How will this decade seem weird in the future?

what 90's pop music meaningfulness are you referring to, nabisco?

hip-hop engulfed pop and there's no way back
rock n' roll made for one great zombie (zombies are still dead tho, and the smell, yeesh)
dance music made for one good regeneration - it's the Tom Baker era now, self-reverent and quirky yet probably more compelling and technically adept than ever
Radiohead got their swerve on
mash-up culture went supernova thanks to...
the dual file-sharing/blogging phenomenon - THIS WAS the new new punk

Aka "A Stroke of Genius" = "Pac Man Fever"

Why not? Do you think that, at the time, people listening to, say, Grand Funk Railroad or Dollar or Menswe@r thought that they'd be a punchline in 10, 20, 30 years time? Why isn't it possible that T.I. be a cultural bogeyman of 2025?

xpost x 3

I thought Stevem was saying that file-sharing/blogging was the new punk and that mash-ups were one of the results of that.

Stevem you fergot also that the Pixies reunited in this decade.

xpost x 4

because hip-hop is invincible! your puny intelligence is no match for it's superior weapons etc.

my ultra-pessimist view is that the 00s will seem weird because this be end times and/or renaissance meltdown - future gens will marvel simultaneously at our wanton hedonism and self-destruction, or it will be like that Beta Band video and everything will just repeat.

Alba, I’m actually pretty in touch with what I think of as 90s weirdness, though I’m thinking possibly it’s more of an American issue in my head. There was this whole very Clinton-era attempted-seriousness about “issues” that in retrospect was very strange and momentary and passing. Alt-rock is one indicator of this, for sure—notice this was the decade in which a band scored a minor hit thanks to a video that was all pictures of missing children. Another indicator glimpsed in a tape of some 90s stuff I was looking over the other day: this then-meaningful but now weirdly-cheesy attention to what passed for sexual politics, somehow bubbling up into this early-90s people-in-Lycra “use condoms” vibe—note for instance turn-of-90s Latour hit “People are Still Having Sex.” Things in the U.S. at least took a strong turn toward this faked-out college-idealist “we care about things” vibe. Interestingly there was a similar turn in hip-hop toward “reality” and “meaning stuff”—this was the decade that brought us both mass popularity for Arrested Development and even more importantly the big turn-away from pure-commercial hip-hop to claims of gangsta or street-level stuff (“black CNN”) as meaningful/important. In retrospect this is kind of “weird,” insofar as any decade’s stuff—which makes perfect sense if you were around for it—looks, in retrospect, kinda strange.

that said, i have NO IDEA how to comprehensively remember the entire 90's. i have some better idea about the 80s, 70s and 60s...

"oh fuck off, you were an accident you know"

"..."

xpost

The larger question is, will we continue to be exceptionally nostalgic and simultaneously ironic about our cultural legacy. Recently, it seems that identifying the specific qualities of a decade is an effort to make a unified cultural idea of the past, so that the past can be marketed. It's unclear whether that will continue...

We'd have a better idea if it weren't for all these prisms clogging up the place.

Velvets/Nico was "artiness/futuristic" as perceived then.

I don't think it would really surprise anyone in 1967 if they were told one of the most 'defining' records would be one of the lesser selling albums of that year.

Mostly worn by the same people.

But also by kids who are 20 years younger.

Would someone in 1967 be able to identify even what we see now as the defining records of that year? Sgt Peppers maybe, but Velvets & Nico?

"Velvet Underground And Nico" wasn't defining of 1967 in any way, and it doesn't sound like anything else from that year. It is probably much more representative of 1977 than 1967.

Warhol, PopArt, "happenings", lightshows, mod haircuts, extended jams, beat poetry, "groovy" dancing. definitely 1967 to me.

Geir, he wasn't saying it was defining of 1967, but 'now'.

It was by no means an unknown album in 1967, you know!

Oh, OK he was saying of 1967. But, hey.

In truth, it was pretty much an unknown record in 1967.

It depends on where you were standing in 1967.

If you were watching TV in some far flung part of the UK, let's say "South Shields", and your interface was the BBC, then the defining etc was Sgt Pepper and the Black/White minstrel show.

If you were more London based and yr interface was more the artier music channels, such as they were ,then the def.etc w/be SgtPepper and VU&Nico.

So it goes.

Artier music channels = BBC2, and then mostly Late Night Line-Up, which mostly concentrated on jazz.

Top Albums of 1967
1 The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
2 Original Soundtrack The Sound Of Music
3 The Beach Boys Best Of The Beach Boys
4 Original Soundtrack Doctor Zhivago
5 Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass Going Places
6 The Monkees Monkees
7 Original London Cast Fiddler On The Roof
8 The Seekers Come The Day
9 The Four Tops Four Tops Live
10 Tom Jones Green Green Grass Of Home

And if there was an album that looked like it was made by jazzbo's, then surely...

