I don't know if anyone has ever observed this before, but Lady Gaga is kind of odd.

I don't know if anyone has ever observed this before, but Lady Gaga is kind of odd.

Nothing wrong with odd. As long as it's genuine, instead of the manufactured crap that was Marilyn Manson. (he might be odd now, but his first ten years in existence in the media, he was fully a corporate created vision of what odd is)

Nothing wrong with odd. As long as it's genuine, instead of the manufactured crap that was Marilyn Manson. is Lady Gaga.

Nothing wrong with odd. As long as it's genuine, instead of the manufactured crap that was Marilyn Manson. (he might be odd now, but his first ten years in existence in the media, he was fully a corporate created vision of what odd is)

Certainly weird, but not corporate. He had most of his gimmick pretty well locked down when he was just hanging out at the Plantation Fashion Mall around 1991 or so.

She tries too hard.

Nothing wrong with odd. As long as it's genuine, instead of the manufactured crap that was Marilyn Manson. is Lady Gaga.

Not saying she isn't manufactured either I guess, I didn't clarify it. Just wanted to go off on my Marilyn Manson rant. I even like his music, just accept that he is basically a corporate created version of 'weird' created to sale to a niche market. Everything he does is calculated marketing.

I even like his music

Ugh.

I lay down on the airplane back from Japan, tossing around some dashi, fondling my pearls. I watched the movie Moneyball for the first time. I began to laugh and smile as [Brad] Pitt talked romantically about the game. I suddenly imagined that my pearls were teeny-tiny baseballs. When a player hits a home run, the baseball is flung into an abyss of enigma and screams so great. It travels so far that only rarely is one caught in the bleachers. Where do these balls go? Where do all these wins get encased? Are they in a heavenly baseball land floating around for players who pass to acknowledge? Or do they disappear?

Here's the full quote from Ms. Germanotta. Sort of funny that 100 years later, she's a less extreme version of Gertrude Stein. It struck me that the modern era is now more than 100 years old today if we accept that "On or about December 1910 human character changed."

Pop/modern culture for the last 20 years has been remarkably static. I wonder if that's just my perception, though. There have been a lot of advances in communication since then.

I'd really like to get her opinion on Hall of Fame voting criteria.

Ugh.

I like about 6 of his mainstream songs(and I think two of them are covers) . Have never bought an album from him and doubt I would listen to the whole album anyway.

When a player hits a home run, the baseball is flung into an abyss of enigma and screams so great. It travels so far that only rarely is one caught in the bleachers. Where do these balls go? Where do all these wins get encased? Are they in a heavenly baseball land floating around for players who pass to acknowledge? Or do they disappear?

Remember kids, drugs are bad, mkay.

Pop/modern culture for the last 20 years has been remarkably static. I wonder if that's just my perception, though.

Not just your perception.

Lady Gaga is from my hometown of Yonkers, NY. We didn't hang in the same circle, however.

You guys are old and your opinions on pop music reflect that.

You guys are old and your opinions on pop music reflect that.

Thats an awfully nice thing for you to say.

You guys are old and your opinions on pop music reflect that.

I can't respect anyone who doesn't wear an onion on their belt.

Pop/modern culture for the last 20 years has been remarkably static. I wonder if that's just my perception, though.

Not just your perception.

Really? A vanity fair article? That's so 1994...

Gaga smokes weed a lot. Said so on TV.

A friend of mine went to high school with her. Says she was fairly normal.

I can't respect anyone who doesn't wear an onion on their belt.

Is that what the Beatles song "Glass Onion" is about?

The musical tastes here seem to trend older than dirt. Also, there seems to be little love for dance music, whether it's classic disco, cutting-edge electronica, or anything in between.

fondling my pearls

I thought you weren't supposed to handle pearls more than necessary, because the oil in your skin breaks them down. Or is that not right?

The musical tastes here seem to trend older than dirt. Also, there seems to be little love for dance music, whether it's classic disco, cutting-edge electronica, or anything in between.

