'.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Zelek3 on 12/26/19 at 11:38 pm


But unfortunately, I honestly think that's exactly how most future generations are going to remember the decade as. Mainly because the Late 2000s were the most transformative part of the decade; social media finally becoming standard, 7th generation console wars, emo music/fashion, the Great Recession/Oil Shock, 'Obamania' & 'Bush malaise', the Launch of the iPhone, I could go on and on.

The 2000s remind me a lot of the 1960s, as both decades were decades of massive societal change. The early 2000s were similar to the early 1960s, in the vain that it was a sort of cultural continuation of the conservative elements of the 1950s & 1990s respectively. The mid 1960s and mid 2000s were when things began to be more structurally redrawn, but in a more idealistic sense. The late 1960s and the late 2000s were a culmination of those changes being felt and when 'sh!t' began hitting the fan in tumultuous chaos.

However, this ultimately ended these two decades off in a (semi) good note. 1968 and 2008 were both very turbulent years in American history (1968: RKF/MLK assassinations, race riots, 68' DNC Convention riots, Vietnam protests, Nixon's controversial Presidential campaign; 2008: Oil Shock, tense DNC primary, Gaza bombings, Iraq War, The failure of the Big Banks & subsequent economic crisis that followed) , but both 1969 and 2009 offered a glimpse of optimism for the future. 2007-2009 is going to be seen as "The 2000s; 2000-2003 is going to be seen as "just a continuation of The 1990s Minus 9/11 of course, but I notice that younger generations are sort of disregarding the significance of that event. This is due to their lack of memories of the attacks, especially since many of them weren't even alive. So to them, they honestly see much of 2000-2003 as just a continuation of the much larger contextual era of 'pre-social media', 'pre horrible economy', 'pre smartphones', and pre 'culture wars', among other things, aka when times were a lot more peaceful in a era that they barely, (if at all) experienced.

Sorry to say, but I think the '2000-2003/4 was just a continuation of the 1990s' notion is bound to stick. Especially as people still try to specify only the 'early 2000s' when they speak of anything good that came from the 2000s decade, almost like the early 00s is its own special sanctimonious category, detached from the mid-late 2000s. In some elements of that, I do kind of agree with though (especially technologically).

Personally I see the "true 2000s" as being 2004-2007 (the MySpace flip phone bling bling era), which I always thought contained peak emo. But now people are also considering emo a 2008-2013 era thing. Maybe it lasted longer for some.

5 years ago I would've been more high-strung about this stuff but now I'm more relaxed about it, lol.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 12/27/19 at 10:12 am


Personally I see the "true 2000s" as being 2004-2007 (the MySpace flip phone bling bling era), which I always thought contained peak emo. But now people are also considering emo a 2008-2013 era thing. Maybe it lasted longer for some.

5 years ago I would've been more high-strung about this stuff but now I'm more relaxed about it, lol.


Well specifically Emo fashion/music was from 2004-2008/2009. However, there were elements of Emo fashion that seeded into the Scene movement, which began simultaneously as the Emo trend was dying off around 2008-2009, and in many ways was sort of a spiritual continuation of the much larger Goth/Emo/Scene trends that defined Millennial Youth. Scene culture was a thing from roughly 2008-2013.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mxcrashxm on 12/27/19 at 12:35 pm


Who was dancing to R&B?  ??? Nelly Furtado and Pussycat Dolls are not R&B... Justin Timberlake's Sexy Back is not R&B...



Also, r&b was pretty dead in 2006/2007 and wasn’t topping the charts like how it was in the late ’90s up to 2005. 2005 had the “Emancipation of Mimi,” which practically took over that entire year. 2006/2007 was different musically. The whole Britney Spears, Nelly Furtado and Justin Timberlake era of that time started electro-pop in the late 2000s.
Are you two are kidding? R&B was still popular as another user mentioned way into 2010 and then went underground for a new revision. Are you both saying you don't consider Akon, Trey Songz, Keyshia Cole, Drake (not all of his early songs were rap), Robin Thicke, R. Kelly, The-Dream, J. Holiday, Jasmine Sullivan, Jeremih, and Mary J. Blige R&B? All these artists had songs within the late 00s and charted very well. Plus, that same era wasn't just an electro-influenced pop period. Hip-hop, pop-rock, reggaeton, and even country dominated too.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: wixness on 12/27/19 at 12:50 pm


But unfortunately, I honestly think that's exactly how most future generations are going to remember the decade as. Mainly because the Late 2000s were the most transformative part of the decade; social media finally becoming standard, 7th generation console wars, emo music/fashion, the Great Recession/Oil Shock, 'Obamania' & 'Bush malaise', the Launch of the iPhone, I could go on and on.

The 2000s remind me a lot of the 1960s, as both decades were decades of massive societal change. The early 2000s were similar to the early 1960s, in the vain that it was a sort of cultural continuation of the conservative elements of the 1950s & 1990s respectively. The mid 1960s and mid 2000s were when things began to be more structurally redrawn, but in a more idealistic sense. The late 1960s and the late 2000s were a culmination of those changes being felt and when 'sh!t' began hitting the fan in tumultuous chaos.

However, this ultimately ended these two decades off in a (semi) good note. 1968 and 2008 were both very turbulent years in American history (1968: RKF/MLK assassinations, race riots, 68' DNC Convention riots, Vietnam protests, Nixon's controversial Presidential campaign; 2008: Oil Shock, tense DNC primary, Gaza bombings, Iraq War, The failure of the Big Banks & subsequent economic crisis that followed) , but both 1969 and 2009 offered a glimpse of optimism for the future. 2007-2009 is going to be seen as "The 2000s; 2000-2003 is going to be seen as "just a continuation of The 1990s Minus 9/11 of course, but I notice that younger generations are sort of disregarding the significance of that event. This is due to their lack of memories of the attacks, especially since many of them weren't even alive. So to them, they honestly see much of 2000-2003 as just a continuation of the much larger contextual era of 'pre-social media', 'pre horrible economy', 'pre smartphones', and pre 'culture wars', among other things, aka when times were a lot more peaceful in a era that they barely, (if at all) experienced.


I think the 2010s is more deserving of the status of the decade of social change, since it's the decade when same-sex marriage in the US became legal nationwide, and Extinction Rebellion protests took place.


Sorry to say, but I think the '2000-2003/4 was just a continuation of the 1990s' notion is bound to stick. Especially as people still try to specify only the 'early 2000s' when they speak of anything good that came from the 2000s decade, almost like the early 00s is its own special sanctimonious category, detached from the mid-late 2000s. In some elements of that, I do kind of agree with though (especially technologically).
Definitely.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mxcrashxm on 12/27/19 at 1:10 pm


2006-2009 is a random assortment of years. 2006 goes with 2005 and 2009 goes with the 2010s.

