Decades(xkcd.com)
xkcd.com
Decades
https://xkcd.com/1849/
73 comments
Is it just me getting old, or has fashion not changed much since 2000? I was watching Road Trip the other day and thought "these clothes are basically what kids wear today". Watching a movie from 1980 in 2000, the clothes would have looked foreign. This may not sound like a Hacker News topic, but does this signal some type of cultural equilibrium? Could it be that in a connected world there's less reason to stand out in your dress?
It's not just you getting old: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-2...
Good article. I think they hit on something there not mentioned (maybe I missed it) in this thread so far:
"One reason automobile styling has changed so little these last two decades is because the industry has been struggling to survive, which made the perpetual big annual styling changes of the Golden Age a reducible business expense. Today, Starbucks doesn’t want to have to renovate its thousands of stores every few years. If blue jeans became unfashionable tomorrow, Old Navy would be in trouble. And so on. Capitalism may depend on perpetual creative destruction, but the last thing anybody wants is their business to be the one creatively destroyed."
It seems to me (in fashion, culture, technology, art, etc.) that we consumers are the victims of a giant hill-climbing problem, and our current batch of corporations, in their relentless effort to optimize everything, have us stuck at some local maxima that they can't A/B test their way out of. This year's jeans are a variation of last year's. This year's smartphones a minor iteration from last year's. It's too risky financially to make a wave, or move us into the next generation. Those shareholders want their risk-free YoY growth after all.
"One reason automobile styling has changed so little these last two decades is because the industry has been struggling to survive, which made the perpetual big annual styling changes of the Golden Age a reducible business expense. Today, Starbucks doesn’t want to have to renovate its thousands of stores every few years. If blue jeans became unfashionable tomorrow, Old Navy would be in trouble. And so on. Capitalism may depend on perpetual creative destruction, but the last thing anybody wants is their business to be the one creatively destroyed."
It seems to me (in fashion, culture, technology, art, etc.) that we consumers are the victims of a giant hill-climbing problem, and our current batch of corporations, in their relentless effort to optimize everything, have us stuck at some local maxima that they can't A/B test their way out of. This year's jeans are a variation of last year's. This year's smartphones a minor iteration from last year's. It's too risky financially to make a wave, or move us into the next generation. Those shareholders want their risk-free YoY growth after all.
It's like how homogeneity is explained by rapid expansion, both in cosmology, anthropology, and linguistics. Maybe globalization led to a rapid expansion of what was then fashionable, and that led to its freezing.
"Look through a current fashion or architecture magazine or listen to 10 random new pop songs; if you didn’t already know they were all things from the 2010s, I guarantee you couldn’t tell me with certainty they weren’t from the 2000s or 1990s or 1980s or even earlier."
The other day I was in the car with my 17 year old and a song came on the radio from the late 90s and she thought it was a new song. I didn't laugh because I've noticed the sameness to pop music myself and if I hadn't lived through it I probably couldn't tell either.
The other day I was in the car with my 17 year old and a song came on the radio from the late 90s and she thought it was a new song. I didn't laugh because I've noticed the sameness to pop music myself and if I hadn't lived through it I probably couldn't tell either.
I've considered that this is true as well, but since I am extremely unfamiliar with pop music since the early 90s, I assumed that could also be the case as well.
On the other hand, if you were to play me an unfamiliar song from about 1965 to about 1980, I can, with pretty good accuracy, narrow down its release to within a year or two just by its sound. It's a game I like to play with the SiriusXM radio channel.
There's no doubt that pop music has become a lot more homogenized in the past couple decades, and the technological advances that drastically alter the sound of music are becoming fewer and fewer. Has there really been anything other than (the scourge of) Autotune that's really affected the sound of music in the past 20 years? The only other thing I can think of is digital sampling, which hit like a tidal wave around 1983-4.
However, I must vehemently disagree that you wouldn't immediately recognize something from the 80s. The sounds and styles of music in the 80s were much more distinct. Even my kids, who were born in the 90s, can immediately recognize song from the 80s by their sound.
On the other hand, if you were to play me an unfamiliar song from about 1965 to about 1980, I can, with pretty good accuracy, narrow down its release to within a year or two just by its sound. It's a game I like to play with the SiriusXM radio channel.
There's no doubt that pop music has become a lot more homogenized in the past couple decades, and the technological advances that drastically alter the sound of music are becoming fewer and fewer. Has there really been anything other than (the scourge of) Autotune that's really affected the sound of music in the past 20 years? The only other thing I can think of is digital sampling, which hit like a tidal wave around 1983-4.
However, I must vehemently disagree that you wouldn't immediately recognize something from the 80s. The sounds and styles of music in the 80s were much more distinct. Even my kids, who were born in the 90s, can immediately recognize song from the 80s by their sound.
The loudness war.
Digital equipment also increased the amount of material with very high production values.
Digital equipment also increased the amount of material with very high production values.
We seem to have stabilized at "electronic (=cheap to make) hip-hop influenced auto-tune pop" as the basic standard for top-40s music.
[EDIT] I gather someone may have thought I was taking a swipe at electronic music? I wasn't, but its enduring appeal for the commercial side of the industry is probably related to costs.
