Is 2012 culture much different from 1992 culture?

[CJJ*]

This essay by Kurt Andersen in the latest issue of Vanity Fair IMO makes a compelling case that culture--when compared to previous 20-year increments, at least in the US--seems to have stagnated. Obviously there have been technological and scientific leaps over the past two decades,and certainly one can argue that there have been political transformations. But when you look at the artifacts of our culture, very little have changed:

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...

He continues with examples from architecture, film style, music, and books, then:

Now try to spot the big, obvious, defining differences between 2012 and 1992. Movies and literature and music have never changed less over a 20-year period. Lady Gaga has replaced Madonna, Adele has replaced Mariah Carey—both distinctions without a real difference—and Jay-Z and Wilco are still Jay-Z and Wilco. Except for certain details (no Google searches, no e-mail, no cell phones), ambitious fiction from 20 years ago (Doug Coupland’s Generation X, Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash, Martin Amis’s Time’s Arrow) is in no way dated, and the sensibility and style of Joan Didion’s books from even 20 years before that seem plausibly circa-2012...

The article really marshals the details, and is well worth a read. My question to the board is, do you agree, and if so why do you think the stagnation occurs. IMO the article is fairly weak on the last point (throws up a bunch of possible causes, but none of them are firmly persuasive).

[ultrafilter]

Back in 1992 there was no way for niche performers to reliably reach their audiences, and now there is. The cultures may look similar if you just look at the most popular things, but as soon as you start to expand your view a little, you see radical differences.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Paranoia is King, now, not Elvis nor Michael.

[RealityChuck]

Well, you can always pick and choose your examples, but the author is on the right track. Popular music is the same as it was 20 years ago, just with different acts. Movies are dominated by the same "blockbuster adventure" mode started by Jaws.

My take on the cause: cost. The price of everything has gone up. Movie ticket prices have far outpaced inflation (from an average price of $4.15 in 1992 to an average of $7.89 in 2010). The same for prices across the board on most other types of art.

The one exception is music, where you can download an album for less than a CD at the time, but the cost of an album of music on iTunes is far more expensive than file sharing, so the low price still looks high.

The result is that, as people pay more for their art, they stick to the tried-and-true. For $4.15 in 1992 (the equivalent of $6.37 today), you might take a chance on a film, but when it's an extra dollar and a half* (plus inflation on the cost of popcorn, drinks, and gas), you don't want to take a chance.

While there are niche performers, there are far fewer than in the 90s, they are much harder to find (even with the Internet), and fewer of them have a chance to make any money at it.

I saw the issue occur on Broadway 30 years ago. Back in the 50s, a play could have mixed reviews and still limp along, as people would give it a shot. But as ticket prices rose, it became either smash or flop, with nothing in between.

At the same time, as the cost of making art increases, then you become wedded to the blockbuster mode. When you're investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a film, you don't want to take any risks. So you go with genres that are sure things (there's also the fact that even flop action films do well overseas).

Ultimately, the more you have to pay to see a movie, or go to a concert, or see a show, the less likely you are to take a chance. Thus people stick with what they know, and those who are outside the mainstream have a hard time breaking through.

*Also, people judge the cost of art as an absolute number. Even though $16 for a hardcover book in 1993 was not considered an unreasonable price, $25 for one today seems expensive, even though inflation makes the two amounts equivalent.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, technology does have an effect.

[Alessan]

Culturally speaking, how different was 1750 from 1770? 1870 from 1890?

What I mean is that maybe the rapid cultural acceleration of the 20th Century was an aberration, and we've now returned to the normal rate of gradual cultural change humanity has always exhibited. It seems strange to us because we're used to it, but actually, it's the way things are supposed to happen.

[An Gadaí]

Ah there are loads of differences between then and now, in style as with everything else. I think part of it is that the generation who came up and were most intimate with the early '90s haven't shoved it down everyone else's throats as some golden age (yet).

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

Ah there are loads of differences between then and now, in style as with everything else. I think part of it is that the generation who came up and were most intimate with the early '90s haven't shoved it down everyone else's throats as some golden age (yet).

The Dream of the '90s is Alive in Portland.

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

The Dream of the '90s is Alive in Portland.

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country". However I saw that video recently anyway I think.