2007/2008 were high tech, but they were still very 2000s. We were still dancing to R&B, listening to rap and rock, and the mall was still the premier hangout spot. Most people still owned SDTVs, and computers ran on Windows XP, and the iPhone's main selling point was that it was an iPod with phone capabilities, not that it had apps (it did not get an app store until late 2008).
It does seem that way because the OP only mentioned music, technology, and even fashion while overlooking politics, everyday life, etc. The second half of the decade may have been high tech (especially in the late 00s), as you said, but older tech such as CD players, MP3s, and landlines, was still standard even up to 10 years ago. Plus, the majority had either film or digital cameras to take photos and camcorders to videotape.

Regarding the internet, nearly everyone had it to connect to the web and social media, but during that time, they only could access it using a PC. As for cell phones, they honestly didn't have great features besides the ability to call and text others anytime, anywhere. Then, also factoring in that they had limited data makes the 2005-09 era much older than it should be.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: batfan2005 on 12/27/19 at 8:37 pm


Are you two are kidding? R&B was still popular as another user mentioned way into 2010 and then went underground for a new revision. Are you both saying you don't consider Akon, Trey Songz, Keyshia Cole, Drake (not all of his early songs were rap), Robin Thicke, R. Kelly, The-Dream, J. Holiday, Jasmine Sullivan, Jeremih, and Mary J. Blige R&B? All these artists had songs within the late 00s and charted very well. Plus, that same era wasn't just an electro-influenced pop period. Hip-hop, pop-rock, reggaeton, and even country dominated too.


Again, people on here make JT's FutureSex/LoveSounds of 2006 to be like Nirvana'a Smells Like Teen Spirit of 1991, while the R&B of 2005 and prior is like the hair metal of 1990 and prior.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/28/19 at 3:35 am


Are you two are kidding? R&B was still popular as another user mentioned way into 2010 and then went underground for a new revision. Are you both saying you don't consider Akon, Trey Songz, Keyshia Cole, Drake (not all of his early songs were rap), Robin Thicke, R. Kelly, The-Dream, J. Holiday, Jasmine Sullivan, Jeremih, and Mary J. Blige R&B? All these artists had songs within the late 00s and charted very well. Plus, that same era wasn't just an electro-influenced pop period. Hip-hop, pop-rock, reggaeton, and even country dominated too.


I think I am not phrasing things right.What I mean is that yes there was rnb in the late 2000’s as there is now, it’s not or will not go anywhere. Rnb is a genre of course but that doesn’t mean it will always be mainstream. Rnb was not mainstream at all in the late 2000’s compared to the first half of the decade. Pop rock is still a genre  but that doesn’t mean it is mainstream as of right now. From 2000-2005 rnb songs were topping the billboard charts from left to right compared to the late 2000’s. Akon, Keyshia Cole, Mary J, R kelly, etc. were products of the 90’s/early 2000’s up till 2005 (as I stated earlier) and  many of those artists had more mainstream number 1 hits during that time as opposed to the late 2000’s. Jazmine Sullivan is more of a writer, she made 2 songs in the late 2000’s that were popular and one of them wasn’t even rnb. Also Drake is a rapper. Rnb was very much apart of mainstream pop culture during the early to mid 2000’s compared to the late 2000’s and the billboard charts can prove that.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/28/19 at 3:47 am


It does seem that way because the OP only mentioned music, technology, and even fashion while overlooking politics, everyday life, etc. The second half of the decade may have been high tech (especially in the late 00s), as you said, but older tech such as CD players, MP3s, and landlines, was still standard even up to 10 years ago. Plus, the majority had either film or digital cameras to take photos and camcorders to videotape.

Regarding the internet, nearly everyone had it to connect to the web and social media, but during that time, they only could access it using a PC. As for cell phones, they honestly didn't have great features besides the ability to call and text others anytime, anywhere. Then, also factoring in that they had limited data makes the 2005-09 era much older than it should be.


Ok when were you born because this doesn’t sound right at all. I mentioned the laid back feeling of early- mid 2000’s pop culture that seemed to have been fading away by 2006-2007. I cannot speak for everyone’s individual experiences or everyday life during that time as everyone’s experiences are different but politics were crazy and 9/11 as well as two wars started/happened. But in terms of pop culture it was a pretty kick back time to be alive.

Also film cameras were not being used much after 2004-2006. Digital cameras were taking over by this time and were pretty much used as a norm by the late 2000’s. In the 90’s- early 2000’s many still used compact vhs camcorders where as in the mid to late 2000’s those were being replaced with digital camcorders as well. Compact CD players were not used very much (or standard) in 2009 at all but ipods and mp3 players were.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/28/19 at 6:17 am


Are you two are kidding? R&B was still popular as another user mentioned way into 2010 and then went underground for a new revision. Are you both saying you don't consider Akon, Trey Songz, Keyshia Cole, Drake (not all of his early songs were rap), Robin Thicke, R. Kelly, The-Dream, J. Holiday, Jasmine Sullivan, Jeremih, and Mary J. Blige R&B? All these artists had songs within the late 00s and charted very well. Plus, that same era wasn't just an electro-influenced pop period. Hip-hop, pop-rock, reggaeton, and even country dominated too.

Yeah. I didn't start calling R&B "dead" until the early 2010s, which was a sad time because of it. R&B in the early 2010s had very little presence.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: batfan2005 on 12/28/19 at 8:04 am


Yeah. I didn't start calling R&B "dead" until the early 2010s, which was a sad time because of it. R&B in the early 2010s had very little presence.


Rap also had little presence in the early 2010's except for Lil Wayne, Drake, and a few others. It was an EDM dominant era. Even R&B artists like Chris Brown and Usher had songs produced by David Guetta with the dance sound. It was a fun and upbeat time though.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: batfan2005 on 12/28/19 at 8:17 am


2004 was a big transition late 2004 to early 2005 was the start of mid 2000’s culture in my opinion. Emo was already big in 2002-2003 with the whole evanescence/Avril Lavigne thing going on. It got even bigger in 2005-2006 with fallout boy and My chemical romance. I remember it like yesterday. But 2004 was definitely not the peak of mid 2000’s culture at all. If you accumulate the entire year predicated upon culture, 2004 was the start of a lot of mid 2000’s culture sure but it also had a lot of early 2000’s trends in the beginning of the year until about summer.


