CareBearCheer
46 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
A lot of people having been saying that only Y2K technology can be retro, but I must ask, how many people in the year 2000 dressed like this:<br><br>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Flesh_tunnel_20mm.jpg
<br><br>
Scene fashion has its origins in the late 90s, but it was only a British underground subculture at first and didn't really evolve until the mid-2000s. In 2008, it became mainstream.
<br><br>
Someone asked in an earlier thread "where is the retro in dressing like a year 2000 person?" For one, you probably wouldn't be wearing any scene clothing like you might wear to a 2011 party.
<br><br>
Some might say "But I could wear my shirt from 2000 today without looking odd." Guess what? I bet Bobby Finstock could wear his 1985 shirt today without looking odd too.
<br><br>
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/EkHmXIkFPN8/hqdefault.jpg
<br><br>
Maybe 2000's retro is more what people DIDN'T wear than what they DID, but I'm still curious as to why people think 2000 and 2013 fashion is basically the same and I stand by my comment that 2000 clothes look a bit more "dull and plain" compared to 2013 fashion.<br>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Flesh_tunnel_20mm.jpg
<br><br>
Scene fashion has its origins in the late 90s, but it was only a British underground subculture at first and didn't really evolve until the mid-2000s. In 2008, it became mainstream.
<br><br>
Someone asked in an earlier thread "where is the retro in dressing like a year 2000 person?" For one, you probably wouldn't be wearing any scene clothing like you might wear to a 2011 party.
<br><br>
Some might say "But I could wear my shirt from 2000 today without looking odd." Guess what? I bet Bobby Finstock could wear his 1985 shirt today without looking odd too.
<br><br>
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/EkHmXIkFPN8/hqdefault.jpg
<br><br>
Maybe 2000's retro is more what people DIDN'T wear than what they DID, but I'm still curious as to why people think 2000 and 2013 fashion is basically the same and I stand by my comment that 2000 clothes look a bit more "dull and plain" compared to 2013 fashion.<br>
I don't think they are late 90s and early 2000s clothes were really shiny. Plus the pants were baggier.
In 2013 people were still wearing skinny jeans. I think 2013 fashion would be more directly influenced by 1993 fashion.
In 2013 people were still wearing skinny jeans. I think 2013 fashion would be more directly influenced by 1993 fashion.
I believe that was my comment! LOL But yeah, there are some differences...more or less as you said..It's more of what people didn't wear in 2000 that people do now, Like guys wearing skinny jeans. And urban styles were more baggier with some outdated designer labels. Girls were into the peasant blouse trend..and the Old Navy fleece and cargo pants/shorts were popular. I think girls were wearing the bellbottom jeans too. But my point is if you watch a movie that came out around 2000 or 2001 is it easy to tell that it's that old until you see the technology?
CareBearCheer
A lot of people having been saying that only Y2K technology can be retro, but I must ask, how many people in the year 2000 dressed like this:<br><br>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Flesh_tunnel_20mm.jpg
<br><br>
Scene fashion has its origins in the late 90s, but it was only a British underground subculture at first and didn't really evolve until the mid-2000s. In 2008, it became mainstream.
<br><br>
Someone asked in an earlier thread "where is the retro in dressing like a year 2000 person?" For one, you probably wouldn't be wearing any scene clothing like you might wear to a 2011 party.
<br><br>
Some might say "But I could wear my shirt from 2000 today without looking odd." Guess what? I bet Bobby Finstock could wear his 1985 shirt today without looking odd too.
<br><br>
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/EkHmXIkFPN8/hqdefault.jpg
<br><br>
Maybe 2000's retro is more what people DIDN'T wear than what they DID, but I'm still curious as to why people think 2000 and 2013 fashion is basically the same and I stand by my comment that 2000 clothes look a bit more "dull and plain" compared to 2013 fashion.<br>
A simple way to help answer this question would be to look at your high school yearbook if you attended in the 00s. As you look at all the snap shots, ask yourself, "Would I wear that to the mall today?"
Also, it's always the trendy or bizarre fashions that get remembered. I'm pretty sure most adults dressed more or less the same then and now.
Also, it's always the trendy or bizarre fashions that get remembered. I'm pretty sure most adults dressed more or less the same then and now.
I'm living in the wrong part of the country for a question like this, Seattle only has one fashion style - contemporary geek. including the "hipster" look.
CareBearCheer
46 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
vkimo
A simple way to help answer this question would be to look at your high school yearbook if you attended in the 00s. As you look at all the snap shots, ask yourself, "Would I wear that to the mall today?"
Also, it's always the trendy or bizarre fashions that get remembered. I'm pretty sure most adults dressed more or less the same then and now.
I've looked at a few high school yearbooks from 2000 on the internet. Some of those things I would wear, but that is many only because I hate scene fashion.
You're right that many adults are more "casual" than "trendy" with what they wear, although I have noticed several young adults and even a number of mid-aged adults in scene clothing in the last few years.
1. I knew a lot of people in the 90s who wore big gauge earrings like that, and few now.
2. WTF is scene clothing?
3. Are you just trying to get people to admit there's a difference between today's new clothes and those of 14 years ago? Fine, there is.
