According to Kurt Andersen(in a Vanity Fair Article comparing 2012 to 1992), not much in the way of fashion, popular music, graphic and car designs, ect. has changed much since the late '80s/early '90s, add to that most men have been wearing the basic casual clothing for about 30-ish years(jeans, sneakers, t-shirt) in his opinion, here is a quote from the article:


Since 1992, as the technological miracles and wonders have propagated and the political economy has transformed, the world has become radically and profoundly new. (And then there’s the miraculous drop in violent crime in the United States, by half.) Here is what’s odd: during these same 20 years, the appearance of the world (computers, TVs, telephones, and music players aside) has changed hardly at all, less than it did during any 20-year period for at least a century. The past is a foreign country, but the recent past—the 00s, the 90s, even a lot of the 80s—looks almost identical to the present. This is the First Great Paradox of Contemporary Cultural History.

Think about it. Picture it. Rewind any other 20-year chunk of 20th-century time. There’s no chance you would mistake a photograph or movie of Americans or an American city from 1972—giant sideburns, collars, and bell-bottoms, leisure suits and cigarettes, AMC Javelins and Matadors and Gremlins alongside Dodge Demons, Swingers, Plymouth Dusters, and Scamps—with images from 1992. Time-travel back another 20 years, before rock ’n’ roll and the Pill and Vietnam, when both sexes wore hats and cars were big and bulbous with late-moderne fenders and fins—again, unmistakably different, 1952 from 1972. You can keep doing it and see that the characteristic surfaces and sounds of each historical moment are absolutely distinct from those of 20 years earlier or later: the clothes, the hair, the cars, the advertising—all of it. It’s even true of the 19th century: practically no respectable American man wore a beard before the 1850s, for instance, but beards were almost obligatory in the 1870s, and then disappeared again by 1900. The modern sensibility has been defined by brief stylistic shelf lives, our minds trained to register the recent past as old-fashioned.

Part of me is kind of agreeing with some of this, that alot of people have been just rehashing and recombining past fashions and music styles(just look at Adele), but this has been going on for alot longer than since 1992, I think alot of the "revolutionary" trends that alot of people recognize(like hippie counterculture, punk, grunge, ect.) were really just reactions against the prior trends of there times instead of being a totally unthought of radically new things. I think he neglects hip-hop culture and music/ certain styles of electronic music which has changed ALOT since 1992, back then it was still mostly the sample-based old school style with the G-funk sound coming in with The Chronic, compare that to 2003 when dirty south rap and crunk was becoming popular. The productions of Timbaland, The Neptunes and Lil Jon are noticably different from that of circa 1993 Dr. Dre. Even comparing 2003 to 2007 there is a difference in the sound of rap music, going from the energetic crunk sound to the slower snap rap sound and autotune(although still dirty south based).

The '00s have brought us crunk, hyphy, autotuned R&B, baile funk, reggeaton, chopped and screwed, electro-house, dubstep, grime, ect. so there HAVE been new styles but they gave not had the impact of earlier styles like psychedelicia, punk, or new wave, our culture is alot more fragmented with almost infinite options available to people. It might be too early too tell the full impact of these styles but one area where Mr. Andersen has a point is in mainstream rock music, the genre that used to be culturally/musically innovative but now has been stuck in 1995 for 15+ years, I think the hipster subculture in particular maybe somewhat responsible for the stylisitc unoriginality that he is complaining about.

Do any of you agree or disagree with Kurt Andersen's assessment? Here the full articlehttp://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201

I don't know if I totally agree - the way we absorb culture is vastly different than it was in the 90's. Before the internet, we had to check the television, various magazines, and even the radio to get new musical/political happenings. I don't think you can compare how the "popular" culture is affected by different trends if that culture is still stuck in the 20th century. While I am sick of hipster culture, there have been a lot of gems out of the subculture, at least in terms of music; but I still think it's to early to say what the defining characteristics will be of this new decade. There was cultural stagnation in the 90's until September 91; there was stagnation in the early 00's until The Strokes broke. Everyone forgets that all popular musical trends start underground: many forget that Grunge was as indie as hell until 91: it had been around since the mid 80's! Who are we to say that Animal Collective might be the Pixies of the 00's... and our Nirvana is right around the corner - that's for a kid in 20 years to decide.

To answer your question, no. I don't think we're in a period of stagnation.

I don't know if I totally agree - the way we absorb culture is vastly different than it was in the 90's. Before the internet, we had to check the television, various magazines, and even the radio to get new musical/political happenings. I don't think you can compare how the "popular" culture is affected by different trends if that culture is still stuck in the 20th century. While I am sick of hipster culture, there have been a lot of gems out of the subculture, at least in terms of music; but I still think it's to early to say what the defining characteristics will be of this new decade. There was cultural stagnation in the 90's until September 91; there was stagnation in the early 00's until The Strokes broke. Everyone forgets that all popular musical trends start underground: many forget that Grunge was as indie as hell until 91: it had been around since the mid 80's! Who are we to say that Animal Collective might be the Pixies of the 00's... and our Nirvana is right around the corner - that's for a kid in 20 years to decide.

To answer your question, no. I don't think we're in a period of stagnation.


The thing is singers like Adele are critically praised because they are extremely referential to things like '60s soul, if she can emulate that style in detail then the critics consider it classic but I think she needs to be critized more often(along with others like Lady Gaga) for her unoriginality and rehashing, I mean if most people wanted to hear '60s soul they can hear the original(and superior) version. I think one of the others reasons she is highly praised is because she is something alternative, something more organic, to the cybrog autotuned pop music that is dominant plus she is very talented just not creative or innovative. But hearing her emulate '60s soul is redundant and quite frankly boring, '60s style soul was already being revived in the mid '80s(along with '60s psychedelica and folk-rock), then '70s soul in the late '90s/early '00s(neo-soul), then Amy Winehouse, now Adele, I'd even prefer her to sing to dubstep or juke beats or something instead of trying to sound like she was teleported from 1964 ;D. In my opinion alot of these "modern" singers need to stop trying to emulate Aretha Franklin, Madanna, Michael Jackson, ect. and be their own person and define their own sound, push forward, don't make yourself unnessesary and redundant.

It just seemed like singers/bands used to get critized for being unoriginal and having no unique sound of their own(like ELO for sounding a little too much like The Beatles).

I'd never heard of ELO being accused of ripping off the Beatles. That's interesting. I think ripping off the Beatles, I think Oasis. ELO was kinda a delivery vehicle for a particular synth sound that was popular in those days. fun band but kinda one-note.

anyway, i think i would fall in the side of Emman, that we've fallen into a period where fads have basically stopped changing. The reason why in my opinion is that the creative industry has gotten more vertically oriented and now guides what's popular, whereas in earlier decades it followed trends that bubbled up out of smaller, specialized groups of creative professionals. i mean, back in the day good music would surface in local clubs and then labels would sign the band, and they and the people who were fans of them would help to define what the tenor of popular music would be. now i think the music industry decides what music it would like to have be popular. like, for instance, to me the autotune fad seems almost entirely industry-created, because it's easier and cheaper to produce vocals if they're autotuned.

and i think that bleeds over into different media. the reality TV thing is similar; the movie industry sold that to us because it's cheap to produce, and we bought it. so now half TV shows are reality TV shows.

The internet is changing that though. i think the internet is driving fads now and will keep doing so going into the future, because it's more bottom-up. but it makes it different. a fad on the internet isn't going to make you wear bell-bottoms but it becomes more of a "meme" thing. i dunno. i think the idea of "fads" itself is sorta in flux at the moment. it's interesting.

I'd never heard of ELO being accused of ripping off the Beatles. That's interesting. I think ripping off the Beatles, I think Oasis. ELO was kinda a delivery vehicle for a particular synth sound that was popular in those days. fun band but kinda one-note.

anyway, i think i would fall in the side of Emman, that we've fallen into a period where fads have basically stopped changing. The reason why in my opinion is that the creative industry has gotten more vertically oriented and now guides what's popular, whereas in earlier decades it followed trends that bubbled up out of smaller, specialized groups of creative professionals. i mean, back in the day good music would surface in local clubs and then labels would sign the band, and they and the people who were fans of them would help to define what the tenor of popular music would be. now i think the music industry decides what music it would like to have be popular. like, for instance, to me the autotune fad seems almost entirely industry-created, because it's easier and cheaper to produce vocals if they're autotuned.

and i think that bleeds over into different media. the reality TV thing is similar; the movie industry sold that to us because it's cheap to produce, and we bought it. so now half TV shows are reality TV shows.

The internet is changing that though. i think the internet is driving fads now and will keep doing so going into the future, because it's more bottom-up. but it makes it different. a fad on the internet isn't going to make you wear bell-bottoms but it becomes more of a "meme" thing. i dunno. i think the idea of "fads" itself is sorta in flux at the moment. it's interesting.


