Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

The Noughties: A Cultural Dustbin?

Five-Centres's picture

The Wire aside, the Noughties aren't looking much like a decade to write home about culturally.

So far it looks like Big Brother, Heat magazine and Jade Goody, with music by landfill indie bands and The X Factor.

Of course there's more to in than that. But what?

0

Spotify

is probably the front runner at the moment. This decades iTunes.

0
Handsome.P.Wonderful | 25 March 2009 - 5:21pm

Eh?

Surely iTunes is this decades iTunes! Launched January 2001

0
JohnW | 25 March 2009 - 7:07pm

Mad Men?

And, dare I say it, Red Riding?

0
barneytabasco | 25 March 2009 - 5:22pm

Online living

I think, on the whole, the Noughties won't be remembered necessarily for music/film/tv in the same way previous decades might do.

Our entertainment options are so spread out now that those so called water cooler moments have been dominated by reality tv, mostly because that's all we seem to get on the main channels.

And as for something like The Wire - because of it not being widespread across the media it'll probably not be remembered like a Hill Street Blues. 24, on the other hand, might be.

I think the real cultural impact this decade has seen is the spread of the online world with the help of broadband and mobile phones. I know one person - one! - who isn't hooked up at home or at work. People socialise online - look at us here and now. I don't know who any of you are, or where you are, but I interact with you here, I do similar on various blogs and for years I've done that in my online gaming alter-ego (much much cheaper than owning consoles, which is why I missed out on most of those the past decade). We do our shopping here, listen to music, read the news, watch last night's TV. When I look back ten years and see how much that has developed I'm stunned sometimes.

0
SimonL | 25 March 2009 - 5:30pm

Time passing gives the necessary perspective

I genuinely remember feeling a bit like that about the 80s. At the height of mullethood and ra-ra skirts, I thought that everyone dressed and looked OK and the 80s would have no defining look or feel.

I think think this decade may be defined by credit crunch and its resultant consequences and the rampant advance of the internet supermotorway.

0
Austin | 25 March 2009 - 5:31pm

The internet is not broke

and even if it was I can't fix it.

0
TedLoaf | 25 March 2009 - 5:41pm

yeah like the 60's

was a load of nonsense except for Z cars and softly softly.

0
Chris G | 25 March 2009 - 5:47pm

My noughties are musically defined

by a gradual ebb in the tide towards more "natural" musics: accousticity rather than electricity, tunes more than volume, bluegrass and folk influences softening the rock. Some artists refuse to go gently, of course, battering their and our ears and axes ever on into submission, which is fine, but the production values of, mentioning 3 producers, T-Bone Burnett, Joe Henry and Rick Rubin seem to be valued more and more this decade. As an old fella with damaged (ear) drums, what is there not to like in that?

0
Retropath2 | 25 March 2009 - 5:50pm

Musics?

What's 'a music'?

0
stimpy | 25 March 2009 - 7:05pm

Musics

My shorthand for "styles/genres of music".
I "heart" idiosyncrasy.
(Now where did I get that from............?)

0
Retropath2 | 26 March 2009 - 9:10am

My natural aversion to the phrase 'musics'

stems back to the 78-81 era NME when it was a favourite expression of the pretentia.

Careful, or I'll start a "Retro is really Ian Penman" campaign :-)

0
stimpy | 26 March 2009 - 9:32am

Well I never....

I would have been reading it then. I hope it hasn't been a subliminal absorbtion.
(Draws himself up to full height)Pretentious? Moi?

0
Retropath2 | 26 March 2009 - 9:44am

Well...

Mad Men
Six Feet Under
Dead Man's Shoes
Radcliffe on Radio 2
Guitar Hero

And via the magic that is Spotify, I'm currently listening to The Decemberists rather excellent new record.

0
Rich Goodall | 25 March 2009 - 5:55pm

time-lag of perception

When-ever there is a review of a decade, it seems there is always a tendancy to perceive things as happenning earlier than they actually did. therefore, people forgot that, Public Enemy did some of their absolute best work in the 90s (Fear of a Black Planet is 1990), and get classed as an 80s act. Likewise, Handsome P. Wonderful says that Spotify is "this decade's iTunes", when iTunes was released in 2001.

I find it helps, when discussing this kind of thing, to actually ask yourself, which decade DID this thing Im referencing happen in? Because it's not always the one you think.