[EDIT] I gather someone may have thought I was taking a swipe at electronic music? I wasn't, but its enduring appeal for the commercial side of the industry is probably related to costs.
In what way is electronic music meaningfully cheaper to make? You still need to book a studio unless you're going pure instrumental, and that's where the cost is. I guess you get to cut out a dependency on studio musicians, but I don't think studio musicians actually get paid that much.
Cheaper to stage live (you can spend the money on theatrics instead, if you like), fewer takes. Composition blends into final recording, without an intermediate step.
[EDIT] You can basically have most or all of your non-vocal tracks ready before stepping into the studio. Maybe even some of the backing vocals, if you sample.
[EDIT EDIT] see also: the state of movie soundtracks, which have in the last couple decades skewed towards rhythm-over-melody electronically-composed (and possibly finalized that way!) works, largely for reasons of cost and (related to cost) predictability.
[EDIT] You can basically have most or all of your non-vocal tracks ready before stepping into the studio. Maybe even some of the backing vocals, if you sample.
[EDIT EDIT] see also: the state of movie soundtracks, which have in the last couple decades skewed towards rhythm-over-melody electronically-composed (and possibly finalized that way!) works, largely for reasons of cost and (related to cost) predictability.
Fair enough. I could see how those could factor into the total recording costs quite a bit.
[deleted]
I don't know, looking at http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/11/romeo-juliet-baz... it seemed to me that was talking about quite different fashions 20 years ago.
My hypothesis is that fashion has taken a backseat to the numerous other (mainly digital) ways people use to express their individuality. If you're interested in fashion or trends, I always recommend looking at middle and high schoolers--they seem to care more than just about anyone else.
As a child of the 90s, I remember 8th grade being all about fashion: baggy pants/shorts, high white socks, "stuffed" skate shoes, low hanging backpacks with band patches, etc. Our appearance was the primary means by which we performed identity and grouped ourselves and each other into cliques.
However, as the popularity of the internet rose, we were given a new means by which to express ourselves: AIM screen names and profile content, Xanga and LiveJournal custom styles and angsty post, etc. But, even in the 90s, our digital avatars were still small, manageable, and mostly disconnected from our REAL, in-the-flesh, identities--there was a degree of anonymity, particularly for those who wanted it.
At some point, with the rise of MySpace, Gmail, Facebook, Tumblr, and (more recently) Instagram and Snapchat, and the proliferation of smart phones, the barrier between people's real identity and digital identity disappeared. With less anonymity comes MUCH more anxiety. Ridicule for faux pas now are infinitely reproducible, potentially permanent, and move at the speed of light. I imagine if you talked to middle school students today, they'd be much less concerned with the fashion of their peers than the contents of their social media profiles--this seems to be semi-supported by this article[1]:
"In my dozens of conversations with teens, parents, clinicians and school counselors across the country, there was a pervasive sense that being a teenager today is a draining full-time job that includes doing schoolwork, managing a social-media identity and fretting about career, climate change, sexism, racism–you name it. Every fight or slight is documented online for hours or days after the incident. It’s exhausting.
...
It’s hard for many adults to understand how much of teenagers’ emotional life is lived within the small screens on their phones, but a CNN special report in 2015 conducted with researchers at the University of California, Davis, and the University of Texas at Dallas examined the social-media use of more than 200 13-year-olds. Their analysis found that 'there is no firm line between their real and online worlds,' according to the researchers."
[1] http://time.com/magazine/us/4547305/november-7th-2016-vol-18...
As a child of the 90s, I remember 8th grade being all about fashion: baggy pants/shorts, high white socks, "stuffed" skate shoes, low hanging backpacks with band patches, etc. Our appearance was the primary means by which we performed identity and grouped ourselves and each other into cliques.
However, as the popularity of the internet rose, we were given a new means by which to express ourselves: AIM screen names and profile content, Xanga and LiveJournal custom styles and angsty post, etc. But, even in the 90s, our digital avatars were still small, manageable, and mostly disconnected from our REAL, in-the-flesh, identities--there was a degree of anonymity, particularly for those who wanted it.
At some point, with the rise of MySpace, Gmail, Facebook, Tumblr, and (more recently) Instagram and Snapchat, and the proliferation of smart phones, the barrier between people's real identity and digital identity disappeared. With less anonymity comes MUCH more anxiety. Ridicule for faux pas now are infinitely reproducible, potentially permanent, and move at the speed of light. I imagine if you talked to middle school students today, they'd be much less concerned with the fashion of their peers than the contents of their social media profiles--this seems to be semi-supported by this article[1]:
"In my dozens of conversations with teens, parents, clinicians and school counselors across the country, there was a pervasive sense that being a teenager today is a draining full-time job that includes doing schoolwork, managing a social-media identity and fretting about career, climate change, sexism, racism–you name it. Every fight or slight is documented online for hours or days after the incident. It’s exhausting.
...
It’s hard for many adults to understand how much of teenagers’ emotional life is lived within the small screens on their phones, but a CNN special report in 2015 conducted with researchers at the University of California, Davis, and the University of Texas at Dallas examined the social-media use of more than 200 13-year-olds. Their analysis found that 'there is no firm line between their real and online worlds,' according to the researchers."