[DrFidelius]

I became a parent in the early '90s, and so I have not paid any attention to popular culture in twenty-some-odd years. As both girls are now away at college I may have a chance to see what is going on in the entertainment world again, and wil return with a report in about six months or so.

[Justin_Bailey]

I think Andersen makes some good points, but he also cherrypicks a lot of his "proof." Saying Lady Gaga is the new Madonna is a bit of a cheat seeing as how Madonna made her debut in 1982. The Adele example is even worse as torch singers have been around since the 1920s.

However, I also think a lot of 90s era culture has been absorbed into the mainstream as some kind of "modern era" and in the 20 years since, it has become very resistant to change. But all the underlying details (especially computer-related stuff) has changed so much that it's wrong to say 1992 is just like 2012.

[Spoke]

I'd say the ubiquity of computers and cell phones/smart phones is a pretty significant difference from 1992. So much so that a lot of thriller movies from that era feel dated because a simple cell phone would have solved whatever problem our protagonist was facing.

[Spoke]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by Spoke

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Yeah but loads of them are into dubstep too. So there's that.

[jz78817]

just like nobody thinks they have an accent, no person is a good judge of the culture in which they spend much of their existence.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Spoke

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Eh, my parents used to say the same thing back when I was a teen in the 90's. I don't think kids liking music from the last generation is really particular to the present. Kids today and kids then don't just listen to old music though.

Originally Posted by Spoke

So much so that a lot of thriller movies from that era feel dated because a simple cell phone would have solved whatever problem our protagonist was facing.

I watched the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series for the first time a few months ago. The shows original run strattled the time period when cel phones started to become ubiquitous, and it was kind of funny to watch the writers at first ignore them, and then have the characters constantly forget to take there's with them as they left for supposedly super-critical and dangerous missions, so that the other characters couldn't tell them whatever key plot-breaking fact they'd just learned.

[GreenElf]

On the surface, there's not much difference, but culture has changed a lot over the past twenty years.

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by Spoke

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

A few months ago, I was having lunch at a local fast-food place, and saw a teenaged couple (probably around age 15)...she was wearing a Bob Marley t-shirt, and he was wearing a Led Zeppelin t-shirt. My first thought was, "cool, they're going old-school". Then, I thought about, if, as a 15-year-old (in 1980), I'd been wearing t-shirts for bands which were 30 years removed from their prime -- I would have been wearing shirts for Les Paul or Benny Goodman.

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by kenobi 65

A few months ago, I was having lunch at a local fast-food place, and saw a teenaged couple (probably around age 15)...she was wearing a Bob Marley t-shirt, and he was wearing a Led Zeppelin t-shirt. My first thought was, "cool, they're going old-school". Then, I thought about, if, as a 15-year-old (in 1980), I'd been wearing t-shirts for bands which were 30 years removed from their prime -- I would have been wearing shirts for Les Paul or Benny Goodman.

Back then though rockabilly and punk did borrow huge amounts from the sartorial culture of the '50s. I know a guy who runs a club night that is all music from prior to 1959. It's a huge success and you get people of all ages there, most of whom weren't around or were very young when the music he plays was in the hit parade.

[Spoke]

I sure miss flannel and Doc Martens, though.

[Yllaria]

Originally Posted by DrFidelius

I became a parent in the early '90s, and so I have not paid any attention to popular culture in twenty-some-odd years. As both girls are now away at college I may have a chance to see what is going on in the entertainment world again, and wil return with a report in about six months or so.

I salute you. Better you than me.

Originally Posted by Spoke

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Both this and any pop culture change slowdown might be because the pig in the python* has moved into late middle age. The ratio between the ages has shifted.

[Martian Bigfoot]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I watched the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series for the first time a few months ago. The shows original run strattled the time period when cel phones started to become ubiquitous, and it was kind of funny to watch the writers at first ignore them, and then have the characters constantly forget to take there's with them as they left for supposedly super-critical and dangerous missions, so that the other characters couldn't tell them whatever key plot-breaking fact they'd just learned.

I've linked to this before, but what the heck: No signal.

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

I've linked to this before, but what the heck: You're making a modern movie, but you've got a pre-cell phone era plot? No worries, just use the "no signal" cop-out.

One of the guys is saying it to someone on the phone .

