header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: In other news ...

 (Read 193571 times)

Gigem

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18480 on: August 05, 2022, 09:01:01 AM »
Have you ever noticed how the fashion of the last few decades just seems to be static?  We were watching some older 80's movies the other day and it struck me how all of the previous decades of the 20th century were so distinct but the fashions since Y2K are mostly static.  Could you really look at a picture from say 2005 and tell any major difference?  About the only tell-tale sign would be if they had a flip phone or a smartphone.  The cars look mostly the same too.  

70's were very distinct, 60's, so forth and so on.  Wonder why that is?  


Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 54850
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18481 on: August 05, 2022, 09:07:00 AM »



ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 16195
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18482 on: August 05, 2022, 09:39:56 AM »
Have you ever noticed how the fashion of the last few decades just seems to be static?  We were watching some older 80's movies the other day and it struck me how all of the previous decades of the 20th century were so distinct but the fashions since Y2K are mostly static.  Could you really look at a picture from say 2005 and tell any major difference?  About the only tell-tale sign would be if they had a flip phone or a smartphone.  The cars look mostly the same too. 

70's were very distinct, 60's, so forth and so on.  Wonder why that is? 
Was discussing something pretty similar to this with a neighbor the other day, because they went to a 90s party.  And aside from grunge, I wasn't sure how you would do that.  60s/70s/80s, you have an idea on how to dress, he said it was 90s music, but that was about it

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12293
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18483 on: August 05, 2022, 09:56:05 AM »
Have you ever noticed how the fashion of the last few decades just seems to be static?  We were watching some older 80's movies the other day and it struck me how all of the previous decades of the 20th century were so distinct but the fashions since Y2K are mostly static.  Could you really look at a picture from say 2005 and tell any major difference?  About the only tell-tale sign would be if they had a flip phone or a smartphone.  The cars look mostly the same too. 

70's were very distinct, 60's, so forth and so on.  Wonder why that is? 



There are a few fashion trends that will date this era-- for example, women wearing those hideous early 90s-style mom jeans again.  I hate those things, so unflattering on women of every shape and size.  They'll eventually go away, and then come back to haunt us once more in 2040.

But in general I agree.  And I've thought a lot about it.

Because the same thing goes for mainstream music.  Growing up in the 70s, you could absolutely tell the difference in the music from two decades earlier.  50s music sounded nothing like 70s music.  Same thing for the 80s, sounded nothing like the 60s.  And in the 90s, it sounded very little like the 70s.  But since 2000, music has been fairly static and homogenous, with few distinctive changes that would differentiate a song from 2002, from a song from 2022.

For music, I think one major driving force, is that there was a lot of technological change and advancement in instrumentation and recoding capabilities throughout the 1900s.  Advances in guitars, pedals, synthesizers, sound boards, recording technology, playback technology-- all created rapid change in the way we could produce, capture, and hear recorded sound from the 1920s, all the way into the 1990s.  And what went along with that, was musical experimentation and innovation and variation-- artists trying out new ideas with the new technology, and attempting to produce something original and unique.  But eventually, they'd tried everything.  Music couldn't really get any harder than the thrash metal and industrial electronic music of the 90s.  It couldn't really get any more vulgar than the heavy metal and rap of the 90s.  It couldn't really get any poppier than the boy bands and pop synth of the late 90s.  Eventually, I think artists had tried pretty much everything.  Modern trends of "Bro Country" with mixing more pop and heavier guitar into country music weren't new, the same thing had been done regularly in the 70s, 80s, 90s.  I guess one of the more defining characteristics of the 2000s+ mainstream pop music has been the introduction of what I like to call "The Unnecessary Rap" in the middle of an otherwise extremely poppy song, but even that's not new, Blondie was doing it in 1980.  So we've sort of reached this equilibrium, where pretty much all styles have been explored, all avenues tested, and although there is a massive diversity in music now compared to the 1950s, all of those various styles and sub-styles haven't changed or evolved much in 20 years.

In addition to that, I also think changes in distribution and consumption have resulted in this sort of "settling in." In days of yore, radio stations, and then MTV, were the primary drivers of what people listened to. It was all pretty homogenous but it was also a driving force-- if the radio stations decided to change the music they were delivering to you, then the very nature of what you were hearing, necessarily followed.  MTV did the same thing, it actually had a pretty narrow focus on its preferred musical styles, but any time it shifted, it drove a national or even global change in the sounds people were listening to.  So mainstream music had these major shifts, driven not necessarily by what the artists were doing, but by what the broadcasters were choosing to allow you to listen to.  In the 80s we all had those "bootleg" tapes from our favorite bands, and they were considered a wonder,  because it was a glimpse into some music that their record labels and radio stations weren't allowing us to have.