[1] http://time.com/magazine/us/4547305/november-7th-2016-vol-18...
During the 90s, did people refer to present day trends as "[90s ___]"?
People have started using "2000s" to describe the 2000-2010 decade. For example: "music of the 2000s" https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=music%20...
But that only became necessary in the past few years, before that you could just call it "pop music"
I think decades blur together enough that it takes a few years before people are comfortable generalizing them into a single term.
People have started using "2000s" to describe the 2000-2010 decade. For example: "music of the 2000s" https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=music%20...
But that only became necessary in the past few years, before that you could just call it "pop music"
I think decades blur together enough that it takes a few years before people are comfortable generalizing them into a single term.
Absolutely and they were defined super quick. It meant plaid shirts and grunge pretty quickly.
I think the 90s were easy since the 70s and 80s were so quirky. We haven't changed a lot in the past 27 years as much as 1977 to 1994. I blame it on the Internet and global shared experiences in media. Even the accents have died. Now I'm not complaining them Boston Accents were horrible!!!
I think the 90s were easy since the 70s and 80s were so quirky. We haven't changed a lot in the past 27 years as much as 1977 to 1994. I blame it on the Internet and global shared experiences in media. Even the accents have died. Now I'm not complaining them Boston Accents were horrible!!!
yep. "The 90s" was used extensively during the period to refer to all sorts of things. We knew what 90s fashion was as it was occurring (hammer pants, fanny packs, extensive use of teal, hypercolor, etc...)
I have two theories. On the one hand, it seems like people tend to be hopelessly bored with the "last decade" (people only started giving a shit about the 90s like 5 years ago). On the other, I find decades to have become more and more boring since the 60s.
The 60s invented so much (I'd argue youth/pop culture and the very "decade" category itself). The 70s had bellbottom pants and disco music (it's more of a pity-category that we even bother to name it). The 80s at least had MTV. The 90s... it's "my" decade, in a way, but I already struggle to even come up with stuff. It's like an off-brand 80s. The 2000s? Heck, did anything even happen in the 2000s? 9/11? MySpace? ...? It's hard to objectively judge stuff you're currently in but the 2010s look boring as fuck right now. Like, I couldn't come up with a single thing, culturally, the 2010s should be remembered for. Hipsters? They're just stealing everything cool from previous decades!
I feel like one of the other posters here is right: Pop culture is becoming less and less homogeneous, it's just picking what you like from any source you like. It's remixes of remixes and weird niche stuff celebrated for 3 months before people move on to the next shit. 10 years might simply be way too long to stay consistent, nowadays, while the smaller changes are too subtle to matter as a "category".
The 60s invented so much (I'd argue youth/pop culture and the very "decade" category itself). The 70s had bellbottom pants and disco music (it's more of a pity-category that we even bother to name it). The 80s at least had MTV. The 90s... it's "my" decade, in a way, but I already struggle to even come up with stuff. It's like an off-brand 80s. The 2000s? Heck, did anything even happen in the 2000s? 9/11? MySpace? ...? It's hard to objectively judge stuff you're currently in but the 2010s look boring as fuck right now. Like, I couldn't come up with a single thing, culturally, the 2010s should be remembered for. Hipsters? They're just stealing everything cool from previous decades!
I feel like one of the other posters here is right: Pop culture is becoming less and less homogeneous, it's just picking what you like from any source you like. It's remixes of remixes and weird niche stuff celebrated for 3 months before people move on to the next shit. 10 years might simply be way too long to stay consistent, nowadays, while the smaller changes are too subtle to matter as a "category".
In the 90s, Techno/Rave music became big, forever changing the music landscape. And of course the Internet started to go mainstream.
> I couldn't come up with a single thing, culturally, the 2010s should be remembered for.
Um... smartphones? And the massive cultural shifts that accompany that?
Um... smartphones? And the massive cultural shifts that accompany that?
'During the 90s, did people refer to present day trends as "[90s ___]"?'
Yes, although X-TREME!!! would have been considered an acceptable synonym, appropriately inflected.
Yes, although X-TREME!!! would have been considered an acceptable synonym, appropriately inflected.
I think the problem stems also in part from that while the 1900's and 1910's may have been called the 'oughts and 19-tens or 19-teens, those terms aren't extremely common today and "twenty-teens" also sounds strange. "twenty-tens" sounds to me a little bit like you're referring to the year 2010 in plural since the year is in recent memory. I will be very much surprised if "20's" does not come to refer to the 2020's; even more so if "30's" doesn't make it.
We absolutely did refer to the 90s as "the 90s" during the decade. A couple of anecdotes. I got my first corporate email account in the 90s. The 90s were also a boom decade the economy was blazing hot, radically different than the 80s, and we knew it.
So with the new access to email and the blazing economies, we sent around listicle emails with the title of "You know it's the 90s when". Classic listicles include:
- You eat standing up. - Your dining table is a flat filing surface.
So with the new access to email and the blazing economies, we sent around listicle emails with the title of "You know it's the 90s when". Classic listicles include:
- You eat standing up. - Your dining table is a flat filing surface.
My little daughter watches MacGuyver, Hannah Montana, the A Team and Jessie all back to back without a second thought.
She loves The Beatles and LFO.