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

Back then though rockabilly and punk did borrow huge amounts from the sartorial culture of the '50s. I know a guy who runs a club night that is all music from prior to 1959. It's a huge success and you get people of all ages there, most of whom weren't around or were very young when the music he plays was in the hit parade.

Even so, I suspect there's a big difference in American culture (certainly, there's an enormous difference in popular music) between 1950 and 1958.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

Back then though rockabilly and punk did borrow huge amounts from the sartorial culture of the '50s. I know a guy who runs a club night that is all music from prior to 1959. It's a huge success and you get people of all ages there, most of whom weren't around or were very young when the music he plays was in the hit parade.

IIRC, the early 90's was when swing made a brief comeback. So in 1992 they were stretching back 60 years (!) in at least some cases.

I think different time periods just seem more distinct the further we get from them, because we remember less and less, and so certain "big things" seem more and more prominent, and the time-period gets sort of characterized in our heads. In twenty years, 2012 will seem distinctive in a way it doesn't now.

Originally Posted by Martian

I've linked to this before, but what the heck: You're making a modern movie, but you've got a pre-cell phone era plot? No worries, just use the "no signal" cop-out.

I was going to mention this in my first post actually, but after watching Buffy I watched Angel, which started a few years later. There, the writers have the main character constantly losing cel-phone reception despite being in the middle of LA. So by that point they already seem to have discovered the "no-signal" dodge.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I was going to mention this in my first post actually, but after watching Buffy I watched Angel, which started a few years later. There, the writers have the main character constantly losing cel-phone reception despite being in the middle of LA. So by that point they already seem to have discovered the "no-signal" dodge.

To be fair, Angel spent the first few seasons trudging through sewers and searching abandoned warehouses A LOT.

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

IIRC, the early 90's was when swing made a brief comeback. So in 1992 they were stretching back 60 years (!) in at least some cases.

I think different time periods just seem more distinct the further we get from them, because we remember less and less, and so certain "big things" seem more and more prominent, and the time-period gets sort of characterized in our heads. In twenty years, 2012 will seem distinctive in a way it doesn't now.

I think the author of the article needs to look at more photos from 1992. There are many differences in youth culture between then and now, and numerous styles have come into fashion and disappeared again. I do think a lot of youth culture is more deracinated now. I don't think it's quite as tribal as it was when I was growing up. But that's a sign of a big difference rather than things having stagnated in the last 20 years. Off the top of my head, as well as the technology that author acknowledged there have been the popularity of various forms of electronic music (I know electronic music predates 1992 but various genres have come to the fore), Japanese culture in general, high quality/budget cartoons, the rise and fall of nu-metal, the dissolution of the notion of cult in movies or tv shows, the rise and fall of Britpop, club culture, and there are plenty of others.

Especially from an Irish perspective a lot has changed in 20 years. Arguably there's been as much social change in Irish society since 1992 as there was in the US between 1950 and 1970.

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by Spoke

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

It is weird. I had Alice in Chains on the other day at school(I teach) and some kids recognized it and were into it.

[CJJ*]

Rather than specific elements of pop culture (e.g. whether a mystery plot could be easily resolved with a cell phone), IMO Andersen is really talking about a general sense of style rather than the very specific traits of pop culture. Yes, a mystery that assumes the non-ubiquitous existence of cell-phones can be clearly dated to the early-'90s, but as Martian Bigfoot note, this is far-too-often patched by current writers with the "No Service" trope. So although the reason for the lack of technology is new, the underlying plot & style elements didn't change much.

A point he makes about old photos is a good example of what he means:

Not long ago in the newspaper, I came across an archival photograph of Ian Schrager and Steve Rubell with a dozen of their young staff at Morgans, the Ur-boutique hotel, in 1985. It was an epiphany. Schrager’s dress shirt had no collar and some of the hair on his male employees was a bit unfashionably fluffy, but no one in the picture looks obviously, laughably dated by today’s standards. If you passed someone who looked like any of them, you wouldn’t think twice. Yet if, in 1990 or 1980 or 1970, you’d examined a comparable picture from 27 years earlier—from 1963 and 1953 and 1943, respectively—it would be a glimpse back into an unmistakably different world. A man or woman on the street in any year in the 20th century groomed and dressed in the manner of someone from 27 years earlier would look like a time traveler, an actor in costume, a freak.