But digital delivery of media changed that.  Satellite radio changed that.  And most of all, the internet changed that.  Instead of being forced and driven by terrestrial radio trends, or MTV, now people could directly seek out their favorite niche artists and niche bands and niche styles.  There became less dominant sounds, and more variety, so there were no trends being forced onto the listening public.  At first it seems like this variety should have resulted in more dynamic music evolution, but in reality I think it sort of did the opposite.  More niche creation, delivery, and consumption, has resulted in less cross-pollination of musical styles.  People are able to settle into whatever they like and NOT have to listen to something diverse.  This isn't true across the board, some artists and some listeners crave uniqueness and seek it out.  But as the definition of what is "mainstream music" broadened, the actual focus of listeners has tended to shrink.  Because it can, because they're able to search out, find, and focus on very specific sounds, in a way that was never possible before.

And also, even those that desperately want to find or create new, unique styles, are running into my first point above.  There really isn't much NEW, to be done, given our current technology.

Those are just some of my thoughts.  I could be completely wrong.  I definitely feel like my first point is a stronger driver, than my second point, but I also believe they're linked.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12293
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18484 on: August 05, 2022, 10:07:47 AM »
Part II: :)

For fashion, I think it's possible that something similar has happened.  In a similar way, it's getting pretty difficult to do anything new, because so much has already been done before.  We do see recycled trends, but after a couple of iterations, those lose their ties to the era in which they originated, and the new forms seem to be less distinct and more homogenized anyway, perhaps with the intent to have broader appeal.

And again, with the more bite-wise consumption of media, not everyone is seeing these major, driving, national and global trends in fashion.  Back when there were only 3 TV channels, if you saw your favorite TV star all of a sudden wearing bell bottoms and sideburns, you wanted to do the same thing.  Heck, the movie Urban Cowboy caused a GLOBAL phenomenon of everyone wearing blue jeans, western shirts, cowboy hats, and boots.  Even in New York.  Even in PARIS.

But now, we're able to pick and choose our media consumption, and entire generations are NOT growing up on the exact same characters wearing the exact same things.

So the result is that we all tend to pick and choose what we want to wear, with more variety, but without a driving inspiration to change what we're wearing, so the styles don't evolve. 

Many styles with less evolution now, versus the past with fewer styles but more frequent and more homogenous, widely sdopted, evolution.

Again, just my thoughts.  They could certainly be wrong.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14686
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18485 on: August 05, 2022, 10:32:23 AM »
The sort of fashion you're not seeing now is worn by people you never interact with.  If you gathered a bunch of 20 year olds from 1995 and a bunch from today, you could tell them apart in half a second.

It's gradual change over time while your witnessing it.....like hair growth.  You think nothing of it until that one day you think, "wow, my hair has gotten long."  
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12293
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18486 on: August 05, 2022, 10:45:49 AM »
1995 to today, I'd definitely notice a change in what 20yos are wearing.  

2005 to today, I'm not so sure.


OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14686
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18487 on: August 05, 2022, 11:00:33 AM »
If younger people aren't chasing trends as much, that's a good sign for our society.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12293
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18488 on: August 05, 2022, 11:18:55 AM »
Well i can say that the tweens and teens are wearing a lot of crocs and I'm not so sure about that.

But they also still love their Vans, Chucks, and Nike high tops, which is exactly what I was wearing in the 80s.


Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10103
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18489 on: August 05, 2022, 09:18:34 PM »
Yeah, just because most of you are still dressing like it's the 90s, that doesn't mean that everyone else is too. Lol. But once this 80s fad is over with the younglings, you'll be back in style again. 
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

longhorn320

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 7011
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18490 on: August 05, 2022, 09:58:39 PM »
I guess my bell bottom jeans and olive green leisure suit will someday be in fashion  again
They won't let me give blood anymore. The burnt orange color scares the hell out of the doctors.

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10103
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18491 on: August 05, 2022, 10:07:24 PM »
Fearless and Cincydawg are still rolling around in the combo of super short shorts and knee high socks with the green stripes around the top. 




1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14686
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18492 on: August 05, 2022, 10:36:13 PM »
Those shorts are called "Stocktons." 

“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10103
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #18493 on: August 05, 2022, 11:18:16 PM »
Everyone would have had to have worn briefs back then. 
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.