Defeners/Le 90s Kids

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Whatisgoingon said:
Where did you get that info? I'm wondering because that sounds like an urban legend to me.
Click to expand...

It's one of literally three things I remember from linguistics, along with "all cultures that develop words for color always label them in the same order" and "the rule against the split infinitive in English is stupid because it's based on an inapplicable rule from a dead language."
 
telegramsamo said:
This mentality is really common amongst "classic rock" fans. Look up any popular rock song on YouTube. You will see a comment just like this, "I love this song and I'm only 15. All the other kids in school are busy listening to Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. Modern music sucks! The 60s/70s/80s were king!!!!"

I cringe every time I see a comment like that. Not only is it really annoying, but they are so blatantly fishing for a compliment.
Click to expand...

Oh man, that shit drives me insane.
 
O90gS8K.jpg
 
Abethedemon said:
O90gS8K.jpg
Click to expand...
The one on the left is probably no better than the one on the right. Pretty sure 90's anime fans also had their fair shares of weebs, and people who wanted to see a yaoi pairing of Goku and Vegeta or Inuyasha and the monk/priest that traveled with him.
 
Whatisgoingon said:
as a 90s kid
I was born in '96.
Click to expand...

Just a note to make.
being born in the 90's does not make you a 90's kid.
being a 90's kid mean you grew up in the 90's and remember it well. we both were in diapers when the 90's happened.
for us and all those defeners. they are 2000's/2010's kids/
 
Abethedemon said:
So there's a subreddit, /r/lewronggeneration that highlights the idiocies of people who wish that they were born in previous generations so that they could listen to Queen and the Beatles. They call these people defeners after a rage comic
UWQ39.jpg
Click to expand...

I like that the "good music" list is literally the most generic list of popular bands from the last handful of decades. I mean I like The Beach Boys, Gorillaz and Nirvana but even I know that whole list is just boilerplate "I was born in the wrong generation" or "I'm not one of you" music. I hate cliches. It's the same kind of people who wear Ramones, Nirvana and Misfits shirts just because they look cool, usually.
 
Skeealator said:
90s music was immensely better than the music of the 80s. Yes, I am old as dirt.
Click to expand...

Mainstream 90's rock music in the earlier part of the decade, certainly. 80's had some great underground music going on though.

I feel like mainstream rock took a nosedive in quality once bands like Matchbox 20 blew up.

ONLY 90'S KIDS REMEMBER WHEN DAVE MATTHEWS BAND AND THIRD EYE BLIND RULED THE AIRWAVES.
 
This is an argument that has essentially been around since the "Disco Sucks" movement of the 70s, which as someone who wasted their opportunities in life studying the history of popular music seems to share a couple of factors.

The first factor I would argue is down to a dissonance of association with youth subculture. Most music enthusiasts are able to judge music objectively without having their opinion swayed by a pre-conceived notion of what type of person listens to a certain style of music because they've since grown out of feeling associated with a specific youth culture. The problem is that since the rock and roll era, popular music has been mostly marketed towards teenagers with significant amounts of disposable income. Given that social groups are heavily influential in the development of our own sense of self, some people become fearful when a newly emerging subculture threatens to take away their subculture's (and ultimately their) popularity, leading to immature dismissals of other forms of popular music (the term Disco Sucks essentially means Disco Sucks Cock, mocking how disco arose from the black and gay community). This leads to resentment of anything popular beyond the time period where they felt a sense of belonging, sometimes even after their hostility to change has led them to become increasingly isolated (off-topic, but a similar observation could be made about Jace).

What's different in this situation is that you also have an emerging number of young people that do not feel represented by popular depictions of youth culture, so therefore try to put forward elitist yet populist opinions about music to appear they are mature. Most people would probably just see it as an adolescent phase and shrug it off; but thanks to the internet, those who never grew out of their teenage subcultures suddenly have then chance to be relevant again and preach a fabricated history tainted by false nostalgia of how music used to be. The number one selling album of the 90s in the US was Millennium by Backstreet Boys, just sayin'.

The second factor I would also argue is the idea of dismissing music that could be loosely termed dance music as being inauthentic. The Beatles are an exemplar of how the rock album is seen as the authentic music experience; a ritualised art performance which should be taken seriously and listened to in isolation. At the same time saw the rise of the DJ, in disco and then even more explicitly with house, where they would play singles from unknown artists to dancing crowds that listened to music as a social function. The latter to those deliberately trying to distance themselves from popular mainstream culture would appear to be an invalidation of their enjoyment of music, as if music in social settings only serves to shelter the masses from exposure to their obviously superior and authentic music. In a way it's similar to the argument made by Theodor Adorno, who argued that popular music served as nothing more than to distract the working classes from revolting against capitalism. I'd say the problem with this is that music performed in social functions to dance to far outdates the idea of music being listened to seriously, before capitalism as an economic model even existed. Again it's the inability to disassociate music from it's sub-cultural context; because the act of listening to older music is nothing more than a passive rebellion against a pre-conceived stereotype, new music is therefore dumb and serves to keep those who fit the stereotype ignorant.