This seems 100% correct to me. When I react to, say, photos of older relatives from the 50's or 60's, it's more than the fact they they look so much younger: The stylized poses, the clothes, and the cars all look of a particular age. Whereas if I look at photos of people from the early 90's, it's usually all about how much younger they look. If I didn't know the particular person in the photo, I could be convinced in many cases that they were taken very recently.

And although I said I found the possible causes for this phenomenon to be less than persuasive, one did strike a chord with me--if only because it gels with my sense of the over-commodification of culture:

(L)ike any lucrative capitalist sector, our massively scaled-up new style industry naturally seeks stability and predictability. Rapid and radical shifts in taste make it more expensive to do business and can even threaten the existence of an enterprise. 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. Now that multi-billion-dollar enterprises have become style businesses and style businesses have become multi-billion-dollar enterprises, a massive damper has been placed on the general impetus for innovation and change.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Spoke

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Why? Is there any rule stating kids must like different music as their parents?

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Why? Is there any rule stating kids must like different music as their parents?

It certainly makes it more difficult for parents to say things like:

"Turn that damned music down!"
"You call that noise music??"
"Today's music is corrupting our children!"

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

A point he makes about old photos is a good example of what he means:

This is the picture the author is referring to: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...CA02ready.html

Aside from the quality of the picture, it's a bunch of young adults in the quasi-dress clothes that have been the uniform of service workers for decades. I'm sure you can find similar photos depicted hotel/restaurant staff back to the 1930s.

[NDP]

Originally Posted by Spoke

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Maybe, but that's because there's less of a "generation gap" attitude among kids and their parents regarding music. [GEEZER MODE] When I was growing up, no teen would ever willingly listen to anything their parents listened to. Your music was absolutely critical to establishing a separate identity from your elders. You had your own (cool) music and it was for you only. They had their (lame) music and it was for them only. Case closed. If your parents or somebody in their age group mentioned they "kind of liked" the same song you did, that was enough to banish the song--and perhaps even the artist--from your record collection.[/GEEZER MODE] Now, there's less friction between the generations and less difference between them in their music. Also, the fact that over 100 years of recorded music is now available on-line has something to do with it. Kids are less likely to listen to music with generational ear-blocks.

[Freddy the Pig]

I just had similar thoughts while watching a Seinfeld rerun from the early 1990's. Yes, the men's hair was a little longer than it would be today, and yes, electronic devices were less ubiquitous. But for the most part, if I hadn't known, I might have thought that the show was produced last week.

I didn't have the same feeling watching All in the Family in 1992, or Father Knows Best in 1972. I remember because I did watch those shows in those years.

[Prox]

Throwing out technology is cherry picking too much, IMO. And I'm not just talking about cell phones on TV shoes. An enormous chunk of culture originates on the Internet these days. Trends start there. Many of them die, but many of them also grow and become a big part of mainstream culture. It's may not but high culture in any way, but things like Rebecca Black & Shit my Dad Says have a clear impact on the larger culture, and they would've never, ever happened in 1992.

And I'm no fashion maven or anything, but there's a pretty big difference between today's hipster skinny jeans & the Ninety's hip hop baggy jeans. Saying fashion hasn't changed much is just focusing too much on the coincidence that flannel was popular in the early 90s and right now. I don't remember anyone wearing it in the late 90s or early 00s

Really, why I think this comes down to is that culture is much more fragmented now then it was in 1992, and aging boomers are free to pick the fragments that they like (i.e., similar to 20 years ago) and ignore stuff they don't

[ralph124c]

I don't know-people still eat, drink, buy clothes, and compete with eachother for "status". It is amazing that people in 1912 had much of the stuff we have today-although our technology is immeasurably superior.
In some ways, 1912 culture was better-they didn't have Kim Kardashian, Lady Gaga, or Oprah.
In this regard (the attention whores who become cultural icons), we seem to be moving backwards.

[TBG]

Originally Posted by Prox

And I'm no fashion maven or anything, but there's a pretty big difference between today's hipster skinny jeans & the Ninety's hip hop baggy jeans. Saying fashion hasn't changed much is just focusing too much on the coincidence that flannel was popular in the early 90s and right now. I don't remember anyone wearing it in the late 90s or early 00s

Women's pants/shorts/etc changed a whole lot too. Looking back at things from the early 90's which were considered skimpy at the time look like they're from the "mom jeans" school of fashion now.