The internet smeared culture all over the surface of life like wet paint.
The "generation gap" is dead and buried.
She loves The Beatles and LFO.
The internet smeared culture all over the surface of life like wet paint.
The "generation gap" is dead and buried.
Yeah, I think people don't realize that the extreme variation in culture over the decades of the 20th century was due, in part, to the fact that older media simply wasn't available. Think of the 70s. Want to watch a TV show from the 60s? You're SOL. Maybe you can find records from bands of that era, but want to see fashion trends from a decade earlier? What do you do? Dig up old magazines in the library? Want to watch an old movie? Better hope it turns up on TV or as a rerelease in theaters. Culture really did exist in this relatively narrow window of just a few years.
That's completely gone, now, and I just don't think we're going to see these dramatic decade-tagged cultural shifts any more.
That's completely gone, now, and I just don't think we're going to see these dramatic decade-tagged cultural shifts any more.
I have to wonder if you actually lived in the 70s because what you are describing is simply untrue. TV reruns were a huge thing, especially during the day. As a kid in the 1970s, I was deeply familiar with a lot of TV from the 50s and 60s. When we got cable in the mid-70s this became even more true. Syndicated shows and reruns ruled the airwaves. There was no lack of exposure to earlier decades through television.
Now in terms of movies, what you're saying is a little more true, but a lot of movies were aired on network TV, so eventually you would see a lot of the big ones. HBO was around in the 1970s as well, so there was an opportunity to see lots of movies that way as well.
xkcd's thesis seems to be premised on the idea that there are no catchy, and widely accepted, names for this decade and the previous one.
I've considered the same question and decided that music, fashion and other cultural touchstones are becoming less distinct from decade to decade than they were going back to the last century.
However, I've also considered that it may be the case that I'm simply less aware of the details of pop culture than I was 20+ years ago. I can hear a piece of music from 1965 to about 1980 that I'm not familiar with and pin it down to within a year or two just by its sound. Maybe it's possible to do that with music from the last 20 years, but I certainly can't do it.
Now in terms of movies, what you're saying is a little more true, but a lot of movies were aired on network TV, so eventually you would see a lot of the big ones. HBO was around in the 1970s as well, so there was an opportunity to see lots of movies that way as well.
xkcd's thesis seems to be premised on the idea that there are no catchy, and widely accepted, names for this decade and the previous one.
I've considered the same question and decided that music, fashion and other cultural touchstones are becoming less distinct from decade to decade than they were going back to the last century.
However, I've also considered that it may be the case that I'm simply less aware of the details of pop culture than I was 20+ years ago. I can hear a piece of music from 1965 to about 1980 that I'm not familiar with and pin it down to within a year or two just by its sound. Maybe it's possible to do that with music from the last 20 years, but I certainly can't do it.
I was born in the 70s, but was not old enough to remember them directly -- so I'll defer to your direct experience. Of course there wasn't zero access to media from other decades -- but I remember in the 80s and even 90s cultural access was very, very different. I could access an album from the 70s, but I'd have to go buy it. Or borrow it from a friend and give it back. I could see reruns on TV, but only certain TV shows and definitely not on-demand. (Or I'd have to go rent, which, again, limited access.)
> I can hear a piece of music from 1965 to about 1980 that I'm not familiar with and pin it down to within a year or two just by its sound. Maybe it's possible to do that with music from the last 20 years, but I certainly can't do it.
I also think some of what you're describing re musical trends is related to the above: Artists have a million outlets and tens of millions of tracks at their disposal to be influenced by, so the idea that there's a "sound of the year" as promoted by major labels and radio stations is just... gone. It's not like Justin Bieber songs are playing everywhere. He's a huge celebrity musician and I still would have to go out of my way to hear one of his songs. They just don't permeate my media sphere. Again, compared to the 90s when a hit song would be unavoidable.
Anyway: I don't think it's the sole cause. I think labelling decades was also simply a branding and marketing trend that has fallen out of vogue, maybe due in part to the simple problem of what to call the "aughties."
It's an interesting topic! I love the media environment today. God. When I was first tinkering with music in the 90s I would've killed for access to things like Spotify and SoundCloud. So amazing.
> I can hear a piece of music from 1965 to about 1980 that I'm not familiar with and pin it down to within a year or two just by its sound. Maybe it's possible to do that with music from the last 20 years, but I certainly can't do it.
I also think some of what you're describing re musical trends is related to the above: Artists have a million outlets and tens of millions of tracks at their disposal to be influenced by, so the idea that there's a "sound of the year" as promoted by major labels and radio stations is just... gone. It's not like Justin Bieber songs are playing everywhere. He's a huge celebrity musician and I still would have to go out of my way to hear one of his songs. They just don't permeate my media sphere. Again, compared to the 90s when a hit song would be unavoidable.
Anyway: I don't think it's the sole cause. I think labelling decades was also simply a branding and marketing trend that has fallen out of vogue, maybe due in part to the simple problem of what to call the "aughties."
It's an interesting topic! I love the media environment today. God. When I was first tinkering with music in the 90s I would've killed for access to things like Spotify and SoundCloud. So amazing.
I highly recommend William Gibson's "Blue Ant" trilogy (Pattern Recognition, Spook Country, Zero History) if you're into this sort of topic.