2. WTF is scene clothing?
3. Are you just trying to get people to admit there's a difference between today's new clothes and those of 14 years ago? Fine, there is.
CareBearCheer
46 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
stake_n_sheak
1. I knew a lot of people in the 90s who wore big gauge earrings like that, and few now.
2. WTF is scene clothing?
3. Are you just trying to get people to admit there's a difference between today's new clothes and those of 14 years ago? Fine, there is.
First of all, "scene clothing" is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scene_(subculture)
I'm not trying to get people to admit anything. That said, I do notice a trend of people who act as though little has changed since 2000 but when you ask them about the current fashion trends, they're not even aware of them.
bklynbren
1015 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
I have been noticing an increase in the use of florescent colors lately, especially in sneakers. Skinny jeans have definitely made a huge impact.
CareBearCheer
46 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
stake_n_sheak
You really care about this a lot
This is a website about the past. Why shouldn't I care? My username even has Care Bear in it. The Care Bears always care.
bklynbren
1015 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
CareBearCheer
stake_n_sheakYou really care about this a lot
This is a website about the past. Why shouldn't I care? My username even has Care Bear in it. The Care Bears always care.
lol
CareBearCheer
This is a website about the past. Why shouldn't I care? My username even has Care Bear in it. The Care Bears always care.
Alright, let me break it down for you Care Bear. The reason people don't see any difference in the fashion of today is because the bright colors, chunky haircuts, big sneakers, wild prints and sunglasses, ET CETERA look to those of us who were there an awful lot like a wannabe, toned-down 80s revival/throwback. Pop fashion might have changed in the past ten years, but it doesn't look new by any means.
You can back this up by analyzing this supposed dominant subculture, "scene". What is that? It means nothing. Scene needs a modifier to say what it's about. The punk scene, the footwork scene, the art gallery scene, and so forth. Those mean something. This "scene" you describe now has nothing, is nothing, and that's why it has no name. It's an entity of tenuous existence at best. And that's why people are unaware of current fashion trends: There isn't truly anything new to speak of. Hate the clothing if you will, but don't let a bunch of Justin Beaver fans get under your skin or make you think they're having any genuine effect on fashion history. Tight pants may come and go, but today's skinny jeans are just a too-practical-pathetic commodernfication of our once glorious, zipper encrusted parachute pants.
CareBearCheer
46 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
stake_n_sheak
CareBearCheerThis is a website about the past. Why shouldn't I care? My username even has Care Bear in it. The Care Bears always care.
Alright, let me break it down for you Care Bear. The reason people don't see any difference in the fashion of today is because the bright colors, chunky haircuts, big sneakers, wild prints and sunglasses, ET CETERA look to those of us who were there an awful lot like a wannabe 80s revival/throwback. Pop fashion might have changed in the past ten years, but it doesn't look new by any means.
You can back this up by analyzing this supposed dominant subculture, "scene". What is that? It means nothing. Scene needs a modifier. The punk scene, the footwork scene, the art gallery scene, and so forth. Those mean something. The scene you describe now has nothing, is nothing, and that's why it has no name. It's an entity of tenuous existence at best. And that's why people are unaware of current fashion trends: There isn't truly anything new to speak of.
Did you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scene_(subculture)? It became MAINSTREAM in 2008. How is the mainstream "nothing"? The fashion was mainstream in the late 00s/early 10s, and the type of "scene" it is was originally called "scene queen" fashion, but is often referred to as "scene" to remove homophobic-stigma.
Yes I looked at that. That's how I know it involves bright colors and all that other stuff I listed off. Also there is nothing more MAINSTREAM right now than Justin Beaver which is where I see the things described in that page being popular. Now that we've both repeated ourselves, I'm further doubting you found anything in your attic. I think you're just trying to prove a point that nobody here cares about.
CareBearCheer
46 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
stake_n_sheak
Yes I looked at that. That's how I know it involves bright colors and all that other stuff I listed off. Also there is nothing more MAINSTREAM right now than Justin Beaver which is where I see the things described in that page being popular. Now that we've both repeated ourselves, I'm further doubting you found anything in your attic. I think you're just trying to prove a point that nobody here cares about.
This is what I found in my attic from the year 2000:
* Copies of two movies
* A book
* A trophy that I had won
* A souvenir from my visit to Argentina
* A photo album
So what were you saying?
To repeat myself AGAIN. I was saying nobody cares about the difference between 2000 and 2013. Now quit being a stubborn halfwit, and shit or get off the pot.
CareBearCheer
46 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
stake_n_sheak
To repeat myself AGAIN. I was saying nobody cares about the difference between 2000 and 2013, you stubborn halfwit.
But this is a retro website, am I correct? People have said that for something to be retro, there needs to be changes over time. Therefore, is it not important to adress the differences between 2000 and today before posting a year 2000 article on the website?
Both of you guys need to agree to disagree. Anymore back and forth banter and I might have to lock the thread.
CareBearCheer
46 Posts
11 years, 5 months ago
vkimo
Both of you guys need to agree to disagree. Anymore back and forth banter and I might have to lock the thread.
I just want to make sure that there are enough differences between 2000 and 2013 to make it "safe" to post a year 2000 article on here.