Lost premiered in 2004 and that was a big part of mid 2000's culture. Also the movie Napoleon Dynamite. Gwen Stefani's album was released in December 2004 but I associate it with 2005. I'm very nostalgic about the 2004/05 school year. I wasn't in school anymore by the time, but basically the same time period. It had a certain vibe to it. Great music ranging from Chingy and Ciara, Lil Jon, Snoop Dogg, the aforementioned Gwen Stefani, and Omarion. Christmas 2004 was one of the best Christmases since childhood, and Polar Express was a big part of that season.

The 2005/06 was a lot different. After my trip to Europe things seemed to go downhill, both in my life and culturally. I remember songs like Laffy Taffy on the radio, lol. It was also the beginning of the ringtone rap era that lasted until around 2008. In the fall before the Euro Trip, I remember "Golddigger" by Kanye West and "Sugar, We're Going Down" by Fall Out Boy being big. Also Green Day and Weezer.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/28/19 at 8:43 am


Rap also had little presence in the early 2010's except for Lil Wayne, Drake, and a few others. It was an EDM dominant era. Even R&B artists like Chris Brown and Usher had songs produced by David Guetta with the dance sound. It was a fun and upbeat time though.

Yes, and it was extremely annoying to me. I couldn't stand hearing all that autotune, EDM & Dubstep all the time. I stopped listening to the radio because of it.

In regards to rap, I think that it's disfavorable to music & the genre to only focus on mainstream success & charting position if a genre is bubbling under the surface & flourishing underground. I'm not talking about you personally, just speaking in general.

The difference between hip-hop and r&b at that time was that hip-hop was going through a mini renaissance. 08/09 - 2013 is considered to be a great time for hip-hop and saw lots of renovations. If someone were to call hip-hop "dead" during that time just because it wasn't charting well that would be a disservice to music history. It was the blog rap era, the one that came before the sound cloud era. Rap blogs, Tumblr, and the rise in streaming services allowed many rap artists to put their music out there and create a bright environment for hip-hop online.

On the other hand, R&B was being revolutionized by artists like Frank Ocean, The Weeknd & Miguel but its presence was still overall weak in the mainstream & underground in terms of having impact on the culture.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 12/28/19 at 9:14 am


Yeah. I didn't start calling R&B "dead" until the early 2010s, which was a sad time because of it. R&B in the early 2010s had very little presence.


I disagree. Rap/Hip Hop was still very prominent in the early 2010s. Heck in many ways, as much as I and many others bashed that era while it was going on (especially when comparing it to the Rap/Hip Hop of the 1990s & early 2000s), we all secretly wish we were back in those times. I feel like there are way too many (SoundCloud) rappers to keep track of, especially ones that are mad disrespectful to ‘the greats’. The market is more saturated then at any point in the genre’s history, and that’s due in part to Rap/Hip Hop becoming the face of pop music, in which I despise.

On an uplifting note......

My post count is finally the same as my birth year.... 1996

so there’s that :D :D :D

#inthe00sFTW ;)

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/28/19 at 2:33 pm

R&B was no longer the main genre after 2005. And many new artists came in to make it sound different like Akon. Sure it didn't completely die but it was not as mainstream as 2005 and before. The late 2000s was not full of R&B as the first half of the 2000s was.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/28/19 at 2:34 pm


R&B was no longer the main genre after 2005. And many new artists came in to make it sound different like Akon. Sure it didn't completely die but it was not as mainstream as 2005 and before. The late 2000s was full of R&B as the first half of the 2000s was.


The distinction seems arbitrary. 2005 was more similar to the late 2000s than the Y2K era, just accept it!

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/28/19 at 2:53 pm

I don't know why people say R&B wasn't popular in 2006-2008. You are telling me these aren't R&B?

Vzo-EL_62fQ 2EwViQxSJJQ TOrnUquxtwA

IxszlJppRQI JWA5hJl4Dv0 rywUS-ohqeE

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/28/19 at 3:16 pm


I don't know why people say R&B wasn't popular in 2006-2008. You are telling me these aren't R&B?

Not as popular as 2000 - 2005

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/28/19 at 3:17 pm


The distinction seems arbitrary. 2005 was more similar to the late 2000s than the Y2K era, just accept it!

That's not my argument at all. My point is 2000 - 2005 was part of the real 2000s. I am not saying 2005 was early 2000s. 2003 - 2005 was mid 2000s. Early and mid '00s in my opinion were both part of the classic 2000s culture.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Howard on 12/28/19 at 3:42 pm


Yes, and it was extremely annoying to me. I couldn't stand hearing all that autotune, EDM & Dubstep all the time. I stopped listening to the radio because of it.

In regards to rap, I think that it's disfavorable to music & the genre to only focus on mainstream success & charting position if a genre is bubbling under the surface & flourishing underground. I'm not talking about you personally, just speaking in general.

The difference between hip-hop and r&b at that time was that hip-hop was going through a mini renaissance. 08/09 - 2013 is considered to be a great time for hip-hop and saw lots of renovations. If someone were to call hip-hop "dead" during that time just because it wasn't charting well that would be a disservice to music history. It was the blog rap era, the one that came before the sound cloud era. Rap blogs, Tumblr, and the rise in streaming services allowed many rap artists to put their music out there and create a bright environment for hip-hop online.

On the other hand, R&B was being revolutionized by artists like Frank Ocean, The Weeknd & Miguel but its presence was still overall weak in the mainstream & underground in terms of having impact on the culture.


That became a extreme headache for me listening to that, this is why I prefer the oldies over today's music.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/28/19 at 4:28 pm


I disagree. Rap/Hip Hop was still very prominent in the early 2010s. Heck in many ways, as much as I and many others bashed that era while it was going on (especially when comparing it to the Rap/Hip Hop of the 1990s & early 2000s), we all secretly wish we were back in those times. I feel like there are way too many (SoundCloud) rappers to keep track of, especially ones that are mad disrespectful to ‘the greats’. The market is more saturated then at any point in the genre’s history, and that’s due in part to Rap/Hip Hop becoming the face of pop music, in which I despise.

On an uplifting note......

My post count is finally the same as my birth year.... 1996

so there’s that :D :D :D

#inthe00sFTW ;)


Yup read my last reply.


That became a extreme headache for me listening to that, this is why I prefer the oldies over today's music.

No kidding. All that constant pounding from the music bassline literally gave me headaches.


Not as popular as 2000 - 2005

Yeah, I can acknowledge that but it wasn't "dead" like some people were saying. It went dead in the early 2010s, so calling it dead in the late 2000s feels like an overstatement.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/28/19 at 4:45 pm


I don't know why people say R&B wasn't popular in 2006-2008. You are telling me these aren't R&B?

