But there has been a change in the arts, as I see it, and much of that has been impelled by technology. Look at the role of digital photography, music, etc., today vs. ten years ago. There’s, for better a worse, a much bigger DIY culture (in my opinion) and “anybody can be an artist” cultural mentality now than there was ten years ago. The cost of entry is a lot lower, and the possibilities are much expanded.
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
And they started the day JFK was shot. I mean listen to the music from 1962 and try to tell me that was “sixties”.
Or tell me this is typical 90s music (1991 hit, recorded in Spring 1990)
Well, it looks like you’re more interested in sticking to your guns to prop up your ridiculous argument than you are in actually finding something out about the time during which you were born. That’s too bad. And I’m virtually certain you’ll come up with some tortured sophomoric reasoning why you’re right in your contention that ‘Berlin Wall falling was the beginning of the end’ - still, I’d want to strongly suggest that you consider that the beginning of the collapse of communism was in fact Gorbachev’s rise to power and the policies of *Glasnost *and *Perestroyka *that he initiated. Those developments culminated in both the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc, as well as the power of the Communist Parties in those areas. In and of itself, the Berlin Wall collapsing did not initiate too much that had not already started.
I’m not entirely sure what point you’re making. Of course something that sounds like “80s music” doesn’t mean it has to have been made between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec. 31, 1989. The boundaries are blurry, of course. But that doesn’t change the fact that that song was a hit in the early 90s. Nor does it change the fact that this song was made in the 80s, even though most casual listers would bet their sister it was from the 90s.
Glasnost and perestroika were humble efforts by Gorbachev of making the Soviet economy somewhat more of a mixed system, but they were hardly the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.
In fact if the 1991 coup didn’t fail it’s highly likely we would still have a USSR today. It would have a mixed system like China with some elements of capitalism but it would still be the USSR and there would still be a Cold War to some extent since Russia would still be a superpower.
In fact, the deal to put McDonalds in Moscow was made in 1988 so the last 4-5 years of the USSR were to some extent a mixed system.
Bleach didn’t start selling a lot of copies until after Nevermind came out, while “Baby Baby” was one of the biggest hits of 1991. I judge a time’s musical zeitgeist by what’s popular, not by every single song that’s made during that time.
It’s true there are some late 80s hit songs that “sound 90s”, but there’s a lot more early 90s hit songs that “sound 80s”.
Of course that’s somewhat subjective. For instance, MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice are thought of as 90s even though their hit songs were recorded in 1989 and they were already passe a couple years later. People have this deluded idea that rap didn’t exist in the 80s aside from NWA and the Beastie Boys which couldn’t be further from the truth being that Wham made Wham Rap way back in 1982.
Looks like I was right…
So what are we arguing about?
Oh I was off tangent about how a lot of our popular concepts of a decade is not so cut in stone. Like I was saying how the popular conception of the “sixties” really didn’t start until 1963 - and the things that we stereotype with the 80s lasted about two years out of the decade despite the fact there was an angry band somewhere in Seattle making some left field music. 
I think it’s because of our memory bias towards more recent years. A larger percentage of the population is going to remember 1969 vs 1960 so the idea of what the Sixties was is going to slant more towards the later years.
I’m sorry, but all that goes into the “no shit, Sherlock” category for me. Nobody thinks culture changed just because the calendar did. There was still “80s-style music” created in the early 90s. It’s not like come Jan. 1, 1990, all of a sudden bands said “shit, we’d better put down the digital sample-based synths and the gated snare sound and find something else to do.” Of course not. I don’t think anyone thinks that.
But, going back to the OP, it doesn’t change the fact that anything made after Jan. 1, 1990, was made “in the 90s.” It really is that straightforward a question with me. You can say something made in 1991 may be “the 80s,” culturally, but that does not change the fact that it was created in “the 90s.”
89 or 90, don’t matter. You’re still just a kid.
Like I said, decadeology is something you either understand or you don’t. It pisses off a lot of people, others find it interesting. Maybe it’s a left/right brained thing, I dunno.
I’m writing a book about the subject.
I’m with pulykamell. I was born in '73, but I consider myself a child of the 80’s. I have very few memories of the 70’s, and my first memory of being conscious of years was my teacher saying (after the Christmas break) that the year was now 1980. The 80’s were my formative, childhood years.
Who does it piss off? That seems an odd reaction. You’re making a distinction between the cultural and the nominal. To me, that’s a pretty self-evident distinction. There are aspects of 80s culture in the 90s, as well as there being aspects of 90s culture in the 80s. It’s all a continuum. When people, commonly, talk about being “born in the 80s,” they quite literally mean, they were born in the period between 1/1/80 and 12/31/89. It really is not that complicated. Culture does not enter into the argument. You could say, and I would not disagree, that the years 1990 and 1991 were culturally closer to the 80s than the 90s. Of course they were. There is nothing surprising about that. Unless some seismic cultural shift happen (like, say hip-hop), it’s going to be a gradual change, and the years most defining a decade should fall in the mid-to late years of that decade, like say the x4-x7 years.
I do not subscribe to the notion that this current century and millenium started in 2001*, but I understand the argument. However, if the argument applies to millenia and centuries, then it applies to decades. If the 20th century didn’t end until January 1, 2001, and the 3rd millenium didn’t start until that date, then the 200th decade didn’t end until that same date. Ergo, the OP has lived in the 198th - 201st decades. **
I’m not sure why this important to the OP, though.
- My answer to the question “Which millenium/century/decade is short by 1 year?” would be “The first one. I’m sorry, first millenium/century/decade, but you got shorted a year because some calendar makers didn’t understand the concept of zero.” But there’s no need to rehash this debate.
** I hope my numbers are correct. Please forgive me if I’m off. You can attack my logic, but I’m asking for a pass on my counting.
Well, yes. But we’re talking cardinal decades (e.g. “the 80s”) not ordinal decades (e.g. “the 199th decade.”) In the same way, “the 2000s” started on Jan 1, 2000. But the 21st Century technically would have started on Jan 1, 2001.
Problem solved then. The OP can just tell people he was born in the 198th ordinal decade. When people say they don’t know what that is, he can just reply “Most people just call it the 80’s” while quickly swishing his fingers through his hair and turning and walking away to only see the back of his parachute pants.
cough 199th decade.