[fiddlesticks]

I grew up (and became of age in 1992) in Wisconsin so the weather wasn't necessarily conducive for tank tops, but they certainly weren't the default summer-time outfit for young women in those days. Visible bra straps? I seem to remember them as a fashion faux pas at the time. I'm quite certain if a girl had shown up at school in a tank top with her bra straps visible in May of 1992 she would have been sent to the office and asked to go home and change or find a sweatshirt to wear the rest of the day.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by Spoke

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

I blame the Guitar Hero/Rock Band games.

[JohnT]

Blame the music. My daughter listens to pop music that isn't indistinguishable from what was played in 1997... or 1987... or 1977. Rock music sounds the same as it did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Other than varying levels of talent, what's the difference between Nickleback and Bad Company? Lady Gaga and Madonna? Coldplay and ELO? Weird Al and... well, Weird Al? It sure isn't the vast difference that existed between Benny Goodman and Jim Morrison, or Frank Sinatra and John Lennon.

Even if it doesn't sound exactly the same, there's nothing in today's music that is radically different than what was done 30 years ago, though the methods may have changed.

IMHO, the idea that, musically, a generational split (of the sort that appeared between the post-WW2 generation and the pre-WW2 generation) is the norm probably isn't supported by the historical evidence.

[Martian Bigfoot]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Rock music sounds the same as it did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Other than varying levels of talent, what's the difference between Nickleback and Bad Company? Lady Gaga and Madonna? Coldplay and ELO? Weird Al and... well, Weird Al? It sure isn't the vast difference that existed between Benny Goodman and Jim Morrison, or Frank Sinatra and John Lennon.

Yeah. With music, you can imagine having a '60s revival, a '70s revival, an '80s revival... but a '90s revival? You can't do a '90s revival, we're still in the '90s. Longest decade ever.

Edit: Not that I mind. The '90s are awesome, it would suck if they ended.

[Gagundathar]

We are seeing a homogenization of generations that hasn't happened since before the early 19th century.
It is, of course, driven by our music and art (and to a lesser extent our literature).
When I was growing up, in the middle of the 20th century, the only thing I heard was old school Country-Western on the radio and Erinco Caruso on the Victrola. Rock and Roll (where did the Roll go?) was such a departure from what was the status-quo that it marked a significant difference in the musical landscape. Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, they were so utterly different from Perry Como and Frank Sinatra that my parental-units had a VERY hard time accepting them.

I grew up in a musical family. My folks met each other in church choir and my brother and I grew up singing and being sung to. Music has always been important to me and it appears to me, in retrospect, that it was of paramount importance to my cohort. We were not just rebelling against the previous generation's music, but also their social values. Many of us felt we had a right to be different than our parents. Mind you, I know this is a common thing, but my generation had a new tool ... music.

But now, not so much. I enjoy some of the new music that comes out (as long as it doesn't... you know... uh suck), and I can listen to many of the songs that my grandchildren listen to and actually enjoy them. This bridges a great deal of our popular cultural heritages and diminishes what we used to call the 'generation gap'.

It is not as if I am going to go to a rave soon, but I have a resonance with my progeny that my folks did not with me and I think music is the binding force.

[gatorslap]

I don't think I agree at all.

Music? He cherry-picked a few superficial examples. Today's music bears little resemblance to 1992. Grunge is dead, and is any kind of rock popular anymore? Long gone are the days of Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Euro-house is dead, and what passes for dance music is either underground or from pop stars (Lady Gaga, Rihanna, etc.) Long gone are the days of C+C Music Factory and Snap!. Rap/hip-hop is nothing like it was back then either.

Fashion? I can't remember the last time I saw a dude with long hair and a flannel shirt. Or a high-top fade and pan-African clothing.

[monstro]

I don't know about the picture thing. You can find plenty of pictures--like your from someone's old high school yearbook--where people definitely look different from folks of today. And I would say 1985 is a perfect example of this. Everyone looked goofy in 1985. Big feathery hair. Jheri curls and Stevie Wonder braids. Clothes were crazy-looking too. I don't like the baggy pants look, but guys sure did like tight pants back in those days. And daisy dukes on the basketball court, too.