I really enjoyed "Pattern Recognition" and was unaware there were sequels. This is good news.
Interesting point but I'll hijack it to point out there's a 2016 McGuyver TV series and a 2010 A-Team movie.
I wondered about that too. A few years ago I mentioned how much my son loved the Beatles song "Hello, Hello" as proof of how well that music aged. He was like, yeah, it's in that Target commercial. Made me rethink things a bit. That said I guess it's in the commercial because it aged so well.
But I do agree that the internet has effectively quite reduced, if not eliminated, the "generation gap" my parents and my peers grew up with in the 60's to the 80's...
But I do agree that the internet has effectively quite reduced, if not eliminated, the "generation gap" my parents and my peers grew up with in the 60's to the 80's...
> The "generation gap" is dead and buried.
maybe for pop culture tastes (though I'm not so sure about that, access doesn't necessarily mean interest). there are huge social, political, and moral values differences between generations though.
maybe for pop culture tastes (though I'm not so sure about that, access doesn't necessarily mean interest). there are huge social, political, and moral values differences between generations though.
Munroe's linguistic hypothesis is interesting and may prove valid, but I think what we're seeing is likely due to deeper cultural shifts. William Gibson's circa-2010 observation that "the present is really of no width whatever" hints at a more atomized popular concept of time and the dissolution of the concept of the regular, periodic structure of decades in the 20th century.
I wouldn't be surprised if by the mid-2020s we've more or less abandoned the concept of decades in favor of an ad-hoc system of domain-based periods loosely defined within cultural groups - I'd say to some degree, we're doing that already.
I wouldn't be surprised if by the mid-2020s we've more or less abandoned the concept of decades in favor of an ad-hoc system of domain-based periods loosely defined within cultural groups - I'd say to some degree, we're doing that already.
I think you're right as well. A lot of the distinctiveness of sounds in popular music were driven by improvements in technology in the 60s through the 80s or 90s, but that's no longer the case. The same can be said about movies up to the last several years.
With the exception of (the scourge of) Autotune, has any technology really changed how music sounds since the tidal wave of digital sampling in the early to mid 80s?
Similarly, the massive advances in computer graphics have radically altered movie making in the 80s through 2010 or so, but those advances are becoming much less noticeable from year to year.
With the exception of (the scourge of) Autotune, has any technology really changed how music sounds since the tidal wave of digital sampling in the early to mid 80s?
Similarly, the massive advances in computer graphics have radically altered movie making in the 80s through 2010 or so, but those advances are becoming much less noticeable from year to year.
I think there's a larger cultural phenomenon at play here.
Perhaps it's just me or or maybe my generation (those born in the late 70s) has a somewhat unique perspective on this but I think there were 3 pivotal developments around the end of the 80s / the beginning of the 90s:
- the fall of the Iron Curtain
- the advent of the World Wide Web and widespread use of personal computers and the internet
- globalisation becoming a considerable and perceptible factor in everyday life (mainly due to developments #1 and #2)
These developments to some extent caused cultural perceptions and distinctions - both spatial and temporal - to blur.
In my personal perception the 80s are still just 10 years ago.
Perhaps it's just me or or maybe my generation (those born in the late 70s) has a somewhat unique perspective on this but I think there were 3 pivotal developments around the end of the 80s / the beginning of the 90s:
- the fall of the Iron Curtain
- the advent of the World Wide Web and widespread use of personal computers and the internet
- globalisation becoming a considerable and perceptible factor in everyday life (mainly due to developments #1 and #2)
These developments to some extent caused cultural perceptions and distinctions - both spatial and temporal - to blur.
In my personal perception the 80s are still just 10 years ago.
> In my personal perception the 80s are still just 10 years ago
I think it's got less to do with any world events and more to do with the fact that you reached adulthood around then. The mid-80s were about 10 years before you graduated. The 90s started 10 years before I graduated, so that's my "10 years ago" point. Meanwhile the people born right after I graduated are about to reach adulthood, which feels like an impossible reality.
I think it's got less to do with any world events and more to do with the fact that you reached adulthood around then. The mid-80s were about 10 years before you graduated. The 90s started 10 years before I graduated, so that's my "10 years ago" point. Meanwhile the people born right after I graduated are about to reach adulthood, which feels like an impossible reality.
> In my personal perception the 80s are still just 10 years ago.
I have experienced this for the 90s, when I grew up. It truly is freaky to have that brief realisation that T2 is over 25 years old.
I have experienced this for the 90s, when I grew up. It truly is freaky to have that brief realisation that T2 is over 25 years old.
I think its actually a more substantial shift. With media being so accessible it almost feels that the generational cultural gap is blurring and narrowing. I have access within moments the entire popular culture catalog of music, films, and TV shows going back decades. There seems to be a great convergence and preservation of culture. I'm as likely to listen to 60s & 70s David Bowie as I am to listen to the new Arcade Fire album coming out later this year.
The past two decades almost seem to blur into each other culturally. People basically dress exactly as they did 20 years ago as far as I can tell. Maybe that's because these two decades and the coming decade are my prime years and so I lack perceptive as a late 20 something who is still neither quite young nor yet middle aged.
The past two decades almost seem to blur into each other culturally. People basically dress exactly as they did 20 years ago as far as I can tell. Maybe that's because these two decades and the coming decade are my prime years and so I lack perceptive as a late 20 something who is still neither quite young nor yet middle aged.
Something lost on second-half-of-millenial-generation and up will be just how inaccessible media was, even well into the 90s. Movies took years to be released on video. What you could buy was mostly whatever the local stores chose to stock. You'd probably not even know about all kinds of media because it never showed up anywhere you could see it, unless you read lots of industry/medium specific magazines or something. Music? Hope your record/CD store has it or will order it. TV show? Didn't record it when it aired? Gone. You can watch TV Guide and try to catch a rerun. In a few years maybe it'll be one of a handful of episodes released on VHS (full seasons? LOL no, or incredibly expensive in the unlikely event that they are released). Want to see some family photos from someone across the country? Call them, oh they're out, leave a message on their answering machine that you'd like them to go get prints made and mail them to you. You may see them in a month. You'll have no idea what you're getting until they show up, unless you've seen them in person before.
And shortly before that, it was even worse. Home releases of movies? Haha, what's that? Maybe a super-expensive 16mm print will be available at some point for home projectors.
A short while ago mass media was far more ephemeral and inaccessible than it is now. Before that it didn't really exist, outside print. Want to hear music? Know anyone who can play it? No? You're out of luck. Better learn an instrument. Film? What's that? Maybe you can catch a stage show at the local harvest festival. Maybe your kids will stage something in the living room. That'd be nice.
We're not that far removed from those times. This has been a huge shift in people's relations to one another (to paraphrase Vonnegut, people's small artistic talents used to be very valuable to their friends, family, and community, but they're now in competition with the best in the world, rendering any expression of those talents low-value and eccentric) and to media itself. We've gained a lot, but more than a little's been lost. Sometimes it feels like we're drowning in media, and I'm not sure the trade-off of being able to watch Hogan's Heroes or whatever at a moment's notice rather than waiting for a rerun is entirely worth centering our lives on screens and speakers so completely.
And shortly before that, it was even worse. Home releases of movies? Haha, what's that? Maybe a super-expensive 16mm print will be available at some point for home projectors.
A short while ago mass media was far more ephemeral and inaccessible than it is now. Before that it didn't really exist, outside print. Want to hear music? Know anyone who can play it? No? You're out of luck. Better learn an instrument. Film? What's that? Maybe you can catch a stage show at the local harvest festival. Maybe your kids will stage something in the living room. That'd be nice.
We're not that far removed from those times. This has been a huge shift in people's relations to one another (to paraphrase Vonnegut, people's small artistic talents used to be very valuable to their friends, family, and community, but they're now in competition with the best in the world, rendering any expression of those talents low-value and eccentric) and to media itself. We've gained a lot, but more than a little's been lost. Sometimes it feels like we're drowning in media, and I'm not sure the trade-off of being able to watch Hogan's Heroes or whatever at a moment's notice rather than waiting for a rerun is entirely worth centering our lives on screens and speakers so completely.
I think this is right on. I listen to quite a bit of music and I have said several times to friends something like "I could spend the rest of my life listening to music released before 2000". Hyperbole, perhaps to some, but that is pretty accurate. I am now able to go and "discover" bands from the 70s.
Film is another form of media that behaves in a similar manner. Why would I need to watch the new remake of movie X when the original is so readily available, and likely better.
I think the internet has worked to make media and culture diffuse much faster. Something new and interesting is suddenly everywhere and certain kinds of surprises, or hype or suspense similar to say, the Beatles landing in the US in the 60s, would be extraordinarily hard to replicate.
I would though, take a less dour attitude in regards to the future than you seem to have hinted at. I think society is adjusting to the this bombardment of entertainment, a more more people live fulfilling lives mostly detached from social media, you just won't find them on facebook :-).
Film is another form of media that behaves in a similar manner. Why would I need to watch the new remake of movie X when the original is so readily available, and likely better.
I think the internet has worked to make media and culture diffuse much faster. Something new and interesting is suddenly everywhere and certain kinds of surprises, or hype or suspense similar to say, the Beatles landing in the US in the 60s, would be extraordinarily hard to replicate.
I would though, take a less dour attitude in regards to the future than you seem to have hinted at. I think society is adjusting to the this bombardment of entertainment, a more more people live fulfilling lives mostly detached from social media, you just won't find them on facebook :-).
> Sometimes it feels like we're drowning in media, and I'm not sure the trade-off of being able to watch Hogan's Heroes or whatever at a moment's notice rather than waiting for a rerun is entirely worth centering our lives on screens and speakers so completely.
Yeah, this is part of the driving force behind the resurgence of vinyl, cassettes, VHS, etc. Scarcity and physical presence are great ways to imbue a sense of meaning into media. This is something I have difficulty expressing to my older colleagues (I'm in my early 20s, many I work with are in their 40s or older).
"We" millennials no longer see a vinyl record as a means to the end of producing audio, the medium itself supposes to provide intrinsic value: the idea of "fidelity" has disappeared (remember "Hi-Fi"?) and has instead been replaced with some idea of "maximizing the experience" of engaging with the media.
The concept of "fidelity," is, in a sense, nonsensical in the world of fully electronic music (in the realm of movies, most audiences already have some sense that movies are inauthentic/there is no comparable "live" experience, so perhaps this discussion does not extend into that domain. That said, old VHS tapes are a fun source of obscure video footage, and digital video can still be somewhat hard to track down!). The word "fidelity" itself means (in my own words) "qualitative closeness of a reproduction to some original source" and what is the "source" for something produced completely in a studio, often without any acoustic instruments present whatsoever?
In the world of DJs and FL Studio or Ableton, many instead deal with some idea of "emotional fidelity" rather than "acoustic fidelity": how closely and intensely can we personally experience the (intended?) aesthetic/artistic qualities of a work? It is a meaningfully different experience to listening to one of my favorite disco records on vinyl (a record that, for all I know, buying secondhand in NYC, may have been played at the Paradise Garage) vs on YouTube.
This reminds me of the idea of "Hyperreality" in Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" -- music with its own internal aesthetic and emotional world, its own language, its own norms. Almost no relationship to some sort of physical reality (guitars, drums, etc) other than the fact that we must experience sound via acoustic waves.
> We've gained a lot, but more than a little's been lost
True. After a while you wonder what's the point of all these intense emotional experiences, does it really satisfy any of our needs as human beings? Does it bring us any closer together? Just because something feels more meaningful, does that actually make it more meaningful? There will be some interesting reflections on this period of digital abundance in about 20 years.
Yeah, this is part of the driving force behind the resurgence of vinyl, cassettes, VHS, etc. Scarcity and physical presence are great ways to imbue a sense of meaning into media. This is something I have difficulty expressing to my older colleagues (I'm in my early 20s, many I work with are in their 40s or older).
"We" millennials no longer see a vinyl record as a means to the end of producing audio, the medium itself supposes to provide intrinsic value: the idea of "fidelity" has disappeared (remember "Hi-Fi"?) and has instead been replaced with some idea of "maximizing the experience" of engaging with the media.
The concept of "fidelity," is, in a sense, nonsensical in the world of fully electronic music (in the realm of movies, most audiences already have some sense that movies are inauthentic/there is no comparable "live" experience, so perhaps this discussion does not extend into that domain. That said, old VHS tapes are a fun source of obscure video footage, and digital video can still be somewhat hard to track down!). The word "fidelity" itself means (in my own words) "qualitative closeness of a reproduction to some original source" and what is the "source" for something produced completely in a studio, often without any acoustic instruments present whatsoever?
In the world of DJs and FL Studio or Ableton, many instead deal with some idea of "emotional fidelity" rather than "acoustic fidelity": how closely and intensely can we personally experience the (intended?) aesthetic/artistic qualities of a work? It is a meaningfully different experience to listening to one of my favorite disco records on vinyl (a record that, for all I know, buying secondhand in NYC, may have been played at the Paradise Garage) vs on YouTube.
This reminds me of the idea of "Hyperreality" in Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" -- music with its own internal aesthetic and emotional world, its own language, its own norms. Almost no relationship to some sort of physical reality (guitars, drums, etc) other than the fact that we must experience sound via acoustic waves.
> We've gained a lot, but more than a little's been lost
True. After a while you wonder what's the point of all these intense emotional experiences, does it really satisfy any of our needs as human beings? Does it bring us any closer together? Just because something feels more meaningful, does that actually make it more meaningful? There will be some interesting reflections on this period of digital abundance in about 20 years.
Isn't this also partly due to the post modern nature of fashion and culture over the last 15 years. Everything seems to be a reference in some form or another to the preceding 4 decades.
I hate it, but I have fallen into calling the 2000-2009 the 'noughtys' - which I first heard on a radio show in 1999 and thought sounded stupid, but soon stuck for me.
As for the teens... well we are still in them, so yes they are just 'music, art, etc.' in the same way that I don't say: "So I was talking _English_ to a friend today..."
As for the teens... well we are still in them, so yes they are just 'music, art, etc.' in the same way that I don't say: "So I was talking _English_ to a friend today..."
Maybe artificially grouping trends by an arbitrary ten year period is what's weird?
I wonder what impact Boomers have on this too. Last year the Boomers finally lost their status as the biggest generation, so I would expect to see the importance of the 60's, 70's and 80's begin to decline. At the same time, we see nostalgia for the 90's starting: Bill Nye, Full House, Surge...
I have a feeling it will come back with the 20's, which will piss off centenarians. And everyone is going to use the term super early, like I wonder what the 20's are going to be like. We're going to have self driving cars in the 20s. They're going to overuse the term, you'll see.
I still see the term 'millennial fashion' and 'the noughties' been thrown around, but these are meaningless terms. Here's an interesting talk by Adam Conover debunking the term millennial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFwok9SlQQ
You may be interested in Adam's follow up with Jean Twenge on the "Adam Ruins Everything podcast" http://www.maximumfun.org/adam-ruins-everything/adam-ruins-e...
doesn't 'the noughties' just mean 2000-2009 (plus or minus one on either end)?
Yeah it does, but it's a corruption of the previous attempts at labeling decades and doesn't really solve the problem of labeling decades. A decade is actually meaningless in terms of what it represents culturally, and since the explosion of The Internet, culture is now smeared and has no basis in a decade anymore. We've reached a post-post-post-post modern era. Rushkoff goes into this more in his 'present shock' theory https://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4131130/obsessed-with-now...
Sometimes you just want to refer to a granular period of time -- e.g. "I was living in Alaska in the noughties" or "It wasn't until the noughties that I decided what I really wanted to do in my career" -- and as far as that goes such a term can be useful.
Fair point. I get funny looks when I say something like this though: "I was living in Alaska in the holocene era". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar
Perhaps this is the result of increased computing power, search engine use, and the internet in the 2000s. Since computers can now let you automatically organize, tag, and find any kind of music you want, there's less need to manually break down music into larger categories for organization. Combine this with YouTube and social media dictating what's popular or has gone viral, and you end up with a generation of consumers that sees movies, fashion, movies, and culture more as a constantly moving trend than something that stays static for a long period of time.
Were cultural memes grouped by decade before radio? Seems like these standard groupings were a product of a broadcast media that doesn't exist to normalise patterns anymore.
> Were cultural memes grouped by decade before radio?
The earliest popular decade association I am aware of is the "gay 90s" image of the 1890s, which apparently was popularized in print media in the 1920s, roughly concurrent with (but independent of) the emergence of commercial radio. So, perhaps not before radio, but also not originally driven by radio, either.
The earliest popular decade association I am aware of is the "gay 90s" image of the 1890s, which apparently was popularized in print media in the 1920s, roughly concurrent with (but independent of) the emergence of commercial radio. So, perhaps not before radio, but also not originally driven by radio, either.
It's pretty amazing, I can watch a movie from 1997 and feel transformed to a different time. Also people went into rooms to use phones attached to the wall, and computers took up entire desks.
Though funny enough, I think fashion from then is coming back in style. It was very clearly the last year before everyone got all caught up in 60s revival fashion with Austin Powers.
I don't get that same feeling if I look at movies and photos from 2007. Everything looks the same as today.
Though funny enough, I think fashion from then is coming back in style. It was very clearly the last year before everyone got all caught up in 60s revival fashion with Austin Powers.
I don't get that same feeling if I look at movies and photos from 2007. Everything looks the same as today.
I can remember during the later half of the 90s people started asking how we would refer to the first two decades of the new millennium since we were so used to talking about the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Here we are 20+ years later and there still isn't an answer! The people 2097 are going to be writing articles about how much we suck for not figuring this out for them ;-)
I always thought it was the Noughties and the Teenies?
I've never heard of those terms, but I like Noughties. "Do you remember getting naughty in the Noughties?"
Go watch any music video from 2000 to 2005, there definitely is a style of the time, that is distinguishable from the style of today.
Back in that twilight era when there were music videos for most hit songs, and MTV was actually still showing them. People are going to be amazed at what a big deal TRL and Carson Daly were.
Some of those videos from that era were really elaborate, almost short films. Now we seem to have largely gone back to a more 80s-style, where the bands just perform.
Some of those videos from that era were really elaborate, almost short films. Now we seem to have largely gone back to a more 80s-style, where the bands just perform.
My theory is based on the Internet.
First, people are now exposed to vastly more information that in 80s or 90s. This forges the diversity in taste and segregation of pop culture.
Second, trends come and go at faster cycle than before. If something on Youtube goes viral, this could be in pop culture for weeks and then vanished in the shadow of another fad.
First, people are now exposed to vastly more information that in 80s or 90s. This forges the diversity in taste and segregation of pop culture.
Second, trends come and go at faster cycle than before. If something on Youtube goes viral, this could be in pop culture for weeks and then vanished in the shadow of another fad.
Here on Belgian radio, we call the music from 2000-2010 the "Nillies". As in "Back to the 90s & Nillies" [0]. As for 2010-2020, I'm sure we'll just call them the Dixies in a few years.
[0] http://www.the90s.be/
[0] http://www.the90s.be/
I think in ye olden days there was a deliberate attempt by someone -- the shadowy world of cultural illuminati, maybe - to segment by decade, even though I never remember any directives saying, "It's now 1980 -- please burn all of your stuff that dates from 1979 or earlier."
I think this coincides with the rise of the Internet. With information, discussions, and media of the past 20 years being instantly accessible, the disconnect from looking at the past is really tenuous or it doesn't exist anymore, and everything just sort of melds together.
what if there isn't a well known term to describe this period?
For instance, I have never heard of "noughties"
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/107437/there-are-70s...
For instance, I have never heard of "noughties"
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/107437/there-are-70s...
I don't know about the teens, but the first decade of this century definitely needs to be the 'naughties'.
I wonder if in the 1900s they had the same issues...
I think they did. We talk of the 20's, 30s, right up to 90s, but not of the decades 1900-1909 and 1910-19.
Having said that, up til around then, times were grouped by the reigning monarch, at least in Britain: Georgian, Victorian, then Edwardian to cover 1901-WWI.
Having said that, up til around then, times were grouped by the reigning monarch, at least in Britain: Georgian, Victorian, then Edwardian to cover 1901-WWI.
"Turn of the century" isn't only used for 1900-1909, but is sometimes used in that rôle.
The bottom line says "and and"