Vzo-EL_62fQ 2EwViQxSJJQ TOrnUquxtwA

IxszlJppRQI JWA5hJl4Dv0 rywUS-ohqeE

The late 2000s had a good amount of pop ballads infused with R&B like the Bleeding Love song & the Alicia Keys songs. Some people probably don't really consider those R&B and I think that's why some say it was dead but there regular R&B still had a presence with songs like the ones you posted.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/28/19 at 5:12 pm


The distinction seems arbitrary. 2005 was more similar to the late 2000s than the Y2K era, just accept it!


I suggest you go back and rewatch the first season of Zoey 101. It hives context into the year 2005 for those around my age. Definitely more related to the first half of the 2000’s rather than the last.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/28/19 at 5:29 pm


Lost premiered in 2004 and that was a big part of mid 2000's culture. Also the movie Napoleon Dynamite. Gwen Stefani's album was released in December 2004 but I associate it with 2005. I'm very nostalgic about the 2004/05 school year. I wasn't in school anymore by the time, but basically the same time period. It had a certain vibe to it. Great music ranging from Chingy and Ciara, Lil Jon, Snoop Dogg, the aforementioned Gwen Stefani, and Omarion. Christmas 2004 was one of the best Christmases since childhood, and Polar Express was a big part of that season.

The 2005/06 was a lot different. After my trip to Europe things seemed to go downhill, both in my life and culturally. I remember songs like Laffy Taffy on the radio, lol. It was also the beginning of the ringtone rap era that lasted until around 2008. In the fall before the Euro Trip, I remember "Golddigger" by Kanye West and "Sugar, We're Going Down" by Fall Out Boy being big. Also Green Day and Weezer.


I remember all of this ! 2004/2005 was a really fun time for my personal life. Then again I was a kid and had little to no worries. Laffy taffy and Lean with it tock with it were two of the biggest dances/songs of the 2005/2006 time period. It’s so weird because the ringtone rap started around 2004 but it wasn’t as big as it was in 2005. Yin yang twins and peety pablo were big in hip hop during the summer of 2004 but so was Usher, Alicia Keys, Destiny’s Child and other artists who still had that early 2000’s vibe to it. Lil John was everywhere from 2004-2008 😂

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mxcrashxm on 12/28/19 at 5:45 pm


Again, people on here make JT's FutureSex/LoveSounds of 2006 to be like Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit of 1991, while the R&B of 2005 and prior is like the hair metal of 1990 and prior.
Yeah, they're making it seem R&B declined after 2005, but that's not true. There was plenty of it during the second half of the 00s. Most of them I even mentioned weren't one-hit wonders either. They had hit every year.


Ok, when were you born because this doesn’t sound right at all. I mentioned the laid back feeling of early- mid-2000’s pop culture that seemed to have been fading away by 2006-2007. I cannot speak for everyone’s individual experiences or everyday life during that time as everyone’s experiences are different, but politics were crazy, and 9/11, as well as two wars, started/happened. But in terms of pop culture, it was a pretty kick back time to be alive.

Also, film cameras were not being used much after 2004-2006. Digital cameras were taking over by this time and were pretty much used as a norm by the late 2000s. In the 90’s- early 2000’s many still used compact VHS camcorders, whereas, in the mid to late 2000s, those were being replaced with digital camcorders as well. Small CD players were not used very much (or standard) in 2009 at all, but iPods and mp3 players were.
Well, the late 00s were too. I don't know why you believe the pop culture wasn't peaceful.

Yeah, digital cameras were standard by 2006. However, you can't deny that film cameras were still being used despite their were on their way out. It wouldn't be surprising to find photos made from those cameras in the late 00s. CD players were dying as well during that time, but they were still useful, along with MP3s and iPods. Plus, you have to remember iPods were only compatible with iTunes and for MP3s, people had to download songs off websites or applications to use them back then.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mxcrashxm on 12/28/19 at 6:04 pm


I think I am not phrasing things right. What I mean is that yes, there was one in the late 2000s as there is now; it’s not or will not go anywhere. Rnb is a genre, of course, but that doesn’t mean it will always be mainstream. Rnb was not mainstream at all in the late 2000s compared to the first half of the decade. Pop-rock is still a genre, but that doesn’t mean it is mainstream as of right now. From 2000-2005 RnB songs were topping the billboard charts from left to right compared to the late 2000s. Akon, Keyshia Cole, Mary J, R kelly, etc. were products of the 90’s/early 2000’s up till 2005 (as I stated earlier) and many of those artists had more mainstream number 1 hit during that time as opposed to the late 2000s Jazmine Sullivan is more of a writer. She made two songs in the late 2000s that were popular, and one of them wasn’t even RnB. Also, Drake is a rapper. Rnb was very much a part of mainstream pop culture during the early to mid-2000s compared to the late 2000s, and the billboard charts can prove that.
That doesn't counteract what I said though. The late 00s music era was more than just electrofused songs. No one genre dominated over another.

So Akon and Keyshia Cole weren't popular in the late 00s? As for Drake, he may be a rapper, but he did have some R&B songs. Are you telling me you don't consider these as R&B?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KbjaLGsOHaE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wWcaNu10POQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9fUYcxP1UA


Two of them are from 2010, but still, my point stands.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/28/19 at 6:10 pm


Yeah, they're making it seem R&B declined after 2005, but that's not true. There was plenty of it during the second half of the 00s. Most of them I even mentioned weren't one-hit wonders either. They had hit every year.
Well, the late 00s were too. I don't know why you believe the pop culture wasn't peaceful.

Yeah, digital cameras were standard by 2006. However, you can't deny that film cameras were still being used despite their were on their way out. It wouldn't be surprising to find photos made from those cameras in the late 00s. CD players were dying as well during that time, but they were still useful, along with MP3s and iPods. Plus, you have to remember iPods were only compatible with iTunes and for MP3s, people had to download songs off websites or applications to use them back then.


Im not saying R&B died after 2005, im saying it became less mainstream because it did. It gave way for new styles of music such as synth pop and electro pop which were genres that dominated the charts from 2006-2013. There were great R&B songs from 2006-2009 but they weren’t as mainstream. Cassie, Beyonce, Ciara, Omarion, Ne-Yo, Cris Brown, etc just to name a few were making music still. By 2007-2008 their style of music was changing more so to pop music of the times tho.

Also I said the pop culture and style of music from 2000-2005 was a kickback time because music had a very “feel good” vibe to it , especially during the summers ! I never said late 2000’s culture wasn’t peaceful. It wasn’t as kicked back as the early to mid 2000’s tho.