I think their lead singer even even admitted they wanted to follow where The Beatles left off(think it was I Am The Walrus), anyways I don't think fads and trends have stopped changing(and in some ways they might actually be too brief), the changes are just more on a more micro and evolutionary level(since the '90s/'00s) instead of being macro and reactionary. Some of this is generational too, the Baby Boomers seem to have a kind of revered cultural authority with younger generations like Gen X and Millennials so the generation gaps are much shorter between Baby Boomers and Millennials than it was between G.I.s and Baby Boomers. Most of the cultural trends for the past 40 years have been a shadow of the late '60s/'70s awakening period, think about it, most music of the '80s, '90s, '00s, and '10s can be traced back to the late '70s or earlier, there's been various mutuations of punk(new wave, grunge, mall pop-punk, emo, screamo), the whole heavy metal scene is rooted in late '60s blues-rock and disco has lead to all kinds of electronic dance music styles over the past 30 years(electro, techno, house, rave), reggae dub has lead to trip-hop, drum n bass, jungle, grime, and dubstep, and hip-hop was developing in the late '70s too. I think hip-hop started to overtake rock music as the cultural innovator around the late '90s and it became the dominant culture by 2003 but even hip-hop has faltered a little since the late '00s.

Because of the reactionary cultural movements of the late '60s, our society has become more fragmented, people started to focus more on their personal development instead of conforming to traditional social mores, their was less focus on family/marriage during the '70s, the counterculture pushed most of society inward. The whole of culture just seemed to lose direction somewhere in the '90s, the country cannot collectively agree on anything, hence the culture wars. The last reactionary cultural movement many people acknowledge was the grunge scene in the early '90s so the change from the '90s to '00s was more gradual(like the change from the '60s to '70s). Kurt Andersen seemed to suggest that OWS is the first reactionary movement we've had in a long time, I wonder could it ultimatley lead to a new cultural paradigm in the future?

Emman I do agree that today's cultural changes are less obvious than they were in the 50s-90s.

I don't agree with the article though, I don't see how 1992 and 2012 are even remotely similar. 1992 movies look incredibly dated as CGI (which I believe permanently changed the look of cinema) wasn't around yet, 1992 cars are incredibly primative today, 1992 music is radically different too (way more intelligent, imo). The fashion is different. When was the last time you saw someone wearing a pear of highrise jeans?

Contrary to poplar belief, rock has changed also, especially in the last 5 years with the rise of indie. Does Foster the People sound like a 1992 band? Does Limp Bizkit sound like a 2012 band? So what if post-grunge still has some residual popularity, it has NO relevance with anyone under age 30.

I think it's harder to notice changes in pop culture as you get older. I think a lot of baby boomers can't tell that much of a difference between 1992 and 2012 because they're now out of the loop.

Don't forget. The period of rapid change from approximately 1890 to 1995 was a rare era. It's the kind of technological, cultural, fashion, and scientific kind of leap that happens only once every 2,000 years or so. So to expect every century to be like the 20th is unrealistic. The 20th century was a rare event where each decade, the fashion and music changed RAPIDLY! It was a special century.

In my opinion the 20th century was the beggining of the  'modern' age and we left the horse carriages and old ideas for good!

Also, look at the fashion from 1800 to 1899, it was basically the same. So what we're seeing that you're calling 'stagnant' is actually quite normal in human history! I bet 100 years from now we'll still be wearing similiar fashion from 2012!

Emman I do agree that today's cultural changes are less obvious than they were in the 50s-90s.

I don't agree with the article though, I don't see how 1992 and 2012 are even remotely similar. 1992 movies look incredibly dated as CGI (which I believe permanently changed the look of cinema) wasn't around yet, 1992 cars are incredibly primative today, 1992 music is radically different too (way more intelligent, imo). The fashion is different. When was the last time you saw someone wearing a pear of highrise jeans?

Contrary to poplar belief, rock has changed also, especially in the last 5 years with the rise of indie. Does Foster the People sound like a 1992 band? Does Limp Bizkit sound like a 2012 band? So what if post-grunge still has some residual popularity, it has NO relevance with anyone under age 30.

I think it's harder to notice changes in pop culture as you get older. I think a lot of baby boomers can't tell that much of a difference between 1992 and 2012 because they're now out of the loop.


The article makes it seem like 1992 looks identical to 2012 but I remember quite well 1992 with all the high top fades, zig zag patterns, frizzy hair, high waist jeans, chunky jewery, ect. I think most people could easily tell the difference between 1992 and 2012 looking at a high school year book, I think the stylistic similarity he's talking about should be put around 2000/2001 instead of the late '80s/early '90s period and even then that's only 10-11 years. Kurt seems to suggest that this "stasis" he believes is because the technological changes since 1992(internet, smartphones, tablet computers) have been so quick and enormous that people are kind of disoriented by all of it, they want to cling to something familar. I don't know if I buy that explanation.

He was very picky about what he choose to represent the 20 year intervals of the 20th century, I honestly don't see much difference in styles between 1932 and 1952 like he claims, the things that he choose to represent 1992 and 2012(basically both a guy wearing skinny jeans, white t-shirt, sneakers, short hair, and red flannel short) could have been worn by something in 1982, 1972, 1962 and 1952 without much notice. I think the guy representing 1992 should have been a guy with a high top fade/or parted hair in the middle(like Edward Furlong) with loose fitting acid washed jeans, oversized t-shirt, wearing a backwards baseball cap while the guy representing 2012 should have been like some scenester with bright colored rimmed glasses, a big scrave around has neck, skinny jeans, a striped t-shirt, and a small fitted vest with a light beard. The only image I think represented the contrasting year against the previous 20 year interval would be the guy from 1972, bellbottoms, afro, long sideburns, platform shoes vs. someone from 1952(who in my opinion would be wearing a more consertative style than the one he picked.) See for yourselves:

http://www.wornthrough.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/vanity-fair.jpg

Don't forget. The period of rapid change from approximately 1890 to 1995 was a rare era. It's the kind of technological, cultural, fashion, and scientific kind of leap that happens only once every 2,000 years or so. So to expect every century to be like the 20th is unrealistic. The 20th century was a rare event where each decade, the fashion and music changed RAPIDLY! It was a special century.

In my opinion the 20th century was the beggining of the  'modern' age and we left the horse carriages and old ideas for good!

Also, look at the fashion from 1800 to 1899, it was basically the same. So what we're seeing that you're calling 'stagnant' is actually quite normal in human history! I bet 100 years from now we'll still be wearing similiar fashion from 2012!


I'm not calling the '90s, '00s or 2010s stagnant, this is Kurt Andersen's opinion, and he says even the 1800s you mentioned had stylistic changes during 20 year intervals. He was very selective(and inaccurate) about the guy's clothing he choose to represent each 20 year interval(especially 1952), I myself was a little shocked that he thought 1991/1992 fashion is still contemporary when it looks so cheesy and tacky by today's standards(or even by 1998). Now for 2002 it is a harder to spot the difference from 2012 but I think young guys generally wore more baggy jeans and looser clothing(with lots of throwback sports jerseys) in the early '00s. The think it would have been more interesting to see the changes in women's fashions through the decades, it would have been more noticable. I really doubt we will be wearing similar clothing 100 years from now, for one thing ALOT of things are going to change by then.

I'm not calling the '90s, '00s or 2010s stagnant, this is Kurt Andersen's opinion, and he says even the 1800s you mentioned had stylistic changes during 20 year intervals. He was very selective(and inaccurate) about the guy's clothing he choose to represent each 20 year interval(especially 1952), I myself was a little shocked that he thought 1991/1992 fashion is still contemporary when it looks so cheesy and tacky by today's standards(or even by 1998). Now for 2002 it is a harder to spot the difference from 2012 but I think young guys generally wore more baggy jeans and looser clothing(with lots of throwback sports jerseys) in the early '00s. The think it would have been more interesting to see the changes in women's fashions through the decades, it would have been more noticable. I really doubt we will be wearing similar clothing 100 years from now, for one thing ALOT of things are going to change by then.

There were some styles that were common in 02 that aren't common today. The goth look and the punk look were much more common then vs. now.

I'd say the one thing that has changed the most in the last 20 years is communications. 20 years ago, it was basically mail, phone, or fax and that's it. Since then, we've added e-mail (didn't really get important until mid-90s), online chats/forums, Twitter, Facebook, and a plethora of other social media. And even among the basics, snail mail is sadly just a curiosity, the way we use the phone has changed so much (more than simply go to the phone book, dial, and talk, not to mention the decline of landlines and phone booths), and faxing is taking a back seat to online distribution. If you communicate like the average person did 20 years ago, you'd be WAY out of place with today's society.

Second place would be gaming. 20 years ago, it was all still 2D and there was no online gaming and video game nostalgia was still nonexistant. While the pace of change in gaming has slowed in recent years, it still has formidable potential in terms of controller movements and full 3D (not just on the screen) gaming experience.

Movies are sadly (especially from 1995 onward) just a cash cow, with little new ground; no wonder a SILENT FILM might win the Best Picture Oscar this year!

I'd say the one thing that has changed the most in the last 20 years is communications. 20 years ago, it was basically mail, phone, or fax and that's it. Since then, we've added e-mail (didn't really get important until mid-90s), online chats/forums, Twitter, Facebook, and a plethora of other social media. And even among the basics, snail mail is sadly just a curiosity, the way we use the phone has changed so much (more than simply go to the phone book, dial, and talk, not to mention the decline of landlines and phone booths), and faxing is taking a back seat to online distribution. If you communicate like the average person did 20 years ago, you'd be WAY out of place with today's society.

Second place would be gaming. 20 years ago, it was all still 2D and there was no online gaming and video game nostalgia was still nonexistant. While the pace of change in gaming has slowed in recent years, it still has formidable potential in terms of controller movements and full 3D (not just on the screen) gaming experience.

Movies are sadly (especially from 1995 onward) just a cash cow, with little new ground; no wonder a SILENT FILM might win the Best Picture Oscar this year!


I agree that the way we communicate has changed, Back in those days we use to talk via regular house phone then came cellphones and emailing and now we have iPhones,Skype and talking to people via video screen.

or how about the way we listen to music, back in those days it was a transistor radio then we had boomboxes/walkmans and now we have IPods and Blackberries. Now today you can listen to music through the internet.

http://www.wornthrough.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/vanity-fair.jpg


Huh???? Skinny jeans weren't in style in 1992!!

I'm not calling the '90s, '00s or 2010s stagnant, this is Kurt Andersen's opinion, and he says even the 1800s you mentioned had stylistic changes during 20 year intervals. He was very selective(and inaccurate) about the guy's clothing he choose to represent each 20 year interval(especially 1952), I myself was a little shocked that he thought 1991/1992 fashion is still contemporary when it looks so cheesy and tacky by today's standards(or even by 1998). Now for 2002 it is a harder to spot the difference from 2012 but I think young guys generally wore more baggy jeans and looser clothing(with lots of throwback sports jerseys) in the early '00s. The think it would have been more interesting to see the changes in women's fashions through the decades, it would have been more noticable. I really doubt we will be wearing similar clothing 100 years from now, for one thing ALOT of things are going to change by then.


Oops. My bad!  ;D

Huh???? Skinny jeans weren't in style in 1992!!


I know right, the only guys who probably could have gotten away with that in '92 would have been metalheads, like I said the '92 guy SHOULD be wearing very loose fitting acid wash jeans with a backwards baseball cap, maybe with a oversized Bart Simpson t-shirt ;D. I can easily imagine a guy in 1952 wearing the SAME clothes the guy representing 1932 is wearing(basically a suit and fedora), I mean they really did fudge that one to make 1932 and 1952 seem more stylistically different than they actually are. I think 1992 and 2012 are more different in fashion, music, ect. than the difference between 1932 and 1952 but the difference between 1952 and 1972 is truly staggering.

Huh???? Skinny jeans weren't in style in 1992!!


Yeah I don't remember skinny jeans in 1992.

http://www.wornthrough.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/vanity-fair.jpg


I think the guy who's supposed to represent 1952 would be better off representing the particular subculture of men in the '50s who greased their hair and wore leather jackets. For the most part, men dressed pretty conservatively in the '50s.

Also, if you want to more accurately portray a male in 2012, give him some thick-rimmed glasses, a v-neck t-shirt with either a cardigan or an unbuttoned grunge shirt to go over it, and some skinny jeans.

On the subject of cultural fragmentation, has anyone noticed like in the '70s for instance many genres of music(rock, soul, funk, disco, jazz) would use similar instruments and sounds that defined that decade, like electric pianos, clavinets, wah wah guitar, and lots of strings. In the '80s the same synth sounds and gated drums were used in pop, new wave, hair metal, R&B, and even smooth jazz. Towards the '90s it seemed there was more separation and division between the different music styles in the sounds and moods, grunge was dirty, raw, and used distorted guitar noises whereas eurodance was synthetic and bouncy, like an extension of '80s synth-pop. It seemed the '90s just had ALL bases covered so to speak so when the '00s did arrive what was there to react against, the '90s was dark, grungy, bright, bubblegummy, electronic/digital, acoustic, soulful, plastic, angry, low-key, it really was a contradictatory decade. The '00s was similar, music styles were all over the place with energetic, confident crunk rap coexisting with depressive, whiny emo and everything inbetween. There was a similar sound that alot of people can pinpoint to the '60s, '70s, and '80s music because even vastly different music genres would often use similar intruments, whether it be organs, clavinets, fuzzbox, latin drums, reverbed guitars, or early digital samplers. But I guess even the '00s/early '10s have something like that, autotune is used in alot in various music styles(techno-pop, R&B, rap, crunkcore).

There have been other articles about this. Even the New York Times had a piece on it recently. It argued that changes in technology made it easier to access the culture of past decades, and since so much has been created, its overwhelmed young people, who are still focusing on the past. I agree that a lot of even contemporary genres are traceable to the late 1970s, as a lot of the music and fashions began to flatten out and scale back from the frenzy of the '60s and early '70s. In films, the "New Hollywood" style of the '70s faded by the early '80s. This isn't a political discussion, so I'm not voicing an opinion. But in further observation, Western countries, particularly the United States and Britain, also shifted from New Deal liberalism to conservatism in 1979/1980, with occasional periods of moderate Democratic presidencies. 1980 to the present is very much contemporary. The generation names aren't even new anymore, like the G.I. Generation or Baby Boomers. Generation X is like the older brother of Generation Y, and then Generation Z.

Anderson's graphic of the fashion styles from each year is brilliant, particularly the comparison of 1992 and 2012, because it shows just how little times have changed. The iPod on the guy's ears has gone through more incarnations than his shirt and pants have. Even the '90s have a tenuous claim regarding "newness." It is overlooked now, but even grunge was considered derivative at the time the way emo has been viewed today. Many grunge bands weren't comfortable with their success, and derided the "grunge" label as simplistic. Kurt Cobain himself said something along the lines of Nirvana having not created a new sound the way the Sex Pistols did in the 1970s. Pearl Jam/Alice in Chains/Soundgarden, while solid bands, deviated little from the metal sound. In hindsight a lot of '80s alternative looks more innovative, and the '90s merely popularized and watered down the alternative aesthetic pioneered by The Pixies, Sonic Youth or the Replacements. Even the underground "grunge" sound of that time was more authentic. Anderson's point about hip hop recycling earlier trends is very accurate, though that genre definitely did have a golden era back in the '80s and '90s, whereas rock began to stagnate. Today the distinction between hip hop and pop is non-existent. Hip hop in its purity has been morphing since around 2006.

If the '90s were the last decade with even a hint of newness then the 2000s are merely a long stock count of the past 4 decades of pop culture. The idea that they were to the '90s what the '70s were to the '60s is interesting, and some genres such as post grunge remained but I think the malaise is more severe than that because now it is 2012 and nothing much has really changed. By 1982 the '70s were pretty much dead and new wave was peaking. Now you have micro genres such as crunk, snap, and genres that have been around for so long from the '90s that they are declining in popularity. I think 1997-2012 is the equivalent of 1963 in terms of cultural stagnation, in a mainstream sense.

Anderson's graphic of the fashion styles from each year is brilliant, particularly the comparison of 1992 and 2012, because it shows just how little times have changed. The iPod on the guy's ears has gone through more incarnations than his shirt and pants have. Even the '90s have a tenuous claim regarding "newness." It is overlooked now, but even grunge was considered derivative at the time the way emo has been viewed today. Many grunge bands weren't comfortable with their success, and derided the "grunge" label as simplistic. Kurt Cobain himself said something along the lines of Nirvana having not created a new sound the way the Sex Pistols did in the 1970s. Pearl Jam/Alice in Chains/Soundgarden, while solid bands, deviated little from the metal sound. In hindsight a lot of '80s alternative looks more innovative, and the '90s merely popularized and watered down the alternative aesthetic pioneered by The Pixies, Sonic Youth or the Replacements. Even the underground "grunge" sound of that time was more authentic. Anderson's point about hip hop recycling earlier trends is very accurate, though that genre definitely did have a golden era back in the '80s and '90s, whereas rock began to stagnate. Today the distinction between hip hop and pop is non-existent. Hip hop in its purity has been morphing since around 2006.

The graphic comparisons are crappy, it really does not do each year any justice, in the future Niki Minaj could be picked to represent 2012(when looking back on it from a biased view of course), he was extremely selective and unfair with what he choose for the changes of the 20 year intervals. The guy from 1932 might as well have been from 1955 I mean come on ;D. Yes grunge is very derivative of '70s hard rock, the grunge guys even look like some '70s rocker, it was considered "different" in it's time because it was reactionary to was popular in mainstream rock immediately preceding it, hair metal and glossy late '80s pop music.

Hip-hop on the whole has never quite seen the same retromania and recycling that took place in alot of rock and pop music, this is where this idea about cultural stagnation falls completely flat. Hip-hop has produced SOOOOOO many new styles(and continues to do so) since even 2000 that is hard to take someone seriously that says it hasn't changed since 1992. The only period where hip-hop can be accused of recycling was the late '90s obsession with '80s samples where they basically took whole songs and rapped over them(Puff Daddy is to blame).

If the '90s were the last decade with even a hint of newness then the 2000s are merely a long stock count of the past 4 decades of pop culture. The idea that they were to the '90s what the '70s were to the '60s is interesting, and some genres such as post grunge remained but  I think the malaise is more severe than that because now it is 2012 and nothing much has really changed. By 1982 the '70s were pretty much dead and new wave was peaking. Now you have micro genres such as crunk, snap, and genres that have been around for so long from the '90s that they are declining in popularity. I think 1997-2012 is the equivalent of 1963 in terms of cultural stagnation, in a mainstream sense.


I think there have been about 3 major cultural changes since 1992 that Kurt Andersen either overlooks and doesn't want to admit, the first one was in 1997 with the explosion of teen-pop and waning of Gen X as the dominant youth culture, the second was around 2003 when hip-hop became the dominant culture with the explosion of dirty south rap and crunk, this is when Atlanta became the "it" city, and the lastest one was in 2008 with the mainstream popularity and commercial peak of electronic dance music(mainly electro-house and dubstep) and autotuned pop. Whether these changes are truly "new" or not is up for debate, I do agree that 1997-2012 does feel like a kind of "Millennial" era(much like 1967-1981 was for the Baby Boomers) where Gen Y is dominant over most of the pop culture(where alot of the pop culture feels bland and upbeat), Gen Y is has a stereotype of being compliant and defering towards authority figures, notice how much violent crime among young people has dropped since the early '90s for example.

I think 2012 is FAR different from '92. But have we been kinda stagnant for about the last decade? To an extent yes. 2003-2004 doesn't seem that old to me, but it's almost 10 years...93 seemed older then yes. 2000-2001 maybe 2002... is definitely pretty far removed from today though.

The only image I think represented the contrasting year against the previous 20 year interval would be the guy from 1972, bellbottoms, afro, long sideburns, platform shoes vs. someone from 1952(who in my opinion would be wearing a more consertative style than the one he picked.)


Love that pic, and love this thread.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwzbkvHSRG1r3k73wo1_500.jpg

dMH0bHeiRNg

My two bits' worth: What we're seeing isn't stagnation, what we're seeing is the first generation that's been brought up with instant access to the source of any cultural reference.  When a new artist recycles an earlier trend, it's an opportunity to look forward and to look back.  Carry on, gentlemen!

There are still some musicians today that create innovative music that sounds like it can only come from the 2010s besides robo orgy dubstep. One band that comes to mind is Sleigh Bells, they mix elements of crunk, techno-pop, R&B and hardcore punk into a seemless sound that some how works together. They have a kind of high school pep rally vibe, they have newness to them, a fresh sound that I hope catches on in the pop scene.

Love that pic, and love this thread.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwzbkvHSRG1r3k73wo1_500.jpg

dMH0bHeiRNg

My two bits' worth: What we're seeing isn't stagnation, what we're seeing is the first generation that's been brought up with instant access to the source of any cultural reference.  When a new artist recycles an earlier trend, it's an opportunity to look forward and to look back.  Carry on, gentlemen!


I like that picture Foo It's true how everything evolved over the past 40 years.

>Hipsters responsible for stagnation
>More hipster blame bs

Please, hipsters are only a small percentage of what's going on in this culture. Most people are not hipsters, and this 'hipster threat' that everyone is afraid of is a bunch of sensationalist bull. Cars, clothes, TV, or whatever haven't change much, yes. But are hipsters seriously to blame for this? No way. Blame companies that see no real reason to change any. Seriously, where do you even go with cars now? I hate the rounded shaped that has been 'the' shape of cars since some point in the 90s, but my favorite era of car shape had to be the 70s and 80s. When you look at some of the concepts from the 80s, they look more futuristic than what we have now. I don't know when this picture was taken,http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly0x32KUY01qb14t1o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1327973668&Signature=ytz7s2tRvmSXf1G4fVIZlPrEx2g%3D

But I wish cars looked like this, very 70s-80s. I might be an 80s car, I don't know.

>Hipsters responsible for stagnation
>More hipster blame bs

Please, hipsters are only a small percentage of what's going on in this culture. Most people are not hipsters, and this 'hipster threat' that everyone is afraid of is a bunch of sensationalist bull. Cars, clothes, TV, or whatever haven't change much, yes. But are hipsters seriously to blame for this? No way. Blame companies that see no real reason to change any. Seriously, where do you even go with cars now? I hate the rounded shaped that has been 'the' shape of cars since some point in the 90s, but my favorite era of car shape had to be the 70s and 80s. When you look at some of the concepts from the 80s, they look more futuristic than what we have now. I don't know when this picture was taken,http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly0x32KUY01qb14t1o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1327973668&Signature=ytz7s2tRvmSXf1G4fVIZlPrEx2g%3D

But I wish cars looked like this, very 70s-80s. I might be an 80s car, I don't know.



If I jumped out of a plane with a parachute, I wouldn't want to land on top of that building :o

If I jumped out of a plane with a parachute, I wouldn't want to land on top of that building :o


However, if an anvil just happened to fall out of the plane at the same time you jumped, I hope it would land on top of that Pacer with the Mazda RX-7 nose glued to the front of it.  :P

If I jumped out of a plane with a parachute, I wouldn't want to land on top of that building :o


Me neither!  :o

I'd agree more if he were talking about 2002-2012. But still, things aren't 100% the same.

I'm really starting to think we are at the end of an era that lasted about 25-30 years, it was an era of easy credit, complacency, and cultural and social fragmentation. I can almost bet the 2030s are going to be very different from the '00s, there was a social mood change globally in 2011(with the catalyst beginning in 2008), we've turned a corner in history. I'm not sure if most people are fully aware of the enormous consequences that are going to result from the social upheaval that is going to gather steam(from the Arab Spring and Occupy movement). There are going to be some major sacrifices in the US, I think the whole culture is going to "cleanse" itself out, ending the old paradigm of the suburban military industrial complex Us global super power experiment that began in the late 1940s.

All right, it's time we started pushing the culture forward again.

Starting tomorrow, everyone begin wearing shiny unisex uniforms.  ;D

http://www.ksat.com/image/view/-/98016/medRes/3/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/97n8ag/-/Plan-9-From-Outer-Space-jpg.jpg

All right, it's time we started pushing the culture forward again.

Starting tomorrow, everyone begin wearing shiny unisex uniforms.  ;D

http://www.ksat.com/image/view/-/98016/medRes/3/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/97n8ag/-/Plan-9-From-Outer-Space-jpg.jpg


I'm not going out looking like that.

I'm really starting to think we are at the end of an era that lasted about 25-30 years, it was an era of easy credit, complacency, and cultural and social fragmentation. I can almost bet the 2030s are going to be very different from the '00s, there was a social mood change globally in 2011(with the catalyst beginning in 2008), we've turned a corner in history. I'm not sure if most people are fully aware of the enormous consequences that are going to result from the social upheaval that is going to gather steam(from the Arab Spring and Occupy movement). There are going to be some major sacrifices in the US, I think the whole culture is going to "cleanse" itself out, ending the old paradigm of the suburban military industrial complex Us global super power experiment that began in the late 1940s.


For some reason 1981 to 2008 seems like an era to me. The Reagan era was the beggining of the 'Greed is good' thingymajigger. I also think since the overall economy of 1981 to 2008 was so good, it makes it seem like an era in my eyes. And I see the 2008 to 2025? era as a 'transition' era.

Oh my god, I was just looking at some 2012 car models vs 1992 car models and they look very different, in fact 1992 cars look closer to '70s cars in some ways. The basic shape of most of the cars is very different, late '00s-present cars have a almond shape that was rear in the early '90s, the head lights look extremely different. Literally for decades the head light design was rectangular but starting in the '00s they started looking like snake eyes. I cannot believe this guy thinks car designs have stagnanted since 1992, I would NEVER mistake a 1992 for a 2012 car trust me, I really didn't realize just how wrong this Andersen guy was until I actually started comparing the early '90s car designs vs the early '10s car designs, I thought he was talking out his ass when he compared Adele to Mariah Carey but man is he wrong about design stagnation in car designs.

Oh my god, I was just looking at some 2012 car models vs 1992 car models and they look very different, in fact 1992 cars look closer to '70s cars in some ways. The basic shape of most of the cars is very different, late '00s-present cars have a almond shape that was rear in the early '90s, the head lights look extremely different. Literally for decades the head light design was rectangular but starting in the '00s they started looking like snake eyes. I cannot believe this guy thinks car designs have stagnanted since 1992, I would NEVER mistake a 1992 for a 2012 car trust me, I really didn't realize just how wrong this Andersen guy was until I actually started comparing the early '90s car designs vs the early '10s car designs, I thought he was talking out his ass when he compared Adele to Mariah Carey but man is he wrong about design stagnation in car designs.


I agree, that's bullsheesh. My friend's dad has a 1992 Buick Rivera and it feels like an antique, especially the interior. Just so old school. It's basically a classic car.

Not even just the styling, but the technology of early 10s cars is so far advanced from even the late 90s that you'd have to be completely oblivious to not notice.

Also, red was still a popular car interior color well into the 90s, when was the last time you saw that?

Yeah I agree with you both 1992 cars are ancient compared to a 2012. Today's cars do look very futuristic really.

One of my favorite quotes:

"We seem to be going through a period of nostalgia, and everyone seems to think yesterday was better than today.  I don't think it was, and I would advise you not to wait ten years before admitting today was great.  If you're hung up on nostalgia, pretend today is yesterday and just go out and have one hell of a time."  ~Art Buchwald

http://r0.sgsr.us/imgs/250/y4611.gif

http://r0.sgsr.us/imgs/250/y4611.gif


http://www.knallino.de/out/pictures/1/k2001083_if_its_too_loud_youre_too_old_ansteckbutton_25mm_p1.jpg

http://www.knallino.de/out/pictures/1/k2001083_if_its_too_loud_youre_too_old_ansteckbutton_25mm_p1.jpg


Cultural stagnation has left me unable to find either a pony or a dubstep remix of this track, so I'm going with the original:

RmSzMhAWjDM

  - Kick Axe, Too loud ... Too old, from Welcome to the Club, 1985.

I know right, the only guys who probably could have gotten away with that in '92 would have been metalheads, like I said the '92 guy SHOULD be wearing very loose fitting acid wash jeans with a backwards baseball cap, maybe with a oversized Bart Simpson t-shirt ;D. I can easily imagine a guy in 1952 wearing the SAME clothes the guy representing 1932 is wearing(basically a suit and fedora), I mean they really did fudge that one to make 1932 and 1952 seem more stylistically different than they actually are. I think 1992 and 2012 are more different in fashion, music, ect. than the difference between 1932 and 1952 but the difference between 1952 and 1972 is truly staggering.


The 1952 guy's outfit would have been more typical in 1959.  1952 would have looked much more like the 1932 outfit.  The early fifties were still highly reminiscent of the 1940s.  The culture typically associated with the fifties, i.e. greasers, malt shops, drive-ins, tailfins, rock & roll etc, all came to prominence in this second half of the decade.

The 1952 guy's outfit would have been more typical in 1959.  1952 would have looked much more like the 1932 outfit.  The early fifties were still highly reminiscent of the 1940s.  The culture typically associated with the fifties, i.e. greasers, malt shops, drive-ins, tailfins, rock & roll etc, all came to prominence in this second half of the decade.


It just sounds like the guy is saying things like fashion have stagnanted just because people still wear jeans, t-shirts, and sneakers, I consider these fashion items to go well with any decade past the 1950s(almost timeless in a modern context). The picture representing 1992 and 2012 is relatively accurate if you go by the casual men's fashion, although the fit of the clothes would be tighter in 2012 and the hair styles would be different for some men(parted in the middle,"trunks" style hair for '92, scenester hair maybe for '12). But someone could have worn that same plaid shirt, blue jeans, and sneakers in '62, '72, '82, '92, '02, '12, and likely '22 too, what Kurt Andersen doesn't realize is that women's fashion has changed quite a bit since 1992, the patterns on the clothes are different, colors, frizzy permed hair vs. long straight hair, high waisted "mom" jeans vs jeggings, skinny jeans, ect.

When I think of men's fashion in '92 I think of backwards baseball caps, baggy jeans, doc martens, long, grungy hair, high top fades.
When I think of men's fashion in '12 I think of skinny jeans, waistcoats, full beards, colored rimmed glasses, fro hawks, graphic tees, v neck shirts.

I think he should have moved the date from 1992 to probably sometime in the early '00s when comparing the change in fashion, music, designs,ect to 2012, does Kurt Andersen realize 1992 is still part of the old school era of hip-hop, hip-hop has changed SOOOOO much since then that I question his knowledge of the genre if he thinks any rap from that year sounds contemporary.

I think he should have moved the date from 1992 to probably sometime in the early '00s when comparing the change in fashion, music, designs,ect to 2012, does Kurt Andersen realize 1992 is still part of the old school era of hip-hop, hip-hop has changed SOOOOO much since then that I question his knowledge of the genre if he thinks any rap from that year sounds contemporary.


Agreed.  If you were "preppy" in 2002, you can still dress the same and wear your hair the same today and still get away with it, moreso even than in 2008 when everything was emo-influenced and if you were male, you had to have the shag that is now called Bieber hair.  That said, back in 2002 you still saw some lingering '90s fads that totally wouldn't fly in 2012.

About the music, I completely agree.  All genres have completely changed since 1992, but especially hip-hop has.  Music for the most part sounds quite a bit different now than it even did 10 years ago in 2002.  So while fashion hasn't necessarily evolved the fastest it ever has, music is changing very fast in my opinion. 

Agreed.  If you were "preppy" in 2002, you can still dress the same and wear your hair the same today and still get away with it, moreso even than in 2008 when everything was emo-influenced and if you were male, you had to have the shag that is now called Bieber hair.  That said, back in 2002 you still saw some lingering '90s fads that totally wouldn't fly in 2012.

About the music, I completely agree.  All genres have completely changed since 1992, but especially hip-hop has.  Music for the most part sounds quite a bit different now than it even did 10 years ago in 2002.  So while fashion hasn't necessarily evolved the fastest it ever has, music is changing very fast in my opinion.


I think the biggest difference in music between 2002 and 2012 is the electro influence in pop music. I remember a decent amount of dance hits from 2002, but it didn't really influence the scene as a whole and the sound was just different. Pop in America was generally r&b or rock influenced for most of the '00s, and occasionally you had a dance hit. Now pop is like mostly house influenced and there's hardly any r&b or rock on top 40 radio. Top 40 in 2012 is basically house influenced dance pop and an occasional rap hit.

While it seems that our culture may appear to be stagnant, there are also certain things that have just become timeless.

The perfect example is Converse Chuck Taylor All-Star shoes:

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/b/0/0/66/9/AAAAC-ercA4AAAAAAGadeA.jpg?v=1250149938000

My older brothers wore Chucks back in the 1970s, I wore some in the 80's, and I have a niece who's 23 and wears them now sometimes.

And these are shoes that have remained basically unchanged since the 1930's.

Agreed.  If you were "preppy" in 2002, you can still dress the same and wear your hair the same today and still get away with it, moreso even than in 2008 when everything was emo-influenced and if you were male, you had to have the shag that is now called Bieber hair.  That said, back in 2002 you still saw some lingering '90s fads that totally wouldn't fly in 2012.

About the music, I completely agree.  All genres have completely changed since 1992, but especially hip-hop has.  Music for the most part sounds quite a bit different now than it even did 10 years ago in 2002.  So while fashion hasn't necessarily evolved the fastest it ever has, music is changing very fast in my opinion.


Today I was watching a Martin episode from 1992, I think Mr. Andersen should watch old Martin episodes because it does look very dated compared to 2012(or even 1999). The women were wearing oversized jackets with crazy patterns and chunky jewelry, one guy was wearing baggy overalls(VERY '90s) with a hoodie, anyone with minimal pop culture knowledge could recognize most people don't wear crap like that anymore. I think the change from the mid '90s to '00s was evolutionary, like the late '60s to '70s change, grunge, gangsta rap, and mall punk gradually changed into post-grunge, emo, and dirty south rap. With previous decades since the '50s, there would be a underground movement that would rise and overtake the dominant culture of the immediately previous time period, the '60s counterculture movement was basically a reaction against the rigid pos-war '50s culture, the punk movement was a reaction against the late '60s/'70s culture, things like prog rock, hippies, and disco, punk/new wave would go on to influence alot of '80s music and fashion. Punk also took alot of influences from the pre hippie/counterculture early '60s, things like the mod revival and early rock n roll, in a sense it actually went backwards to rock's roots. The same with the alternative rock of the '80s, it was more underground, slowly seeping into the mainstream by 1987/88 then completely breaking out in '91 with grunge.

When you get towards the late '90s I guess the hipster subculture was more underground but I think the internet has kind of decentralized our culture, almost like there's no underground anymore or it's been heavily redefined, that's why the change from the '90s to '00s was evolutionary, it was still change but not the pop cultural backlashes some people expect when a new decade arrives. The mainstream and underground are on more equal footing, I think in the more distant future the '90s and '00s will be looked at as more distinctive because the evolutionary changes from those decades will be more evident with a wider time scale. Evolutionary changes might not be immediately recognized by alot of people if the time scales being compared are relatively small, whereas reactionary changes are immediately recognizable to people, although reactionary changes do not necessarily have to be cultural or musically innovative, in fact most are actually back to basics movements.

I think stagnation was going to happen sooner or later. Our culture changed so fast from 1950 to 2000, that sooner or later, we were going to slow down. Maybe we need to slow down?

Culture changes happen in cycles. We could be stagnant for 200 years for all we know, but sooner or later human boredom comes and we could explode and have a cultural explosion like we did from 1950 to 2000. Things are unpredictable, but stagnation actually happens once in a while and is nothing new.

I think stagnation was going to happen sooner or later. Our culture changed so fast from 1950 to 2000, that sooner or later, we were going to slow down. Maybe we need to slow down?

Culture changes happen in cycles. We could be stagnant for 200 years for all we know, but sooner or later human boredom comes and we could explode and have a cultural explosion like we did from 1950 to 2000. Things are unpredictable, but stagnation actually happens once in a while and is nothing new.


I don't know if actual stagnation in western culture is happening(from retromania), I don't think it has, not in the way Andersen is talking about, what I have noticed is the decentralization of pop culture and more evolutionary changes instead of reactionary changes. The biggest recent culture change was from the 1950s to 1970s, there is tons of data showing how people's actual behaviour, social mores, marriage, child rearing, worldviews, ect changed during the '70s. Crimes rates went up, divorce increased, fashion became more casual, education started faltering, people mistrusted civic institutions more, ect, all these trends spread throughout the '70s, stemming from the social and cultural upheaval of the late '60s. The hippies DID change society, but in ways they didn't exactly expect, US society became more individualistic after this, they started the gradual fragmenting of society and culture that continues to this day.

So in some ways the '60s never really did end, most of the last 40-45 years have just been a accummulation of that "awakening" period, the conscienceness revolution so to speak. We've had these introspective awakening periods before in the US(about 4 previous ones I think), I think our society is entering another era of great change, this time the change will probably be even more significant than the conscienceness revolution. We have to remake our society DRASTICALLY if we want western civilization to continue, our society could be going back to a unity and cohesion not seen since the 1950s, we have increasing multigenerational households, families will be closer together. This continuing economic crisis can be a great opportunity to reverse alot of our current social and economic problems and start society on a new path :) or it can be a time for us to collectively fudge up big time 8-P.

It's not not not not stagnation, it's degeneration.

I think the biggest difference in music between 2002 and 2012 is the electro influence in pop music. I remember a decent amount of dance hits from 2002, but it didn't really influence the scene as a whole and the sound was just different. Pop in America was generally r&b or rock influenced for most of the '00s, and occasionally you had a dance hit. Now pop is like mostly house influenced and there's hardly any r&b or rock on top 40 radio. Top 40 in 2012 is basically house influenced dance pop and an occasional rap hit.


music today is either pop rap or rock.

music today is either pop rap or rock.


wasn't that statement made by many people in 2000s (add RnB also)

music today is pop-electro, electro rap and RnB, Dance pop, and electro rock

indie music is just become popular now... not huge in top 40 just yet

http://www.knallino.de/out/pictures/1/k2001083_if_its_too_loud_youre_too_old_ansteckbutton_25mm_p1.jpg


in irony, old people are more deaf just sayin... i have more to contribute in this thread later

These are songs that I think prove Kurt Andersen dead wrong in terms of music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-Ru6kQhE4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtP6arjZmzI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfjtpp90lu8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYH7_GzP4Tg&ob=av3n

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XzfgPszqgM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7nNF0FJ3-I

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPoKiGQzbSQ&ob=av3e

I can't imagine ANY of these songs being released in 1992 and they all span from the early '00s-now.

These are songs that I think prove Kurt Andersen dead wrong in terms of music:

I can't imagine ANY of these songs being released in 1992 and they all span from the early '00s-now.

That's true but what about rock music? Hasn't change much since the 90s (only in early 2010s with indie explosion)

rock music also changed during the 2000s
nu-metal 1998-2003
pop punk 1999-2004
post-punk revival 2001-2006
emo 2005-2008
indie rock 2007-

That's true but what about rock music? Hasn't change much since the 90s (only in early 2010s with indie explosion)


the pop rock hasn't changed much.... but other rock genre's changed significantly

That's true but what about rock music? Hasn't change much since the 90s (only in early 2010s with indie explosion)


It just seemed like mainstream rock dragged on the post-grunge sound for too long, I just notice people who complain about the '00s being stagnant are usually ignorant or biased against hip-hop/R&B. That was where the innovation was in mainstream music, besides the nu metal trend alot of rock(even indie) has been recycling music from the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s, there are a few isolated bands/artists that did innovative stuff throughout the '00s though(Animal Collective, some Vampire Weekend, Radiohead).

I was watching a show talking about grunge(how it fitted within metal's history) and someone even said the grunge bands picked up where '70s hard rock left off, that gives you an idea of grunge's musical "originality".

It just seemed like mainstream rock dragged on the post-grunge sound for too long, I just notice people who complain about the '00s being stagnant are usually ignorant or biased against hip-hop/R&B. That was where the innovation was in mainstream music, besides the nu metal trend alot of rock(even indie) has been recycling music from the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s, there are a few isolated bands/artists that did innovative stuff throughout the '00s though(Animal Collective, some Vampire Weekend, Radiohead).

I was watching a show talking about grunge(how it fitted within metal's history) and someone even said the grunge bands picked up where '70s hard rock left off, that gives you an idea of grunge's musical "originality".


Yeah I don't really think the '00s were stagnant at all, I can tell the difference between '00s years easily. I mean to me there's a huge difference between 2000 and 2004 and 2004 and 2008, etc. I laugh at those who say 2004 was just like 1999...uhh no it was not even close.  ::)

back in 2000-2006 in this forum the 2000s were called new nineties

back in 2000-2006 in this forum the 2000s were called new nineties


I don't remember this forum being called "the new nineties"?  ???

I don't remember this forum being called "the new nineties"?  ???


I think you misinterpreted what Rafael said, I think what he/she meant was that many forum users thought of the '00s decade as the '90s part 2 until around 2006 when the decade became more distinct.

I think you misinterpreted what Rafael said, I think what he/she meant was that many forum users thought of the '00s decade as the '90s part 2 until around 2006 when the decade became more distinct.



the 2000s didnt feel like 1999 part 2 at all      except for 2000 & a little bit of 2001 & 2002

other than that it had its own sheeshty identity lol

I think you misinterpreted what Rafael said, I think what he/she meant was that many forum users thought of the '00s decade as the '90s part 2 until around 2006 when the decade became more distinct.


Oh Ok Emman didn't know what you meant.

Here's a few pics I've got to compare 1992 to the early 2010s(2010 to be exact), I'd say they are pretty different stylistically going by these pictures:

1992
http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/1993_1992/1992a.jpg

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/1993_1992/1992b.jpg

1993

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/1993_1992/1993a1.jpg

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/1993_1992/93b.jpg


And now 2010

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/2010/DSC_0099a.jpg

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/2010/DSC_0024.JPG

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/2010/DSC_0058.JPG

Here's a few pics I've got to compare 1992 to the early 2010s(2010 to be exact), I'd say they are pretty different stylistically going by these pictures:

I can't get over how young the - students, I guess? - in the 2010 pics look compared to the ones in the 1992/'93 pics.

Here's a few pics I've got to compare 1992 to the early 2010s(2010 to be exact), I'd say they are pretty different stylistically going by these pictures:

1992
http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/1993_1992/1992a.jpg

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/1993_1992/1992b.jpg

1993

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/1993_1992/1993a1.jpg

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/1993_1992/93b.jpg


And now 2010

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/2010/DSC_0099a.jpg

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/2010/DSC_0024.JPG

http://rswesterland.lernnetz.de/Photos_Klassen/2010/DSC_0058.JPG


the styles of clothes and hairstyles are different.

wowww even with the nostalgia of the 1990s, the general fashion of the early-mid 1990s are still very tacky

even 2000s are starting to become distinct... here's a random image i found of school yearbook of 2000

http://classreport.org/usa/ca/ontario/chs/2000/homepage.jpg
http://classreport.org/usa/ca/ontario/chs/2000/homepage.jpg

and this is the 2011 pic comparison
http://www.dedham.k12.ma.us/dhs/yearbook/Yearbook_Staff_2012_for_web.jpg
http://www.dedham.k12.ma.us/dhs/yearbook/Yearbook_Staff_2012_for_web.jpg

I can't get over how young the - students, I guess? - in the 2010 pics look compared to the ones in the 1992/'93 pics.


What I notice immediately is how "messy" the people from '92/'93 look(especially the hair) vs how stylish the people in the early '10s look, plus the emo-ish side bangs on the females, and the "bieber flip" on some of the guys. The females in the early '10s have a more feminized look vs the tomboy-ish look of the females in the early '90s. The early '90s look is a lot more relaxed with loose fitting, baggy clothes while the early '10s look is neater with more tight fitting clothes .

The contrast may not be as drastic as the difference between the early '70s fashion vs early '90s fashion but the contrast between the early '90s and early '10s(fashion wise) is pretty obvious to anyone with two eyes. 

wowww even with the nostalgia of the 1990s, the general fashion of the early-mid 1990s are still very tacky

even 2000s are starting to become distinct... here's a random image i found of school yearbook of 2000

http://classreport.org/usa/ca/ontario/chs/2000/homepage.jpg
http://classreport.org/usa/ca/ontario/chs/2000/homepage.jpg

and this is the 2011 pic comparison
http://www.dedham.k12.ma.us/dhs/yearbook/Yearbook_Staff_2012_for_web.jpg
http://www.dedham.k12.ma.us/dhs/yearbook/Yearbook_Staff_2012_for_web.jpg


the hairstyles and the clothing are so different.

the hairstyles and the clothing are so different.



Are we looking at the same thing. I see a lot of them in BOTH pics wearing tee shirts/tank tops. Most of the girls in BOTH pics have long hair (some have it pulled back). I will say that more have their hair parted on the side in the newer one but there are a few in the older one, too. The guys in BOTH pic are wearing the hair similar. I do see a difference where some in the older one were wearing button downs. The major difference I really see is the quality of the pic. The 2000 one I'm sure was film & the 2011 was digital.


Cat

Are we looking at the same thing. I see a lot of them in BOTH pics wearing tee shirts/tank tops. Most of the girls in BOTH pics have long hair (some have it pulled back). I will say that more have their hair parted on the side in the newer one but there are a few in the older one, too. The guys in BOTH pic are wearing the hair similar. I do see a difference where some in the older one were wearing button downs. The major difference I really see is the quality of the pic. The 2000 one I'm sure was film & the 2011 was digital.


Cat


Maybe we're both blind, because that's mostly what I see too.  They look pretty much the same.

Maybe we're both blind, because that's mostly what I see too.  They look pretty much the same.


Yeah I agree the 2011 pic and 2000 pic look similar, the big difference is the film quality and most of the girls are wearing skinny jeans in the '11 pic.

class of 2003-2004
http://mrhalverson.com/2003-04%20cropped.jpg

class of 2010-2011
http://mrhalverson.com/2010-11%20cropped.jpg

How about comparing 70's and 80's class pictures?  ???

Re: the picture comparisons:

WHO CARES??  ::)

Ever notice that even when one ATTEMPTS to involve themselves in a "decadeology" thread, they just get skimmed right over, as if they didn't even exist? ???

Ever notice that even when one ATTEMPTS to involve themselves in a "decadeology" thread, they just get skimmed right over, as if they didn't even exist? ???


That's because you are not discussing decadeology :P

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/godeltsihw/decadeology.png

That's because you are not discussing decadeology :P

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/godeltsihw/decadeology.png


Hahahah!!! ;D
BUT, even when someone tries to involve themselves in the conversation, they are STILL skipped right over. They act like no one else exists!  ::)

Hahahah!!! ;D
BUT, even when someone tries to involve themselves in the conversation, they are STILL skipped right over. They act like no one else exists!  ::)


Yes.  When decadeologists get going, they just seem to type on end for hours.  They need to get the message out that one year is better than another year and sometimes they just ramble on and even when someone posts after they do, all they see is someone posting in the thread, which only makes them want to post more nonsense decadeology like no one who has posted in the thread exists  It's like they are robots, and if you notice, alot of times, their posts are big long paragraphs that are so long that no one wants to read.  I mean what the hell.  Even if someone wanted to participate in a decadeology thread, they would not be able to because no questions get solved, no replies make sense, and the paragraphs are almost endless like they never stop, you know what I mean?  I understand the importance of paragraphs, but some breaks in between would be nice.  And alot of times, when you read posts about decadeology, they often tend to go off topic into something else, like how a conversation can stray in a different direction, kind of like when a stray cat screeches like in movies whenever someone falls in a bush or an alley, you hear a cat screech, i mean why is that a common theme in movies?  But getting back to decadeology, often at times as well, they end up repeating the same exact things they have already said like they didn't even know they had talked about it before,  For example, when decadeologists get going, they just seem to type on end for hours.  They need to get the message out that one year is better than another year and sometimes they just ramble on and even when someone posts after they do, all they see is someone posting in the thread, which only makes them want to post more nonsense decadeology like no one who has posted in the thread exists  It's like they are robots, and if you notice, alot of times, their posts are big long paragraphs that are so long that no one wants to read.  I mean what the hell.  Even if someone wanted to participate in a decadeology thread, they would not be able to because no questions get solved, no replies make sense, and the paragraphs are almost endless like they never stop, you know what I mean?  I understand the importance of paragraphs, but some breaks in between would be nice.  And alot of times, when you read posts about decadeology, they often tend to go off topic into something else, like how a conversation can stray in a different direction, kind of like when a stray cat screeches like in movies whenever someone falls in a bush or an alley, you hear a cat screech, i mean why is that a common theme in movies?  But getting back to decadeology, often at times as well, they end up repeating the same exact things they have already said like they didn't even know they had talked about it before,  For example, when decadeologists get going, they just seem to type on end for hours.  They need to get the message out that one year is better than another year and sometimes they just ramble on and even when someone posts after they do, all they see is someone posting in the thread, which only makes them want to post more nonsense decadeology like no one who has posted in the thread exists  It's like they are robots, and if you notice, alot of times, their posts are big long paragraphs that are so long that no one wants to read.  I mean what the hell.  Even if someone wanted to participate in a decadeology thread, they would not be able to because no questions get solved, no replies make sense, and the paragraphs are almost endless like they never stop, you know what I mean?  I understand the importance of paragraphs, but some breaks in between would be nice.  And alot of times, when you read posts about decadeology, they often tend to go off topic into something else, like how a conversation can stray in a different direction, kind of like when a stray cat screeches like in movies whenever someone falls in a bush or an alley, you hear a cat screech, i mean why is that a common theme in movies?  But getting back to decadeology, often at times as well, they end up repeating the same exact things they have already said like they didn't even know they had talked about it before.  Wait, what was I talking about again?

Yes.  When decadeologists get going, they just seem to type on end for hours.  They need to get the message out that one year is better than another year and sometimes they just ramble on and even when someone posts after they do, all they see is someone posting in the thread, which only makes them want to post more nonsense decadeology like no one who has posted in the thread exists  It's like they are robots, and if you notice, alot of times, their posts are big long paragraphs that are so long that no one wants to read.  I mean what the hell.  Even if someone wanted to participate in a decadeology thread, they would not be able to because no questions get solved, no replies make sense, and the paragraphs are almost endless like they never stop, you know what I mean?  I understand the importance of paragraphs, but some breaks in between would be nice.  And alot of times, when you read posts about decadeology, they often tend to go off topic into something else, like how a conversation can stray in a different direction, kind of like when a stray cat screeches like in movies whenever someone falls in a bush or an alley, you hear a cat screech, i mean why is that a common theme in movies?  But getting back to decadeology, often at times as well, they end up repeating the same exact things they have already said like they didn't even know they had talked about it before,  For example, when decadeologists get going, they just seem to type on end for hours.  They need to get the message out that one year is better than another year and sometimes they just ramble on and even when someone posts after they do, all they see is someone posting in the thread, which only makes them want to post more nonsense decadeology like no one who has posted in the thread exists  It's like they are robots, and if you notice, alot of times, their posts are big long paragraphs that are so long that no one wants to read.  I mean what the hell.  Even if someone wanted to participate in a decadeology thread, they would not be able to because no questions get solved, no replies make sense, and the paragraphs are almost endless like they never stop, you know what I mean?  I understand the importance of paragraphs, but some breaks in between would be nice.  And alot of times, when you read posts about decadeology, they often tend to go off topic into something else, like how a conversation can stray in a different direction, kind of like when a stray cat screeches like in movies whenever someone falls in a bush or an alley, you hear a cat screech, i mean why is that a common theme in movies?  But getting back to decadeology, often at times as well, they end up repeating the same exact things they have already said like they didn't even know they had talked about it before,  For example, when decadeologists get going, they just seem to type on end for hours.  They need to get the message out that one year is better than another year and sometimes they just ramble on and even when someone posts after they do, all they see is someone posting in the thread, which only makes them want to post more nonsense decadeology like no one who has posted in the thread exists  It's like they are robots, and if you notice, alot of times, their posts are big long paragraphs that are so long that no one wants to read.  I mean what the hell.  Even if someone wanted to participate in a decadeology thread, they would not be able to because no questions get solved, no replies make sense, and the paragraphs are almost endless like they never stop, you know what I mean?  I understand the importance of paragraphs, but some breaks in between would be nice.  And alot of times, when you read posts about decadeology, they often tend to go off topic into something else, like how a conversation can stray in a different direction, kind of like when a stray cat screeches like in movies whenever someone falls in a bush or an alley, you hear a cat screech, i mean why is that a common theme in movies?  But getting back to decadeology, often at times as well, they end up repeating the same exact things they have already said like they didn't even know they had talked about it before.  Wait, what was I talking about again?


I am sure you made a great point here, but dang, too much read make Dag's brain hurt.  ;) :D

I am sure you made a great point here, but dang, too much read make Dag's brain hurt.  ;) :D


I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again, so I completely understand.  No one wants to read a big block of text, I mean it's just the same thing over and over again.

Hahahahaa....do I get extra points for reading all of this? ;D

Y'all mean
Ain't we in a period of cultural stagnation?


Fugya!

This passes for Arts and Entertainment!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZDAWVVbmXw

(GO EAT BEEF!)

The Donald for President!
:D

And maybe it has something to do with I'm eating Whoppers malted milk balls at 3 am coz I got no job and no prospects for a job worth a thimble of maggot semen and and and and those sonsofwhores in congress want to take my Social Security check and give it Mitt Romney so's he can build a doggie elevator in his chateau and then the hundred thousand year old glaciers are melting into the sea and all we can do is sell new piece of crap Steve Jobs gadgets from the Chinese, I this, I that, I your mother, yeah we're the frikkin' iGeneration 'cept iCanteffingaffordit gonna hafta slave away for the bloodsucking collection agencies they should be gassed like the nipping little rabid mutts they are...yeah free society, free to shut tf up and do as you're frikkin' told, you'll go to the My Little Pony art installation and like it!!!!

:D :o >:( :D ;D :o :( :D :( >:( >:( 8) ??? :P

That's because you are not discussing decadeology :P

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/godeltsihw/decadeology.png


and no one cares!

Hahahah!!! ;D
BUT, even when someone tries to involve themselves in the conversation, they are STILL skipped right over. They act like no one else exists!  ::)


cause we don't care to read stupid jibberish. ::)

I've posted this very topic on many other forums that usually have nothing to do with pop culture(and has generated intelligent discussion) yet the only ones mentioning any kind of accusations of "decadeology" are some posts on this forum. ::)

I've posted this very topic on many other forums that usually have nothing to do with pop culture(and has generated intelligent discussion) yet the only ones mentioning any kind of accusations of "decadeology" are some posts on this forum. ::)


To be honest, when this first came out I thought it was a good topic, enough so that I gave you karma for it.

And I do so again.

I've posted this very topic on many other forums that usually have nothing to do with pop culture(and has generated intelligent discussion) yet the only ones mentioning any kind of accusations of "decadeology" are some posts on this forum. ::)


Yeah.  This actually turned out to be kind of a neat thread.  The difference between "the film era" and "the digital camera era" stands out like night and day.  (If my parents and grandparents grew up in a world without color, I appear to have grown up in a world without focus :)  An amusing project might be to make an animation of 50 frames - one from "graduating class of XYZ" for the past 50 years. 

Whether it be the poodle skirts of the 50s, the beads of the 60s, the big hair of the 80s, or whatever will come to characterize today's trends, it could be interesting to see whether fashion trends changed slowly or abruptly.

(No different than paging through a book full of pictures of Cadillacs or Chevys every year for the past 50 years.  Did fins go out all in one year, or did they get absorbed back into the trunk's bodyline...)

(No different than paging through a book full of pictures of Cadillacs or Chevys every year for the past 50 years.  Did fins go out all in one year, or did they get absorbed back into the trunk's bodyline...)


Ford and GM (with the exception of Cadillac) got rid of them in 1961-62. So did Chrysler, but that didn't stop their cars from that time period from looking like they were designed by someone who took LSD and watched Mothra 10 times in a row.  :o :o :o

http://dreager1.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/godzilla-vs_-mothra1.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/u18/xl1ken/large/43083861.GBCC0501loDSCN0527copy.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/u18/xl1ken/large/43083861.GBCC0501loDSCN0527copy.jpg

Ford and GM (with the exception of Cadillac) got rid of them in 1961-62. So did Chrysler, but that didn't stop their cars from that time period from looking like they were designed by someone who took LSD and watched Mothra 10 times in a row.  :o :o :o


You say that like it's a bad thing.  On the subject of the thread, I'm suggesting it's time to bury the hatchet, but on the subject of your post, my inner Mopar guy digs it with five decades' worth of the sun's Fury.

We're in a period of autobody design stagnation; whether the power plant is gasoline, natural gas, or batteries, body designs have gotten almost as aerodynamic as they can possibly get in the laudable pursuit of fuel efficiency.  I want to see energy generation get cheap enough that aerodynamics stop mattering and we can see things like that on the road again, but with modern suspension, active control, and safety systems at the cost of a little more wind noise.

We didn't want our kids to be irreverent...

So we gave them nothing to be irreverent about.

According to Kurt Andersen(in a Vanity Fair Article comparing 2012 to 1992), not much in the way of fashion, popular music, graphic and car designs, ect. has changed much since the late '80s/early '90s, add to that most men have been wearing the basic casual clothing for about 30-ish years(jeans, sneakers, t-shirt) in his opinion, here is a quote from the article:

Part of me is kind of agreeing with some of this, that alot of people have been just rehashing and recombining past fashions and music styles(just look at Adele), but this has been going on for alot longer than since 1992, I think alot of the "revolutionary" trends that alot of people recognize(like hippie counterculture, punk, grunge, ect.) were really just reactions against the prior trends of there times instead of being a totally unthought of radically new things. I think he neglects hip-hop culture and music/ certain styles of electronic music which has changed ALOT since 1992, back then it was still mostly the sample-based old school style with the G-funk sound coming in with The Chronic, compare that to 2003 when dirty south rap and crunk was becoming popular. The productions of Timbaland, The Neptunes and Lil Jon are noticably different from that of circa 1993 Dr. Dre. Even comparing 2003 to 2007 there is a difference in the sound of rap music, going from the energetic crunk sound to the slower snap rap sound and autotune(although still dirty south based).

The '00s have brought us crunk, hyphy, autotuned R&B, baile funk, reggeaton, chopped and screwed, electro-house, dubstep, grime, ect. so there HAVE been new styles but they gave not had the impact of earlier styles like psychedelicia, punk, or new wave, our culture is alot more fragmented with almost infinite options available to people. It might be too early too tell the full impact of these styles but one area where Mr. Andersen has a point is in mainstream rock music, the genre that used to be culturally/musically innovative but now has been stuck in 1995 for 15+ years, I think the hipster subculture in particular maybe somewhat responsible for the stylisitc unoriginality that he is complaining about.

Do any of you agree or disagree with Kurt Andersen's assessment? Here the full articlehttp://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201


Well, as I watch, *I* see things changing.  I think you have to have an eye for it.  I really don't, but I have friends that can really see cultural trends.  For one thing, in fashion, they work hard at getting "new looks" to get people excited about buying new stuff. That's one source of clothing change. Fashion designers take a look at the zeitgeist and design clothes to catch the wind. Then of course music have to change, too. People have stirrings in their souls about what's going on, and they want to express the stirrings in their own way, because only THEY can express what's going on with THEM. Same with writers and artists.  Politics keep changing, the devils against the angels (you know who you are!) and people line up behind them. Then art, style, music, writing, philosophy, comedy etc comes out of that.... I'm just rambling on about what cultural change comes from... I find our culture vibrant and lively. So many people are active and expressive. It's definitely not a depressed, boring, nothing's-happening culture. Oh, yeah, cultural disadvantage lights a fire under a lot of people. Bits of various cultures get put into new fashions. People struggle to get their cultural group  recognized through music, art, novels, etc.  Now, as far as the culture being spiritual - concerned about God, and doing good,  is concerned... perhaps that's not happening as much as it might.  Might lead us to more peace and happiness, BUT... no, I don't think our culture is stagnating whatsoever!!  'course I was too lazy to read the rest of the article!!