The only other possibility that I can think of is those who unwittingly believe formats such as vinyl are higher quality and as older music is pressed on vinyl, this makes older music better than music sold digitally. This is somewhat of a common misconception; a lot of music released today suffers from what's called the "loudness war", in which records are mastered through heavy compression to make the record sound louder, effectively squashing the dynamics of a recording and in some extreme cases distorting the master. This isn't possible on vinyl because the needle would simply jump off the vinyl every time it reached a high peak, meaning that vinyl records typically are mastered without sacrificing dynamics. Many people find this more pleasing to the ear as it is less likely to cause aural fatigue, however this doesn't mean that vinyl is exactly a higher quality format. Just that the mastering on the vinyl release is usually better compared to digital formats affected by heavy compression.

Apologies the post is so long and doesn't have any sources; if anyone wants more concise points backed up with evidence I'll try to dig up my old university papers studying music subcultures. Just to warn you though, I did quote Anita Sarkeesian in my dissertation in an attempt to impress a girl I was dating so I have no academic credibility whatsoever.
 
Bridechu said:
To be fair, disco does suck.

Just kidding, Born to Be Alive is my fucking jam.
Click to expand...
I hear that song at work.

I prefer Don't Leave Me This Way, though.
 
i don't really get exposed to too much older music (other than Pink Floyd, which i really enjoy) but nor am i exposed to anything outside of my proverbial.. bubble. most stuff i listen to are from weaboo artists like Rurutia or Ali Project (though theyve been around since the 80s. does this count?..) and even still i see Defeners about. what is their damn deal?
 
Oglooger said:
Just a note to make.
being born in the 90's does not make you a 90's kid.
being a 90's kid mean you grew up in the 90's and remember it well. we both were in diapers when the 90's happened.
for us and all those defeners. they are 2000's/2010's kids/
Click to expand...

A shibboleth is if they remember where they were and what they were doing when 9/11 happened. If they can't answer that, they are not '90s kids at all.
 
Jonzun said:
This is an argument that has essentially been around since the "Disco Sucks" movement of the 70s, which as someone who wasted their opportunities in life studying the history of popular music seems to share a couple of factors.
Click to expand...
To be fair, though, disco does objectively suck.

But seriously, the "Disco Sucks" thing was more generational than aesthetic. IIRC the disco scene was mainly 20-30 year olds and the "Disco Sucks" kids were all under 20 or so and too young to get into the dance clubs because the clubs served alcohol. And even if they did manage to get into a club (this was before 21 became the national drinking age), they were generally too young to get laid anyways, which, by my own observation, was most of the appeal of disco. So the whole "Disco Sucks" thing was in a large part sour grapes instead of a purely aesthetic opinion. Those over 20 who weren't into disco generally just ignored it as puff dance pablum, but usually didn't exhibit the hate and rage that the kids did. Given that some of those kids went on to start what would become punk, well they had a lot of rage to exhibit.

As far as the 20-30 year olds who did go to dance clubs, we have to remember that disco largely predates Betamax and even cable television in most areas, never mind widespread internet, so there wasn't a lot of in-the-home entertainment back then. People tolerated disco because there often wasn't much else to do on a Friday night, and going out drinking and dancing (and maybe getting laid) is better than going out just drinking which is better than staying home and watching one of the three channels total on the television. Truly the '70s were dark times.
Just to warn you though, I did quote Anita Sarkeesian in my dissertation in an attempt to impress a girl I was dating so I have no academic credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Did it work? Because that's really the only thing that matters there.
 
Last edited:
A-№1 said:
To be fair, though, disco does objectively suck.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=POnGb28DgFQ

But seriously, the "Disco Sucks" thing was more generational than aesthetic. IIRC the disco scene was mainly 20-30 year olds and the "Disco Sucks" kids were all under 20 or so and too young to get into the dance clubs because the clubs served alcohol. And even if they did manage to get into a club (this was before 21 became the national drinking age), they were generally too young to get laid anyways, which, by my own observation, was most of the appeal of disco. So the whole "Disco Sucks" thing was in a large part sour grapes instead of a purely aesthetic opinion. Those over 20 who weren't into disco generally just ignored it as puff dance pablum, but usually didn't exhibit the hate and rage that the kids did. Given that some of those kids went on to start what would become punk, well they had a lot of rage to exhibit.

As far as the 20-30 year olds who did go to dance clubs, we have to remember that disco largely predates Betamax and even cable television in most areas, never mind widespread internet, so there wasn't a lot of in-the-home entertainment back then. People tolerated disco because there often wasn't much else to do on a Friday night, and going out drinking and dancing (and maybe getting laid) is better than going out just drinking which is better than staying home and watching one of the three channels total on the television. Truly the '70s were dark times.

Did it work? Because that's really the only thing that matters there.
Click to expand...

Oh, the Disco Sucks crowd was much bigger and rowdier than you give them credit for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom