The 1990's not retro yet?
#1
Posted 23 January 2008 - 06:39 PM
I recall Mtv and Much music always having retro 80s and 80s compilation cds like in 1994. I also recall the term "thats so 80s". You could see the difference in the decades. You could even see the last bits of the 80s in the very early 90s.
It's in my strong belief that the mid to late 90s are not that much different in film, tv, or music than 2000-2008. I think society has flat lined a bit.
If you look at all the past decades, they were all so much different. 50s,60s,70s,80s.
I found a site called RETROJUNK www.retrojunk.com. For some reason mid to late 90s don't feel dated compared to now.
Do you think the west over did it in the past 40 years, such that there is nothing left or new or different to discover in culture?
My answer is YES. And it annoys me since the 90s were my generations decade.
#2
Posted 23 January 2008 - 08:14 PM
#3
Posted 23 January 2008 - 08:33 PM
Socially, the Internet and cell phones have changed us a great deal. Not just in access to information, but in communications, ie access to one another. In the 80s, if any of you were alive and old enough, I still never would have met you. And come to that, I still haven't met any of you.
When I think of the 90s, that's what occurs to me. So who cares if the music wasn't all that memorable (I disagree in some cases, but let's just say I don't)? As for the current decade, it doesn't seem distinct because we're still in it. Context will come later, and we'll see the differences between this one and the one before it.
#4
Posted 23 January 2008 - 09:12 PM
the 90s was when Pepsi got control over the charts, and pop music has barely changed in the last 17 years save to say it managed to filter out even more variety and secure a complete lack of longeveity for any new acts.
In the 80s people were also more carefree about what would get made into films. There was some bizare shit going on in peoples heads, and in the 80s it all got made despite the lack of technology to pull most of it off. By the 90s we saw less of that.... but we still got some great things.
There was also a near complete lack of horror films in the 90s (compared to the 80s). Especially in the zombie department.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#5
Posted 23 January 2008 - 09:23 PM
in METAL
the 80s gave us Metalica, Slayer, Anthrax, etc.
while the 90s gave us Korn, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, etc
in POP
the 80s gave us the Cure, Devo, the Police
while the 90s gave us Boys to Men, the Fugees and Michael fucking Bolten
in HOME ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS:
the 80s gave us silver and black sharp edged metallic 'look at me I'm a kick as piece of technology' that lasted forever
the 90s gaves us rounded fisher-price looking chunks of plastic with fake component-system legs and shitty tape decks that lasted a week
in YOUNG MOVIE STARS:
the 80s introduced us to Michaels J Fox
the 90s coughed up Leonardo DiCaprio
I could go on.... and eventually will.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#7
Posted 24 January 2008 - 07:15 AM
in METAL
the 80s gave us Metalica, Slayer, Anthrax, etc.
while the 90s gave us Korn, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, etc
in POP
the 80s gave us the Cure, Devo, the Police
while the 90s gave us Boys to Men, the Fugees and Michael fucking Bolten
Right, but the 80s also gave us Stryper, Poison, Motley Crue, Whitesnake.... Metallica's mainstream success didn't even come until 1991 when the Black Album came out. And Slayer, I would hardly call a mainstream success... The 80s also BRED the boy band infestation that took us nearly 20 years to rid ourselves of. And even now, the music world suffers as those stooges take to solo careers and continue to haunt the charts. Well, save of course for Justin Timberlake, who is both talented and DREAMY.
#8
Posted 24 January 2008 - 08:28 AM
You took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you for saying that for me.
I think the 80's were, by and large, a horrendous time for music. The wide stream use of the synthesizer turned music that may have been okay into garbage. It turned musicians who had released some pretty badass music (The Commodores) into horrible shadows of their former self (Lionel Richie). Otherwise smart musicians opted to use terrible synthesizers in lieu of actual musicians. Look at "You Can Call Me Al" by Paul Simon. Personally I think it's a great song and at the time of release if you'd asked me I would have told you it was my favorite song ever. While I still enjoy it I am left wondering what it could have sounded like if he's used a real horn section instead of the most terrible synthesized horn patch I've ever heard.
This is far from definitive proof about one decade to another. However, synthesizers are great for achieving a totally unique sound (see Lennon's melotron in "Strawberry Fields") not for taking the place of a 6-8 piece horn section.
Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video
Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
#9
Posted 24 January 2008 - 11:24 AM
Really the only positive that I can think of when I start looking at the 90s is that we had a brief turnover, music-wise, where suddenly all kinds of weird bands started to see mainstream success. Nirvana, Pixies, Pavement, et al all had their moments in the spotlight, and changed the face of pop music for a good long while. But then Fred Durst waltzed in and vomited (or rather, "rapped", if you want to call it that) all over the whole thing and we got stuck with boring rap metal and Alice in Chains wannabes.
This post has been edited by Heccubus: 24 January 2008 - 11:27 AM
#10
Posted 24 January 2008 - 12:23 PM
Perhaps what was so much better about synths in the late sixties and seventies was that they hadn't evolved enough to actually reproduce (or attempt to reproduce) a real instrument accurately. In the mid 80's they thought they had evolved to that point but they fell quite short of the mark.
Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video
Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
#12
Posted 24 January 2008 - 02:13 PM
Technology is different. Cellphones are a norm and black berries and all that are huge. But I feel music and film is not that much different. Matrix still has kick ass graphics and that came out in the 90's.
I think the one difference of the 90s was it was the last decade were stuff still felt special. Music and film seemed more important. Films weren't released on video/dvd the week after they were released in the cinema, and album drop dates meant something. Now all that stuff is so easy to get for free that it kind of made it less worth while.
If you remove a price tag from these things, it kind of effects it in a weird way.
I think the 80's were, by and large, a horrendous time for music
The Smiths, U2, New Order, Joy Division (even though they are technically a 70s band), stone roses, The Police, Crowded House etc.. Lots of 70s artists like bowie and the Clash made some big albums, duran duran, I also liked prince.
There was lots of crap but I feel there was enough quality to make it worth while.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 24 January 2008 - 02:19 PM
#14
Posted 24 January 2008 - 03:12 PM
90s generation/trends: Heccubus has mentioned it in another thread or two, how you look at kids just five years younger than our generation, and there's this zeitgeist of expectation and entitlement to the newest and latest technology. Parents are giving nine year olds cell phones and what not, for example. The culture industries don't help by fabricating more and more useless technology, like cell phones that play MP3s and record videos and whatnot, the latter of which I admit is cool, but kinda silly and totally unnecessary. There is also definitely more integration and reliance on technology than in the past, and our social networking circles have expanded exponentially. It's pretty sweet to be able to have friends in South Carolina, Canada, Perth, Western Australia, Iceland, England, etc. when before I wouldn't have known any of you good people. And yeah, a small burst of decent music hitting the mainstream, and then music turning to almost total shit.
#15
Posted 24 January 2008 - 06:53 PM
For sure, but the quality of music and film is not that much different. The internet went from this cool thing in the 1990s to an integral part of every one's life.
My office just sent out some memo on how emails have actually distanced people in business rather than bring them closer together. Just an fyi there.
But still, the 1990s is not considered retro like the 80s was in the 90s. I think this is primarily due to the fact that our sense of style in music and film is sort of the same.