Did the album even get a British release at the time? From anecdotal evidence it would appear most of the "everyone who bought it formed a band" crowd got it on import, largely from Musicland in Berwick Street.

Didn't the original release of "Venus In Furs" get to something like 74? They were truly the A.R.E. Weapons of the 60s.

xpost

Verve VLP 9184, November 1967

It's true that we tend to "edit down" decades to a few tropes and styles that are not necessarily apparent at the time. I certainly remember feeling perplexed in the 80s that the decade didn't seem to have any definable "style", in the way that I knew the 70s or the 60s or the 50s had. Looking back, that's laughable, because now we all know what the "eighties" means. Likewise if you actually look at mid-60s pop charts, it's amazing the amount of Dean Martin-esque easy listening stuff there is in there. You could argue that, apart from a few pop phenomena like The Beatles, it was that easy listening stuff that was really what the sixties was all about.

Verve VLP 9184, November 1967

Yeah, it came out without the banana on the cover, I have one (not bought at the time, obv whodoyerthinkIambobgillesp?)

not bought at the time by me, I should say. I guess somebody bought it at the time...

not if it was a promotional item given to a record industry type

at what point do we need a separate board for Velvets geekery - ILVU mods?

Bobby Gillespie was three months in Hairmyres Hospital after he tried to eat the peeled-off banana. He got a right skelping from his maw, I can tell you.

It's true that we tend to "edit down" decades to a few tropes and styles that are not necessarily apparent at the time.

See also people who define themselves as "80s fans" based upon The Smiths, Echo & The Bunnymen, The Cure, New Order, R.E.M, Sonic Youth, Pixies and other bands that were very much "underground" during most of the 80s and hardly as visible to the average man on the street as Michael Jackson, Madonna and even Duran Duran were.

1) They were not 'underground' they were for sale on every high street!

2) What's an 'eighties' fan anyway?

Less visible than Michael Jackson and Madonna!

It's true that Cure, Bunnymen, New Order etc were not mainstream, even if they did have the occasional minor hit. You could be young in the early eighties without having the faintest clue who Joy Division was.

Current definition of an eighties fan:

Bob Mills
COMEDIAN
"Hollywood Beyond! What was that all about? Eh? Eh?"
(aside to researcher: "who the fuck were they again? Ta")

It may just be because I'm getting older, because obviously everything goes faster as you age (as units of time become proportionally smaller in the context of the length of your life), but the 00s seem to have gone by VERY FUCKING FAST indeed. This could also be down to the general quickening pace of life (if it is quickening) plus the increase in 'content' re; music, i.e. just more music to cram in and keep up with, never a dull moment with P2P etc. 2004 seems barely a blink of an eye ago, and even 2000 and 2001 don't seem long ago. Whereas 1998 seemed a LONG WAY from 1994 when I was 19.

It's not JUST because you're older - between 1994 and 1998 you'd had the whole rise and fall of Britpop, its a mini-era in itself. There's been nothing thats burnt brightly and then burnt out to the same extent between 2004 and 2008.

Yeah we are getting older, but on the other hand it depends what goes on in those four years. 2004 and 2000 feel a *long* way apart.

At the time (2002-2004) I felt that 2000 and 2004 were a LONG way apart; now they feel VERY close. That';s probably just because ALL THE PAST is the same distance away by simple dint of NOT BEING THE PRESENT.

That sounds stupid, but wtf.

It's not JUST because you're older - between 1994 and 1998 you'd had the whole rise and fall of Britpop, its a mini-era in itself. There's been nothing thats burnt brightly and then burnt out to the same extent between 2004 and 2008.

http://www.tradebit.com/usr/madagoknee/pub/9002/liljondrums.jpg

56-65 Rock n roll

66-75 Hippies/soul

76-85 Punk/disco

86-95 House/hip hop

96-now internets

i'd be interested in seeing what people 10-15 years ago were predicting the 00s would actually be like music-wise. anyone know of any archived articles in that vein? maybe trying to predict the 10s now would be even harder because of the sense of redux people feel, or maybe it hasn't made a difference.

It's all just a huge mush now. I don't really see anything new on the horizon apart from what bits of the past get rehashed.

The whole idea of slicing and dicing pop culture into arbitrary ten year chunks is stoopid, imo.

volcom is just like vans or quicksilver. no complaints there. skater wear can be very casual. I often wear clothes from pacsun. but if people are going to be picky about what clothes associate with what groups - like hipster and hats lol - then I think you are being just that (picky). But flowery extravagant clothes is a no-no. and some skater clothes do look extravagant. that's why I settle with a plain shirt with nothing more than a zoo york symbol or whatever. when it comes to hipsters, I don't like to make fun of them like so many ilxors do. that's because there is a broad range of hipsters and many are not indie scenesters. there's the modest hipsters for instance. and I'm sure they don't like to be classified as such but if liking philosophical stuff and naturey stuff is your thing, than I got no beef.

so when we look back at the fashion 20 years from now, most of 00s are relatively safe compared to say the 60s, 70s, or 80s.

and the pop art hoodies is a black thing so I got no beef there either. I wouldn't be caught dead in one but black people manage to pull it off half the time. it's kinda oldschool if you ask me. at least with certain hoodies.

The whole idea of slicing and dicing pop culture into arbitrary ten year chunks is stoopid, imo.

Of course, it's extremely superficial, but Bodrick's post did give sort of an overview that made at least a little sense, although as I said in a superficial way.
I would have written new wave instead of punk though, as new wave can also be said to have included a lot of early 80s new romantic/synthpop stuff that clearly wasn't disco.

And I now see it was also Bodrick that I was quoting, but I still see that your superficial "history" made at least minor sense. In the way that you could say it to give somebody who is 13 years old in 2075 and overview of what rock history was about.

Well you could slice it up in a number of ways. Even though my little list there is ultra-simplified it makes as much sense as 50-59, 60-69, etc...

Maybe five year slices? Late 90s felt totally to the earlier half of the decade because a lot of stuff that was underground got super-commercialised, there was a economic recovery, etc...

I agree the big shift is usually somewhere around the middle of the decade rather than the beginning.

I mean, rock'n'roll didn't break through until 1955. Surely no important changes around 1950.

In the 60s, you had Beatles and the British invasion in 1963-64, and hippie/psychedelia in 1967. 1959-60 didn't give the world a lot of new stuff

In the 70s, there were punk and disco (the latter was probably just as influential), both of which kicked off around mid decade.

In the 80s, there was some new stuff happening around 1979-80, but it the new romantic/synthpop movement was mainly a merger of new wave (punk) and disco. And you also had a big change around mid decade with house emerging and hip-hop becoming more of a huge genre than just the odd novelty hit. Plus the mid 80s were also when hair metal became a big commercial thing and not just something that certain rebellious puberty boys were listening to because parents and teachers hated it.

In the 90s, you had the American "alternative" explosion around 1992 ("Nevermind was released in 1991, but didn't become commercially big until early 1992) and the British Britpop equivalent in 1993-94. The mid 90s were also when electronica crossed over from the dancefloors and into the stereo set of the average music nerd.
Towards the late 90s you also saw the merger of hip-hop and R&B that has become the dominant chartforce in the US to this day.

In the oughties there haven't been too many changes, but the biggest one was probably around 2001-02 when "rock" was becoming more popular again, both through a lot of indie bands influenced by either garage or postrock, but also with teenybopper acts such as Avril Lavigne, Pink and Kelly Clarkson adding more rock elements into their style than what had been the case with the boy/girl bands of the 90s.
As for the electro trend it may have started around 2000 actually, with Madonna and Aaliyah having some very electro-influenced hits that summer.

Plus 00s = revival of metal, blog novelty hits (mashups &c), mainstreaming of indie pop, underground culture getting crazy hermetic. Wasn't there another thread on this a month or so ago?

"underground culture getting crazy hermetic"

Hasn't "underground" music always been hermetic, by definition?

Of course the oughies are mainly about the fact that people can now give a damn about trends and just get into whatever they are into because they will get to know about it in blogs. Thus, you have The Flower Kings and Spock's Beard :)

Hasn't "underground" music always been hermetic, by definition?

-- Bodrick

Sure, to some extent. But the noise/drone & super limited edition things (12 copies, lathe-cut, friends only) have become HUEG lately. Much more hermetic and intentionally outsider-y than, say, 80s pigfuck & Portastudio lo-fi.

The way things are going for me lately, in 5-10 years, I feel like I'm going to remember the late 2000's more for vinyl-mp3 debates; argumentative discussions about the merits and downfalls of minimal techno/house,'minimal', and "so called minimal"; and getting incredibly riled up about the disgrace of blog house than I will remember any music.

Hasn't the net made obscure scenes a little less... obscure?

All the freaks can hook up really effectively now. Whereas back in the day, you would've been totally unaware of half the similar stuff going on in other cities/countries.

xpost

Hasn't the net made obscure scenes a little less... obscure?

Boadrick

Absolutely, but I think one of the practical results of this is that the people who value obscurity or want to be obscure themselves are now into stuff that is incredibly inward & isolated, stripped of all appeal to anyone who isn't already a part of the scene.

Similar music existed in the 80s, but it wasn't as big a part of the indie-rock mainstream. At least that's how I remember it.

Maybe that speaks more of me and my memories than the realities of the times. Gets hard to say at that point...

but blogs=/=mainstream

i keep assuming that certain artists (eg MIA! Deerhoof! The Field!) are popular in the real world just because they're all over the internets. but they're not and I have to backtrack & explain myself...

i most people thin this thread keep assuming that certain artists (eg MIA! Deerhoof! The Field!) are popular in the real world just because they're all over the internets.

If anyone thinks blog-rock is going to have any bearing on the way people see the 00s in the future, you need to get off your computer and talke a walk, for serious.