I love electronic dance music. Even that isn't so much different than 20 years ago though, there's just more of it. Mashups are a fairly contemporary phenomenon however.

Pavement never had the wherewithal to wear bespangled hockey pads with Fruit Roll-Up face sheaths.

Lady Gaga has a couple of good songs, she can actually sing as demonstrated by some a cappella performances, her heart is in the right place on social issues, and her Funkadelic-meets-Playskool-Factory get-ups are consistently hilarious. She "walked" the Grammy red carpet inside a giant translucent egg. Only a churl could dislike her.

And she apparently likes baseball; a few years ago she and some of her entourage went to a Mets-Yankees game and she got a bit of ink from the NYC tabloids for wearing dark opaque pantyhose (with panties underneath) as a form of leggings.

The musical tastes here seem to trend older than dirt.

I think they trend 'indie hipster' more than they do 'old'. Meanwhile, me and a few others hide in our metal corner...

I love electronic dance music. Even that isn't so much different than 20 years ago though, there's just more of it.

About 10 years ago, my then-GF walked me through a bunch of the different dance-music genres - house, electro, drum & bass, etc. - and I could hear the differences, right then.
The next day, I couldn't distinguish them anymore. I figure it's on me, in the same way people who don't know anything about classical or jazz think it's all the same.

her Funkadelic-meets-Playskool-Factory get-ups are consistently hilarious. She "walked" the Grammy red carpet inside a giant translucent egg. Only a churl could dislike her.

Yes. If I can choose between a performer who puts on a Show, and a performer who just appears in whatever they had on that day and sings the songs, I'll take the Show every time.

I don't really agree with the Vanity Fair article. I think there has been a huge change between 1992 and 2012 in films, TV, food, fashion, and music. I'm not versed well enough in the art world to comment on that and while I am no expert on literature it sure does seem to me like it has changed. But again I'm no expert on writing styles and such to really say one way or the other.

I think they trend 'indie hipster' more than they do 'old'. Meanwhile, me and a few others hide in our metal corner...

My god man, are you trying to start another Pavement thread?

I think there has been a huge change between 1992 and 2012 in films, TV, food, fashion, and music.

For music, the evolution 1992-2012 pales in comparison to 1972-1992 and even more when you think about the sea shift between 1952-1972.

Those who associate daring music with youth (like #13) are infected with a 60-70's meme, itself a sign of old-fashionedness. Everybody who listened to "Venus in furs" back in the day are over 60 now, all the old punks are 50+.

I'm nearing middle age and I find little in today's pop to be irritated over*. Someone who graduated in the early fifties wouldn't have the same smooth ride over the next twenty years.

*) Well, there's autotune, #### you Cher.

For music, the evolution 1992-2012 pales in comparison to 1972-1992 and even more when you think about the sea shift between 1952-1972.


Sure but during those time frames you had explosive growths in musical equipment, communication, and technology. But I'll also say that 1992 music is dated and you can tell 1992 and 2012 music apart and it isn't even close. Today's world has also seen a major change in the music world because of communication and technology.

One may not like the music but that doesn't mean the music didn't change a lot.

But I'll also say that 1992 music is dated and you can tell 1992 and 2012 music apart and it isn't even close.

The top album of 1992 was Automatic for the People. "Man on the Moon" could have come out this year and would have been a hit. The number 2 album was The Chronic. I don't know enough about hip hop to say whether it would still be successful, but Dre is still one of the biggest producers in the industry, which makes me think it would have been.

It's pretty silly to talk about "music" as if it's all one phenomenon.

EDIT: related to the point in #32

I'd say there's been a big move since 1992 in the sheer variety of music that's in the pop arena.

I guess there's always been niche music genres, but it seems like back then the vast majority of young folk listened to 2 or 3 types of music. Now there's endless types of music that have fairly wide circulations.

The top album of 1992 was Automatic for the People. "Man on the Moon" could have come out this year and would have been a hit. The number 2 album was The Chronic. I don't know enough about hip hop to say whether it would still be successful,

If it came out in 1952 or 1962 or 1972 it would have been a hit as well. I'm not sure how that is relevant.





but Dre is still one of the biggest producers in the industry, which makes me think it would have been.

The Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, . . .

I'd say rap, hip-hop, R&B, and dance have changed a great deal.

I'd say rap, hip-hop, R&B, and dance have changed a great deal.

Sure, they have changed, but in 1972 hip-hop didn't even exist. Drop \"#### tha Police" 20 years back in 1968 and it would be an utterly alien object.

I don't really agree with the Vanity Fair article.

I absolutely agree with it. At least as far as fashion, movies, music and literature are concerned.

Literature, frankly, doesn't seem to excite people like it used to. Harry Potter was an unbelievable phenomenon, but writers no longer seem to serve the public intellectual role, no Tolstoys or Twains, nor do they have big personalities like Norman Mailer or Ernest Hemingway did. I'm not sure why this is, but if you don't have writers making news and starting arguments, then the medium is not getting pushed forward in the same obvious ways.

Fashion, I think, is clear. The longest-running trend that still surprises me is the popularity of low, baggy pants among the urban youth. When is that going to go away?

Movies have certainly changed, but the last 20 year chunk has clearly been more stagnant than previous intervals. The fact that the current dominant Hollywood trends are sequelmania and nostalgia for the 80's illustrates the point that artistic ambition is on the wane. You also have the phenomenon of an ever-lengthening divide between "good" movies, which are released in the winter for Oscar consideration, and "profitable" movies.

I find music tough to evaluate because it has proliferated into so many subgenres. (Agreed with #33) That the pace of musical innovation has slowed seems almost inevitable ... it isn't easy to make the type of leaps that pop music did between, say, 1965-1980 when you aren't in the infancy of an art form. Not to say it's impossible (just think about how exciting the art world must have been in the early 20th century), but it shouldn't be expected. A high percentage of the indie music I listen to has a nostalgic feeling to it.

But then again you have video games and television, which are light years ahead of where they used to be.

I don't think that needs to be the standard for this debate.


It isn't like we just invented the tie or the shoe or the coat and yet the argument put forth was that era X was distinctive from era Y while still wearing ties, shoes, and coats.

Fashion, I think, is clear. The longest-running trend that still surprises me is the popularity of low, baggy pants among the urban youth. When is that going to go away?

One of the longest running trends in mens' fashion was dress shirt, tie, coat and hat. It lasted for about 70 years in American history. Just because somebody wears baggy jeans for awhile doesn't mean fashion hasn't changed radically. I'll also say that baggy jeans is not the king it once was. Skinny jeans are taking over and have taken over in a lot of places.

Hell, is anybody wearing the multi-colored leather jacket nowadays? The issue at hand was never that people completely and totally change their ways in every thing but that they have distinct differences between the two and that most certainly holds true between 1992 and 2012. Take a snapshot of Beverly Hills 901210 or Saved by the Bell and compare it to whatever the hell they watch nowadays and the fashion and hairstyles are completely different.

I'd say there's been a big move since 1992 in the sheer variety of music that's in the pop arena.

And that's the biggest thing-the multiplication of channels through which culture can move has given us more access to a greater variety of work. The arena has been expanded.
This multiplication also lets us look backwards at stuff which we hadn't heard when it was released/created. Sure, it's easy to say that the Decemberists are derivative; but would we have ever heard the stuff that they get their inspiration from 20 years ago? Possibly, but it would have been much harder to locate.

I admit having no interest in electronic/dance music, possibly because it isn't structured like the music I like. One song can come in 25 different varieties because of different "remixes". People release albums consisting of not their music, but music they like that they mixed together. People can release 20 albums a year, or no albums at all and only appear on compilations, or keep releasing updated versions of the same song. It doesn't appeal to the mindset of someone who likes to keep track of things.

I like classic disco though. Especially the "Best of Italo Disco" series.

Literature, frankly, doesn't seem to excite people like it used to. Harry Potter was an unbelievable phenomenon, but writers no longer seem to serve the public intellectual role, no Tolstoys or Twains, nor do they have big personalities like Norman Mailer or Ernest Hemingway did. I'm not sure why this is

The high-quality serialized TV series we have nowadays, which are easily accessible after their air dates (unlike the high-quality TV miniseries of earlier years, like "Shogun" or "The Thorn Birds" or whatever), appeal to the people who would otherwise be talking about major novels.

One of the longest running trends in mens' fashion was dress shirt, tie, coat and hat.

I'd say, like music, the biggest change is a move towards more options. Blatant generalization, but in the past it seemed like you expressed yourself through dress by how closely you stuck to the normative standard. But now you express yourself through dress by adopting one of the many different style personas available out there.

Personally I go with the "stuck in 1992" plaid jackets and unbuttoned shirts over top "please don't treat me like an adult" 50 cent printed t-shirts*, and (due to my location) "I'm an annoying American" baseball caps.

*since we're on the topic of rap, I mean the cost of the shirt, not the dude.

I'd say rap, hip-hop, R&B, and dance have changed a great deal.

Which intervals represents the bigger differences?

Hip-hop:
1972 - non existent
1992 - Dr Dre
2012 - Lil Wayne

R&B
1952 - Ray Charles
1972 - Marvin Gaye
1992 - TLC
2012 - Beyonce?

Nobody is saying that things are absolutely stuck, merely that the pace of change has slowed.

The high-quality serialized TV series we have nowadays, which are easily accessible after their air dates (unlike the high-quality TV miniseries of earlier years, like "Shogun" or "The Thorn Birds" or whatever), appeal to the people who would otherwise be talking about major novels.

Yeah I'd say a big cultural trend in the past ten years is the emergence of television as a respected art form. Not that there wasn't great television before, but it seems like, for audience and creators, treating television shows as an art form as valid as film is becoming standard practice.

Hip-hop:
1972 - non existent Gil Scott-Heron

The clothing on Saved by the Bell does look ridiculous, as does the clothing in the early BH90210 seasons. But you only have to go a few years into the 90s to find the BH9 crew looking pretty normal. 1992 does seem like a particular type of break to me ... you had the rise of both Nirvana and Gangsta Rap at about the same time, with attendant fashion changes, which ended the multicolor leather jacket era for whites and blacks alike.

Well, the initial poster said it has been static over the last 20 years and the Vanity Fair article agreed. So I think people are saying that it is stuck and I am disagreeing with that. I don't really think it makes much difference if you think the change between Diana Ross and Janet Jackson is greater than the difference between Janet Jackson and Beyonce. Though I would say the difference between 90's Mariah and Janet and Beyonce is rather large.

Gil Scott-Heron

Congrats, you found one of the few guys that was kinda sorta rapping in the early 70s. He's an influence and antecedent, but his music was not "hip-hop." The term and phenomenon followed years later. The Ramones were influenced by The Velvet Underground, that doesn't mean that punk existed in 1968.

The biggest change with dance music, particularly songs with faster BPMs, is simply its re-acceptance into the mainstream culture after a nearly 30-year absence.

The clothing on Saved by the Bell does look ridiculous, as does the clothing in the early BH90210 seasons. But you only have to go a few years into the 90s to find the BH9 crew looking pretty normal. 1992 does seem like a particular type of break to me ... you had the rise of both Nirvana and Gangsta Rap at about the same time, with attendant fashion changes, which ended the multicolor leather jacket era for whites and blacks alike.

I'll agree that the MC Hammer whackiness started dying down at that point as well as "mom jeans" and such but even in the mid to late 90's our choice color schemes, patterns, what we matched things with, and the shape of our clothes were different than nowadays. I don't think the stuff that you see on Friends or Seinfeld is radically different but the longer those shows ran the closer to our times we get. I remember being a kid in the 80's and watching TV shows and movies made in the 70's and stylistically we were pretty close in a lot of ways.


I recently watched The Odd Couple and The President's Analyst and both movies capture a lot of typical people out on the streets of NYC. Yeah their clothes looks a bit different but it doesn't look radically different than say 10 or 15 years later.