We used limewire during the late 2000’s for ipods and mp3’s. In fact it was being used so much that limewire was sued in 2009. I believe and had to be shut down. That gave way to frostwire. In the early to mid 2000’s we burned CD’s off of napster as well. CD players were definitely dead by 2009. I did use film cameras from 2007-2008ish until I got a digital camera for Christmas in 2008. My parents wouldn’t let me have a digital camera so film it was. But most of the technology you mentioned were already phasing out by the mid 2000’s and practically dead in the late 2000’s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/28/19 at 6:16 pm


That doesn't counteract what I said though. The late 00s music era was more than just electrofused songs. No one genre dominated over another.

So Akon and Keyshia Cole weren't popular in the late 00s? As for Drake, he may be a rapper, but he did have some R&B songs. Are you telling me you don't consider these as R&B?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KbjaLGsOHaE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wWcaNu10POQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9fUYcxP1UA


Two of them are from 2010, but still, my point stands.


Keyshia Cole and Akon were both Pretty good in the late 2000’s there’s no denying that. They were products of the mid 2000’s (2004/2005) . Their music was good in the late 2000’s and I’m not denying that R&B was gone in the late 2000’s it just wasn’t mainstream like it was pre 2006 unfortunately. R&B was incorporated into POP culture during the first half of the 2000’s while synth pop and electro pop were incorporated into pop culture during the last half of the 2000’s decade. And yes a genre can dominate the charts over another genre, how do you think pop culture and music is influenced. There can be more than one genre with number one hits of course but if you look at what accumulates the top hits of a certain era then you have your answer.

Also that song by Drake is nor R&B to me. That is hip hop/ rap.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/28/19 at 6:23 pm


Yeah, they're making it seem R&B declined after 2005, but that's not true. There was plenty of it during the second half of the 00s. Most of them I even mentioned weren't one-hit wonders either. They had hit every year.
Well, the late 00s were too. I don't know why you believe the pop culture wasn't peaceful.

Yeah, digital cameras were standard by 2006. However, you can't deny that film cameras were still being used despite their were on their way out. It wouldn't be surprising to find photos made from those cameras in the late 00s. CD players were dying as well during that time, but they were still useful, along with MP3s and iPods. Plus, you have to remember iPods were only compatible with iTunes and for MP3s, people had to download songs off websites or applications to use them back then.

What you think is R&B was not R&B... It was just pop ballads mixed with some R&B elements. Yes it was on the decline.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mxcrashxm on 12/28/19 at 6:48 pm


Im not saying R&B died after 2005, im saying it became less mainstream because it did. It gave way for new styles of music such as synth-pop and electro-pop, which were genres that dominated the charts from 2006-2013. There were great R&B songs from 2006-2009, but they weren’t as mainstream. Cassie, Beyonce, Ciara, Omarion, Ne-Yo, Chris Brown, etc. to name a few were making music still. By 2007-2008 their style of music was changing more so to pop music tho.

Also, I said the pop culture and style of music from 2000-2005 was a kickback time because music had a very “feel good” vibe to it, especially during the summers! I never said the late 2000’s culture wasn’t peaceful. It wasn’t as kicked back as the early to mid-2000s tho.

We used Limewire during the late 2000s for iPods and mp3s. It was being used so much that Limewire was sued in 2009. I believed and had to be shut down. That gave way to Frostwire. In the early to mid-2000’s we burned CD’s off of Napster as well. CD players were dead by 2009. I did use film cameras from 2007-2008ish until I got a digital camera for Christmas in 2008. My parents wouldn’t let me have a digital camera so film it was. But most of the technology you mentioned were already phasing out by the mid-2000s and practically dead in the late 2000s.
I said declined, which is not the same as dead.

Not so fast! Synthpop may have made a comeback during that time. However, the late 00s dominated with a variety of genres, not just electro inspired songs. Plus, I noticed that you mentioned R&B monopolized the first of the 00s. What about the other types? Hip Hop, pop-punk, pop-rock, reggae-inspired songs, etc. were popular too.

What would be the reason it wasn't as chill as the early-mid 00s?

Yeah, they were dead by 2009, but they were still convenient if people didn't have an iPod or MP3.

Did you listen to the other two songs I posted?


What you think is R&B was not R&B... It was just pop ballads mixed with some R&B elements. Yes, it was on the decline.
What do you consider R&B? You do know it's an umbrella term like EDM, right?

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 12/29/19 at 10:01 am


Yeah, digital cameras were standard by 2006. However, you can't deny that film cameras were still being used despite their were on their way out. It wouldn't be surprising to find photos made from those cameras in the late 00s. CD players were dying as well during that time, but they were still useful, along with MP3s and iPods. Plus, you have to remember iPods were only compatible with iTunes and for MP3s, people had to download songs off websites or applications to use them back then.


Yeah, we were still using a film camera up until 2008. I would say that digital cameras had about 75% of the market by that point, but old style cameras were still around.

I also bought my last CD around 2008. I got my first MP3 player during the mid '00s, but I still bought CD's so I could copy the songs over to that format.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/29/19 at 11:43 am


I suggest you go back and rewatch the first season of Zoey 101. It hives context into the year 2005 for those around my age. Definitely more related to the first half of the 2000’s rather than the last.


I was never a fan of kid sitcoms. By 2005 I was watching Lost, Desperate Housewives, Prison Break and The Apprentice etc. and those shows are very unlike the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 11:54 am


I was never a fan of kid sitcoms. By 2005 I was watching Lost, Desperate Housewives, Prison Break and The Apprentice etc. and those shows are very unlike the early 2000s.


I mean I also watched Flavor of Love back in 2006 when I was in fourth grade and that show was definitely mid 2000’s. I don’t think the First season of Lost had much of a mid 2000’s vibe to it. I used to love that show and I remember watching the premiere with my mom when we lived in San Francisco. When I think of mid 2000’s tv shows I think of The OC, Flavor of Love, Rock of Love, Made, Next, Runs House, Laguna Beach, Simple Life, One tree hill and degrassi. I remember these being way more popular during that time.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/29/19 at 11:55 am


What you think is R&B was not R&B... It was just pop ballads mixed with some R&B elements. Yes it was on the decline.


This is the "bargaining" stage of denial ;D

By the same token aren't a lot of the songs you're dismissing also "R&B songs mixed with some synthpop elements"?

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 11:57 am


I said declined, which is not the same as dead.

Not so fast! Synthpop may have made a comeback during that time. However, the late 00s dominated with a variety of genres, not just electro inspired songs. Plus, I noticed that you mentioned R&B monopolized the first of the 00s. What about the other types? Hip Hop, pop-punk, pop-rock, reggae-inspired songs, etc. were popular too.

