Thread: When is retro actual retro?

  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 10
    Not to start any arguments or controversy, but...things from the 90's...is that actually retro? Honestly, 80's (to me) is pushing it, even though I grew up in the late 70's/early 80's. Just curious on peoples opinion of actual retro, if there is an ACTUAL retro
    "You boy's gonna pull those pistols....or whistle Dixie?...."
    "There's something out there, wqaiting for us..and it ain't no man....we're all going to die...."
    "Farewell my friend! I was a thousand times mor
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 2437
    For commercial reasons, 10 years and older.
    My Last Article For RetroJunk

    [url=http://www.retro-daze.org/site/article/id/395]Remembering RetroJunk[/url]
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 529
    Personally to me, it's when things start to "seem" or "feel" old. Technically it would be around every 10 yrs. But could anybody tell me what makes 2000 feel retro, besides the look of cellphones, computers and tvs???
    "It lies in the valley of the vision, where the slain are not slain with the sword. In the darkest shadows of light, there you'll find a door..."
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 7416
    It's all subjective. People need to stop being retarded and trying to set some sort of "retro standard" as if it actually matters.
    Quote by TMNT
    Movin` on up!! To the East side Blah blah Blah Movin on up Gaints lol.
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 611
    I tend to go with the standard for what makes a car a classic. 25 years or older is a classic car.
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 1192
    Quote by Mezase_Master
    It's all subjective. People need to stop being retarded and trying to set some sort of "retro standard" as if it actually matters.


    I kind of got to agree with this one. I mean I know this is a retro site and all, which is why many of us joined in the first place. Though I'm so sick and tired of all this "things were better back than" threads that keep popping up.
    signature My tattoo....
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 2437
    Quote by Old_school_JJ
    Quote by Mezase_Master
    It's all subjective. People need to stop being retarded and trying to set some sort of "retro standard" as if it actually matters.


    I kind of got to agree with this one. I mean I know this is a retro site and all, which is why many of us joined in the first place. Though I'm so sick and tired of all this "things were better back than" threads that keep popping up.


    That's all fine and dandy, but for the sake of the site, we need a standard. Not saying you can't be sentimental about something relatively recent, just not here.
    My Last Article For RetroJunk

    [url=http://www.retro-daze.org/site/article/id/395]Remembering RetroJunk[/url]
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 1192
    Quote by vkimo
    Quote by Old_school_JJ
    Quote by Mezase_Master
    It's all subjective. People need to stop being retarded and trying to set some sort of "retro standard" as if it actually matters.


    I kind of got to agree with this one. I mean I know this is a retro site and all, which is why many of us joined in the first place. Though I'm so sick and tired of all this "things were better back than" threads that keep popping up.


    That's all fine and dandy, but for the sake of the site, we need a standard. Not saying you can't be sentimental about something relatively recent, just not here.


    I don't disagree with being sentimental about something from the past, I am, that's why I joined the fourm a few years back. I'm just saying I'm sick of these "movies/TV/music/whatever" was better than than today, cause to be quite frank it's not totally true.
    signature My tattoo....
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 2437
    Quote by Old_school_JJ
    Quote by vkimo
    Quote by Old_school_JJ


    I kind of got to agree with this one. I mean I know this is a retro site and all, which is why many of us joined in the first place. Though I'm so sick and tired of all this "things were better back than" threads that keep popping up.


    That's all fine and dandy, but for the sake of the site, we need a standard. Not saying you can't be sentimental about something relatively recent, just not here.


    I don't disagree with being sentimental about something from the past, I am, that's why I joined the fourm a few years back. I'm just saying I'm sick of these "movies/TV/music/whatever" was better than than today, cause to be quite frank it's not totally true.


    Oh yeah, you're totally right. Those threads are dumb because you can still watch most of the shows online. It's not like a discontinued food that you can't get. Yapping about today's TV isn't gonna make the oldies any better. People need to not focus on what they hate, and just appreciate what they like.
    My Last Article For RetroJunk

    [url=http://www.retro-daze.org/site/article/id/395]Remembering RetroJunk[/url]
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 1192
    Quote by vkimo
    Quote by Old_school_JJ
    Quote by vkimo


    That's all fine and dandy, but for the sake of the site, we need a standard. Not saying you can't be sentimental about something relatively recent, just not here.


    I don't disagree with being sentimental about something from the past, I am, that's why I joined the fourm a few years back. I'm just saying I'm sick of these "movies/TV/music/whatever" was better than than today, cause to be quite frank it's not totally true.