Though I do agree that 90s fashion does not differ as dramatically from today's stuff as it does from 1980s fashion. But you have to exclude the early 1990s from that analysis. Early 1990s was kind of weird. (That whole New Jack period was weird. Imagine guys today doing the Kid n Play together on the dance floor. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.)

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

The Dream of the '90s is Alive in Portland.

Hot girls wear glasses? Jim Rose? Awesome!

[obfusciatrist]

I would also wonder how much of it is that the cultural change has moved into the virtual realm, where it can't be seen so much in physical artifacts. That people are putting their creative energies into a new realm and leaving the older modes more or less in place while doing it.

And combine that with instant global distribution and amazingly cheap manufacturing costs for mass market goods and more than ever before you can create yourself not by being new but by combining the old in new ways, picking and choosing existing artifacts so that at the macro level they don't look new but at the micro level are distinct in important ways.

While the 15 year old of today may consume a lot of things that seem very familiar to the 15-year-old me in 1990, I'm guessing they spot me as a poser in a heartbeat if somehow that me came forward into the present.

[Dewey Finn]

I think the critical difference is that in 1992, Spy magazine was still around to satirize the culture, but it's not now.

[Sam Lowry]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Blame the music. My daughter listens to pop music that isn't indistinguishable from what was played in 1997... or 1987... or 1977. Rock music sounds the same as it did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Other than varying levels of talent, what's the difference between Nickleback and Bad Company? Lady Gaga and Madonna? Coldplay and ELO? Weird Al and... well, Weird Al? It sure isn't the vast difference that existed between Benny Goodman and Jim Morrison, or Frank Sinatra and John Lennon.

Even if it doesn't sound exactly the same, there's nothing in today's music that is radically different than what was done 30 years ago, though the methods may have changed.

IMHO, the idea that, musically, a generational split (of the sort that appeared between the post-WW2 generation and the pre-WW2 generation) is the norm probably isn't supported by the historical evidence.

Out of curiosity, I looked up what the Billboard top 10 for this week and for 20 years ago. I found it interesting to compare them.

[GreenElf]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

I just had similar thoughts while watching a Seinfeld rerun from the early 1990's. Yes, the men's hair was a little longer than it would be today, and yes, electronic devices were less ubiquitous. But for the most part, if I hadn't known, I might have thought that the show was produced last week.

I didn't have the same feeling watching All in the Family in 1992, or Father Knows Best in 1972. I remember because I did watch those shows in those years.

A lot of early to mid 90s pop culture has become dated and subject to ridicule. Youth laugh at 90s video game music having that "Seinfeld" sound. Many youths won't be caught dead in a pair of blue jeans. 90s jargon such as "dude" is nearly as outdated as "far out" or "groovy".

Some 90s culture trends such as "indie music" are still here, similar to the decades-long popularity of ragtime music, but the novelty has been lost. Season 20 of the Simpsons just isn't as good as the first several seasons.

But culture isn't just pop culture, and culture in general has changed a lot. For one, it's become more homogenized. A lot of small towns don't have stores selling country western gear anymore, or people wearing cowboy hats. And society has changed due to most people going online and having cellphones. Provincial viewpoints are ridiculed in public forums, so there's more consensus and political correctness. If people don't know about something, they can quickly google it rather than ask a friend or use resources at the library. A lot of people get addicted to their computers, surfing websites such as Facebook, so they don't go out fishing on the weekends or other non-cyberspace activities. Or they arrange a date through Match.com rather than the local bar scene.

So the 90s arguably have more in common with the 80s than today if you look at the culture at large rather than hairstyles.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

I've often wondered why saggy pants are still popular with some teenagers - a fashion that was around more than twenty years is still considered current? I remember a colleague around 1991 complaining that his teenage son was wearing sagging pants).

I mean, long hair on males started showing up (in the rural town where I grew up) in the late 1960's, and by the early 1980's, was sufficiently passe that someone wrote on the wall in the hippie section of the student union, "It's 1983 - can't you afford a (bleep)ing haircut?"

One possibility is the shorter cultural memory resulting from technological changes like the 24-hour news cycle and internet everywhere. People who can't remember what it was like five years ago aren't going to know that their trendy fashion was around twenty years ago.