What would be the reason it wasn't as chill as the early-mid 00s?

Yeah, they were dead by 2009, but they were still convenient if people didn't have an iPod or MP3.

Did you listen to the other two songs I posted?
What do you consider R&B? You do know it's an umbrella term like EDM, right?


Yeah I  listened to the other 2 songs and the one by Jamie foxx was not mainstream in the least. That was my first time hearing that song lmao. The one by Drake wasn’t even a single. Like I said it wasn’t popular at the time. R&b is rhythm and blues infused with pop, hip hop and digital sounds. It’s biggest competitor was hip hop during the 90’s and early 2000’s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/29/19 at 11:57 am


I mean I also watched Flavor of Love back in 2006 when I was in fourth grade and that show was definitely mid 2000’s. I don’t think the First season of Lost had much of a mid 2000’s vibe to it. I used to love that show and I remember watching the premiere with my mom when we lived in San Francisco. When I think of mid 2000’s reality tv I think of The OC, Flavor of Love, Rock of Love, Made, Next, Runs House, Laguna Beach, Simple Life, One tree hill and degrassi. I remember these being way more popular during that time.


Out of those I only watched Simple Life.

The first season of Lost may as well have been late 2000s or 2010s. There was no show like it on regular cable in the early 2000s, it was revolutionary for its time. It kicked off the Golden Age of Television which most critics agree goes from 2005 to Present.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 12:02 pm


Out of those I only watched Simple Life.

The first season of Lost may as well have been late 2000s or 2010s. There was no show like it on regular cable in the early 2000s, it was revolutionary for its time. It kicked off the Golden Age of Television which most critics agree goes from 2005 to Present.


I have to agree Lost was super innovative. There was nothing like it at the time ! Jeez ok now I wanna binge watch it haha. And I’ve always heard ppl say 2005 to present was when Tv started to suck bc of all the reality tv shows I mentioned. I think there was a poll done about it on Pew research center.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/29/19 at 12:10 pm


I have to agree Lost was super innovative. There was nothing like it at the time ! Jeez ok now I wanna binge watch it haha. And I’ve always heard ppl say 2005 to present was when Tv started to suck bc of all the reality tv shows I mentioned. I think there was a poll done about it on Pew research center.


2005 did have a lot of reality shows. This was back when people watched TV 24/7 (instead of being on social media like today) for entertainment. After the good shows were done there was reality TV to fill the void. I don't think there's any excuse to be watching reality TV in 2019.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 12:39 pm

Just a few R&B songs from late 2000s.  Popular enough to be played on pop radio and MTV, MTV Hits, VH1 (as opposed to being restricted to urban channels such as MTV Jamz, Vh1 Soul, & BET like in the early 2010s).

vYMxOzxKYYo

zTWDpFc7gsU

mgaeGW-2z6w



Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 12:46 pm

.


udsmegqZMzg

82t_UOMHPJY

IIMAqSiesgM


Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/29/19 at 2:08 pm

Calling some of those songs R&B is like the equivalent of calling trap music rap. Just so different compared to the sound in previous years.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 2:41 pm


Calling some of those songs R&B is like the equivalent of calling trap music rap. Just so different compared to the sound in previous years.

Doesn't really make any difference. Every era of R&B sounds different from the previous era. 80s R&B doesn't sound like 90s and 90s R&B doesnt sound like 2000s. Plus throughout the 90s & 2000s, much of R&B has taken influences from other popular genres, especially hip-hop. Hip-hop and R&B are like a marriage and most times have been mentioned together and even have their own chart.

Like in the 2000s, especially after 2003, R&B took on lots of influence from crunk music and are included when the dominance of hip-hop and R&B in the early-mid 2000s is brought up. It's like not counting Ushers "Yeah," Ciara's "Goodies," Beyonce's "Crazy In Love," J.Los "Ain't That Funny," Janets "All For You," or "Doesnt Really Matter" etc as apart of the R&B era of the early to mid 2000s. Most R&B uptempo songs take on influence from a more upbeat genre and differ from slower R&B songs but they are considered R&B singles nonetheless.

Trap is rap, it is a subset of the genre. What makes you think it isn't rap?

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 2:58 pm

But here are 3 more replacement songs that are more r&b oriented that were popular in the late 2000s



sUP-uW07fuA

0DdCoNbbRvQ

YtBovYHx0vw


Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/29/19 at 4:07 pm


Doesn't really make any difference. Every era of R&B sounds different from the previous era. 80s R&B doesn't sound like 90s and 90s R&B doesnt sound like 2000s. Plus throughout the 90s & 2000s, much of R&B has taken influences from other popular genres, especially hip-hop. Hip-hop and R&B are like a marriage and most times have been mentioned together and even have their own chart.

Like in the 2000s, especially after 2003, R&B took on lots of influence from crunk music and are included when the dominance of hip-hop and R&B in the early-mid 2000s is brought up. It's like not counting Ushers "Yeah," Ciara's "Goodies," Beyonce's "Crazy In Love," J.Los "Ain't That Funny," Janets "All For You," or "Doesnt Really Matter" etc as apart of the R&B era of the early to mid 2000s. Most R&B uptempo songs take on influence from a more upbeat genre and differ from slower R&B songs but they are considered R&B singles nonetheless.

Trap is rap, it is a subset of the genre. What makes you think it isn't rap?

It's not rap. I love rap but despise trap. Rap is my favourite genre, trap is my lease favourite. It's not rap.

In regards to R&B, even if it is still sort of R&B my point still stands that it sounded different anyway but it was declining for sure.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 12/29/19 at 5:24 pm


That's not my argument at all. My point is 2000 - 2005 was part of the real 2000s. I am not saying 2005 was early 2000s. 2003 - 2005 was mid 2000s. Early and mid '00s in my opinion were both part of the classic 2000s culture.


REAL 2000s was really more (if you mean by 'core' of the decade) 2003-2008.

Also, like I said in my paragraph before, but I think that when most people think '2000s', they immediately think moreso the second half of the decade (2005-2009) rather than the first half of the decade (2000-2004). The mere fact that people always go leaps and bounds to distinguish the 'early 2000s' when trying to discuss nostalgic elements from the 2000s decade (regardless if the nostalgic item in question was actually from the 'early' part of the 2000s), shows that there seems to be a distinctive trait that people attribute to the section of the decade you're claiming to suggest is the 'REAL 2000s'. Thus, I, and especially most people, don't really consider the first half of the 2000s, especially in an exclusive sense, to be the most definitive of the decade.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 12/29/19 at 5:26 pm


Yup read my last reply.


Yeah sorry, I was responding to you in agreement with your post. My bad ;D.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 5:37 pm


Doesn't really make any difference. Every era of R&B sounds different from the previous era. 80s R&B doesn't sound like 90s and 90s R&B doesnt sound like 2000s. Plus throughout the 90s & 2000s, much of R&B has taken influences from other popular genres, especially hip-hop. Hip-hop and R&B are like a marriage and most times have been mentioned together and even have their own chart.

Like in the 2000s, especially after 2003, R&B took on lots of influence from crunk music and are included when the dominance of hip-hop and R&B in the early-mid 2000s is brought up. It's like not counting Ushers "Yeah," Ciara's "Goodies," Beyonce's "Crazy In Love," J.Los "Ain't That Funny," Janets "All For You," or "Doesnt Really Matter" etc as apart of the R&B era of the early to mid 2000s. Most R&B uptempo songs take on influence from a more upbeat genre and differ from slower R&B songs but they are considered R&B singles nonetheless.

Trap is rap, it is a subset of the genre. What makes you think it isn't rap?


I have to disagree just a tad. Crazy in Love by Beyonce was never seen as r$b it was always a pop song that so happened to be preformed by a R&B artist at the time. Also the sample of the Chi- Lites “Are you my women (tell me so)” was considered R&B in the 70’s as well.  “Me Myself & I” was R&B not “Baby Boy” and “Naughty Girl”. Also J-Lo’s “Aint it funny” and “I’m real” is definitely R&B. Usher’s songs like “My Boo” “Confessions part 1&2” and “Burn” captures the R&B that was charting in “04”. Also Destiny’s Child’s “soldier” is definitely southern r&b. Ciara’s “My goodies” was hip hop/ crunk where as 1,2 step was more r&b. Janet’s “All for you” was pop as well where as “Somebody to call my lover” (same album) was r&b.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 5:44 pm


REAL 2000s was really more (if you mean by 'core' of the decade) 2003-2008.

Also, like I said in my paragraph before, but I think that when most people think '2000s', they immediately think moreso the second half of the decade (2005-2009) rather than the first half of the decade (2000-2004). The mere fact that people always go leaps and bounds to distinguish the 'early 2000s' when trying to discuss nostalgic elements from the 2000s decade (regardless if the nostalgic item in question was actually from the 'early' part of the 2000s), shows that there seems to be a distinctive trait that people attribute to the section of the decade you're claiming to suggest is the 'REAL 2000s'. Thus, I, and especially most people, don't really consider the first half of the 2000s, especially in an exclusive sense, to be the most definitive of the decade.


It depends on who you ask to be honest. The 90’s ended in 1998. I think y2k culture is apart of 2000’s culture more so then classic 90’s culture. I think the late 2000’s was more of a precursor to the 10’s. All in all I consider 2000-2005 to be the true identity of 2000’s culture. I think of sean john, roc a wear, phat farm, baby fat, sweat suits, low rise jeans, r&b, teen pop, etc. but the late 2000’s is seen as a different era.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 5:47 pm


REAL 2000s was really more (if you mean by 'core' of the decade) 2003-2008.

Also, like I said in my paragraph before, but I think that when most people think '2000s', they immediately think moreso the second half of the decade (2005-2009) rather than the first half of the decade (2000-2004). The mere fact that people always go leaps and bounds to distinguish the 'early 2000s' when trying to discuss nostalgic elements from the 2000s decade (regardless if the nostalgic item in question was actually from the 'early' part of the 2000s), shows that there seems to be a distinctive trait that people attribute to the section of the decade you're claiming to suggest is the 'REAL 2000s'. Thus, I, and especially most people, don't really consider the first half of the 2000s, especially in an exclusive sense, to be the most definitive of the decade.


I kind of agree although I don’t see 2008 as core 2000’s culture in the least. I can’t see how the whole jerk, skinny jeans era of 2008 onwards is apart of core 2000’s culture.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 6:04 pm


I have to disagree just a tad. Crazy in Love by Beyonce was never seen as r$b it was always a pop song that so happened to be preformed by a R&B artist at the time. Also the sample of the Chi- Lites “Are you my women (tell me so)” was considered R&B in the 70’s as well.  “Me Myself & I” was R&B not “Baby Boy” and “Naughty Girl”. Also J-Lo’s “Aint it funny” and “I’m real” is definitely R&B. Usher’s songs like “My Boo” “Confessions part 1&2” and “Burn” captures the R&B that was charting in “04”. Also Destiny’s Child’s “soldier” is definitely southern r&b. Ciara’s “My goodies” was hip hop/ crunk where as 1,2 step was more r&b. Janet’s “All for you” was pop as well where as “Somebody to call my lover” (same album) was r&b.

Lol Crazy in Love has been considered an R&B song. You can't truly say it's never fallen into the category of R&B. It has charted on the R&B charts and I can just attest that it has from my own memory.

However, it has definitely been considered a pop song as well, especially given how well it crossed over plus the pop appeal.

The song leans more rhythm & blues though than pop and samples the rhythm &  blues song "Are You My Woman" by 70s band Chi-Lites.

hm2YjDENPPU

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/29/19 at 6:34 pm


REAL 2000s was really more (if you mean by 'core' of the decade) 2003-2008.

Also, like I said in my paragraph before, but I think that when most people think '2000s', they immediately think moreso the second half of the decade (2005-2009) rather than the first half of the decade (2000-2004). The mere fact that people always go leaps and bounds to distinguish the 'early 2000s' when trying to discuss nostalgic elements from the 2000s decade (regardless if the nostalgic item in question was actually from the 'early' part of the 2000s), shows that there seems to be a distinctive trait that people attribute to the section of the decade you're claiming to suggest is the 'REAL 2000s'. Thus, I, and especially most people, don't really consider the first half of the 2000s, especially in an exclusive sense, to be the most definitive of the decade.

I disagree. The real 2000s were 2000 - 2005. That was NOT '90s at all in any way, shape, or form. It was the real 2000s culture.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/29/19 at 6:37 pm

In fact if you were to force me to choose between the early and mid 2000s in which era was more true 2000s culture I would pick early 2000s. Nothing defines the 2000s more than Y2K did. It makes me so mad when people call it '90s.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/29/19 at 6:54 pm


In fact if you were to force me to choose between the early and mid 2000s in which era was more true 2000s culture I would pick early 2000s. Nothing defines the 2000s more than Y2K did. It makes me so mad when people call it '90s.