    Oh yeah, you're totally right. Those threads are dumb because you can still watch most of the shows online. It's not like a discontinued food that you can't get. Yapping about today's TV isn't gonna make the oldies any better. People need to not focus on what they hate, and just appreciate what they like.


    Excatly. Not only that, but people forget that not EVERY thing from the past was so great. YES, the 80s had great movies like E.T. for example and we all remember how great that was and still reminds. But how many threads do you hear people talking about how bad a movie like "Mac and Me" was?? Not too many. It's the complete oppisite though when people are talking about today, people ONLY bring up the bad movies like "Epic Movie" or whatever, never any good movies that came out the last decade or so like say the Pixar movies or "The Wrestler" for example.

    Like I said, I didn't mean to make the impression that we shouldn't talk about things from the past, since I understand this is a retro site, but I'm tired of the oh so many threads bashing today's pop culture. I'm sorry but in my view a lot and I mean A LOT of it is total BS.
    signature My tattoo....
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 4631
    We have been through this a 100 times here. The general consensus is 10 years, but there is no set rule.
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 2437
    We'll need to discuss this with the other Retro Kings Of The Land and establish RetroJunk Law.
    My Last Article For RetroJunk

    [url=http://www.retro-daze.org/site/article/id/395]Remembering RetroJunk[/url]
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 4137
    I think anything 20/25 years ago is retro. I don't agree with the general consensus about only ten years ago (not even '97 is retro)

    Sometimes I set a standard using VHS tapes. Before and after them.
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 3410
    • Forum Mod
    • Editor
    • Category Admin
    The 10 year rule is supposedly what defines retro, but that isn't always the case with pop culture majors. They were compiling 80s nostalgia hours on the radio and TV in the mid-90s, and 2004 saw the debut of VH1's "I Love The 90s". Sometimes a musician's sounds can change from the beginning of a decade to its' end. Pink's "Glitter In The Air" obviously wouldn't be a retro track, but "Most Girls" possibly could. At the beginning of the 00s, she was a teen pop star, and at the end of the 00s, she had become a pop rocker. Her sound had definitely changed.

    That's just my viewpoint, though...
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 10350
    If it's ancient, it's retro.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpmILPAcRQo

    Come have the time of YOUR life with me and the gang at Retro-daze.org.
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 492
    Retro is the short form of the word Retrospective which means.
    "Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past"

    There is no set time frame. If you are thinking fondly of a meal you had last week, then that's a retrospective thought.
    The class is Pain 101. Your instructor is Casey Jones.
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 2805
    IMPO, I consider anything 15-20 old or older retro.
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 117
    Retro is a culturally outdated or aged style, trend, mode, or fashion, from the overall postmodern past, but have since that time become functionally or superficially the norm once again. The use of "retro" style iconography and imagery interjected into post-modern art, advertising, mass media, etc. has occurred from around the time of the industrial revolution to present day.


    For those who don't understand the above, there is no "time limit" on what is considered retro. Technically, it is anything that was in style or popular, then became outdated, then became popular again. (i.e. Garbage Pail kids, NES, Atari, 80's music, etc.)

    VINTAGE, not RETRO, on the other hand, describes anything before a certain time period.

    So, to bring this thread back on track and answer the original question, to me retro can be 50's, 60's, 70s, 80s, 90s.... whatever time period. What matters is the item/ subject we are talking about, not necessarily when exactly in time it was popular. To an 18 year old born in 1992, he/she might consider something from grade school (1998 or later) retro, and he/she has every right to because to them, it is.

    This is why the general consensus, as bassman21 said, is 10 years or older, because that covers all current and past generations. If you don't agree, then you will have to agree to disagree.

    Have a nice day!
    "Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do."
    Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea (1938 ) "Vendredi"
    French author & existentialist philosopher (1905 - 1980)


    [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.c
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 10
    Good points, and I tend to think the 20-25 years is retro. I'm glad it hasn't turned into a slugfest As far as a Retro Timeline Rule.....good luck I just don't think 10 years ago is retro, even 15 isn't that long. Jmo though, appreciate the thoughts!
    "You boy's gonna pull those pistols....or whistle Dixie?...."
    "There's something out there, wqaiting for us..and it ain't no man....we're all going to die...."
    "Farewell my friend! I was a thousand times mor
  • avatar
    • 9 years 2 months ago
    • Posts: 714
    If it's becoming popular for a second time and it's consciously of a different era....it's retro.
Forum Staff
Super Admin: Vertex
Super Mods
Online Users
Search