I get what you mean. When I joined this forum in 2015, my understanding of what "2000s" meant was leaning more towards, like, 2002. That's when Avril Lavigne got popular. That's when pop punk, nu-metal, DVDs, broadband, 6th Gen gaming, Windows XP and many other 2000s things got or were popular. Of course everything afterwards 2000s too, but that shouldn't discount the early 2000s.

I also remember in a 2006 shift thread when I said I thought 2002 was a changeful year, I got dogpiled because the change didn't happen January 1, 2002 but actually December 6, 2001 at 7:30PM or whatever. That was my first introduction to decadeology ;D

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/29/19 at 7:04 pm


I kind of agree although I don’t see 2008 as core 2000’s culture in the least. I can’t see how the whole jerk, skinny jeans era of 2008 onwards is apart of core 2000’s culture.

Jerking became popular in 2009. The year 2008 was still all about oversized and baggy clothing.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 7:04 pm


Lol Crazy in Love has been considered an R&B song. You can't truly say it's never fallen into the category of R&B. It has charted on the R&B charts and I can just attest that it has from my own memory.

However, it has definitely been considered a pop song as well, especially given how well it crossed over plus the pop appeal.

The song leans more rhythm & blues though than pop and samples the rhythm &  blues song "Are You My Woman" by 70s band Chi-Lites.

hm2YjDENPPU


I got that album christmas of 2003 at tower records haha. I do remember at the time it was considered r&b but I feel like in this day and age looking back in retrospect its considered one of the biggest pop songs of the 2000’s. Also in my last comment I said how the original sample “Are You My Woman” was 70’s r&b. It was also around this time when Diary of Alicia Keys came out. It was a very evolutionary time for r&b. I miss that era a lot.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/29/19 at 7:08 pm


Jerking became popular in 2009. The year 2008 was still all about oversized and baggy clothing.


I don't even know what jerking is. But for skinny jeans, I wore a pair in spring 2009 and I got comments like "really? Skinny jeans?" and "those are for f@gs" so they were still quite controversial then. I remember by the following school year a lot of people were wearing them.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 7:25 pm


Jerking became popular in 2009. The year 2008 was still all about oversized and baggy clothing.

Don't forget bathing apes and Gino green global  ;D

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/29/19 at 7:48 pm


Don't forget bathing apes and Gino green global  ;D


I just looked those up. Those look like the clothes I wore from 2009-2011  :-[

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 8:13 pm


I just looked those up. Those look like the clothes I wore from 2009-2011  :-[

I can't picture you wearing anything other than skinny jeans.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: 2001 on 12/29/19 at 8:17 pm


I can't picture you wearing anything other than skinny jeans.


I was all in on the neon/flashy trend. I can show you pictures (of the clothes) ;D

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 8:20 pm

KEn3_kMAIrI
bathing apes being brought to you by the one and only soulja boy tell em

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: piecesof93 on 12/29/19 at 8:23 pm


I was all in on the neon/flashy trend. I can show you pictures (of the clothes) ;D

I was too it was pretty damn cool trend. I don't want to show you any pics of me I looked like a highlighter. I definitely sought the brightest of the bright I could find.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mc98 on 12/29/19 at 8:26 pm


KEn3_kMAIrI
bathing apes being brought to you by the one and only soulja boy tell em

That has got to be the most late 2000s thing I've ever seen.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 12/29/19 at 8:33 pm


REAL 2000s was really more (if you mean by 'core' of the decade) 2003-2008.

Also, like I said in my paragraph before, but I think that when most people think '2000s', they immediately think moreso the second half of the decade (2005-2009) rather than the first half of the decade (2000-2004). The mere fact that people always go leaps and bounds to distinguish the 'early 2000s' when trying to discuss nostalgic elements from the 2000s decade (regardless if the nostalgic item in question was actually from the 'early' part of the 2000s), shows that there seems to be a distinctive trait that people attribute to the section of the decade you're claiming to suggest is the 'REAL 2000s'. Thus, I, and especially most people, don't really consider the first half of the 2000s, especially in an exclusive sense, to be the most definitive of the decade.


Yeah, I get what you mean. I would certainly say that lately 2000-2002 has become more associated with the late '90s than the rest of the '00s.

To me, I would say that if you went up to an average guy on the street and asked them what they consider to be the definitive '00s stuff, I would guess that they would say stuff that was popular during the mid '00s. Emo, flip-phones, early MySpace, Mean Girls, Ringtone Rap, PlayStation 2 and that type of stuff seems to be most associated with the '00s.

There stuff from the late '00s that is seen as stereotypically '00s too, but it seems like some of that stuff also gets associated with this decade too.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 10:52 pm


Jerking became popular in 2009. The year 2008 was still all about oversized and baggy clothing.


It started manifesting itself in 2007 when the pack came out with “vans” (got my vans on but they look like sneakers). It progressed in the 2008-2009 era. I started wearing skinny jeans in 2009. They were mostly worn by skaters and scene kids pre 2009.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: DisneysRetro on 12/29/19 at 10:55 pm


I was all in on the neon/flashy trend. I can show you pictures (of the clothes) ;D


Omg same !!!! I have a picture of me at a junior high dance 2008 (on film !) wearing a neon sweater with skinny jeans. Those were dark times for fashion. https://imgur.com/a/LoTLmMm Gross !

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: Slim95 on 12/29/19 at 11:42 pm

Are you guys referring to what I think you're referring to with the J word?  ??? This decade the opposite movement of that got popular.

Subject: Re: Does 2000-2005 seem to have more of a cultural identity than 2006-2009

Written By: mqg96 on 12/30/19 at 1:08 am

I've been reading some comments here. From my perspective, mid 2000's culture started in late 2003, but early 2000's culture died in mid 2004. Confusing huh, but yeah. I believe the 2003-2004 season was the start of mid 00's culture but the end of early 00's culture at the same time. It was transitional. Overall, I lean more towards Slim95's opinion than Violet's, however, to me 2003 is still overall more of an early 00's year, just not as strong early 00's culturally as 2001 and 2002 were. Answering the question of this thread, between 2000-2005 or 2006-2009, neither period really had that strong of a cultural identity compared to the 90's or 10's. If I had to pick one period tho, it would be 2006-2009, the late 00's had the strongest identity in the US for sure. The rise of social media (early YouTube, Facebook, late MySpace), Barack Obama, early 7th gen (Wii, XBOX 360, PS4) which shifted the gaming industry into where it is to this very day, a lot of new music artists started coming in and getting popular who would be definitive to the 2010's, oh yeah. The late 00's had a better cultural identity. 2000-2005 were very inconsistent and all over the place, at the same time, 2000-2005 were still the most definitive years of the 00's decade. There's a key difference between definitive years and cultural identity years, don't get that confused.

Check for new replies or respond here...