0
Jonah | 25 March 2009 - 5:58pm

Time-Lag of Perception

Wasn't that a 1972 album by Nautical Parody on the Harvest label? (Digital reissue still anxiously awaited.)

I agree with you, by the way, that cultural decades are only loosely related to actual calendar ones. Some - like the Sixties and Eighties, for example - were only 5-6 years long (1963-1968 and 1982-1987, respectively, I reckon).

0
Archie Valparaiso | 25 March 2009 - 6:13pm

Hmmm

So Dare wasn't an 80's record?

0
Dave Holley | 25 March 2009 - 7:02pm

I thought the eighties

started in 1978....Maggie Thatcher etc. etc.

0
bigsteviecook | 25 March 2009 - 7:10pm

I know what Archie's on about

But my 80s were 1981-1986. 1980 itself was the end of the 70s to me.

0
SimonL | 25 March 2009 - 7:34pm

What about a magazine called...

... The WORD?

0
Nicodemus | 25 March 2009 - 6:09pm

Well obviously

that goes without saying.

0
Five-Centres | 25 March 2009 - 6:13pm

This decade will be the last

when anyone says "hurry up it's on in a minute" or " If we rush we can be home for Corrie" or similar appointment-with-TV type statements.

Quite a shift after 70 years of gathering around hardware in the living room.

0
Captain Underpants | 25 March 2009 - 7:28pm

i totally agree...

although i think the drought started in about 1995 (pursuant to the posting i made on the "last of the classics"). great, durable cultural artefacts of the noughties (in my opinion):

- six feet under
- spotify
- ipods
- broadband
- the office
- (possibly) curb your enthusiasm
- (possibly) 24

0
lit doof | 25 March 2009 - 7:41pm

Let's not be too specific

- The internet is clearly a massive cultural shift - although it's been around longer, it's effectively a child of this decade.
- The current slew of time-shift dramas, a la Lost, Memento, The Wire - a real development in story-telling that will define TV and film for a long time to come.
- The Office will still be revered in 40 years - if only for the Brent dance
- Although it began in the 90s, The West Wing's true cultural home is the noughties
- CSI: the series that spawned a raft of spin-offs and even affected how courts work and changed the face of crime
- Death of the single: surely that's a cultural phenomenon?
- Again, although the first couple were published in the 90s, Harry Potter is a true 00s' phenomenon
- Reforming bands - hasn't nearly everyone done it this decade? Can there be anyone left?

0
robram | 25 March 2009 - 10:47pm

Is it possible to consider

Is it possible to consider Spotify as being culturally important when it's only been around a few minutes?

0
Tom | 25 March 2009 - 11:18pm

Stay Free

Spotify will only be of impact if it stays free. If it goes into paying mode only then it won't stay of impact.

On the other hand I think Facebook and Youtube are of huge cultural importance and impact. When you consider how many people are now using Facebook, more apparently than have email accounts in the UK. That's pretty huge. My mother in law is on Facebook. That's scary and frightening.

0
SimonL | 26 March 2009 - 8:33am

Is that real, active users of Facebook?

...or does it include the millions who signed up to see what all the fuss was about then never touched it again?

I suspect the latter number significantly outweighs the former

0
stimpy | 26 March 2009 - 8:56am

The Facebook novelty has already worn off for me

...but how long before it wears off for everyone else? Perhaps it's not a fad after all.

0
Five-Centres | 26 March 2009 - 11:04am

Facebook?

Old hat. It's Twitter I'm studiously ignoring these days.

0
badartdog | 26 March 2009 - 11:13am

Good point

And is Spotify this decade's Napster?

0
kb | 26 March 2009 - 11:29am

Friends Reunited

Friends Reunited was the ur-networking site wasn't it? Now ITV Digital are trying to sell it off and are hopeful that they'll get 50% of what they paid for it just 4 years ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/26/friends-reunited-itv

It wouldn't surprise me if MySpace, Facebook, Twitter etc. were to go the same way as the web continues to develop. Something will be along to replace them soon and we'll rush to them in the way that we rushed to all the others, before moving on again...

0
Red Umpire | 27 March 2009 - 2:38pm

4 words

The Thick Of It

0
Ahh_Bisto | 26 March 2009 - 5:36pm

Musically

there's been a lot for me that I rate - Roisin Murphy, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Doves, Radiohead, Goldfrapp. Though I think what I consider quintessentially noughties has been disappointing after promising start - as in The Strokes step back to late seventies style then we got Franz Ferdinand, The Killers and the like, who didn't really develop well beyond their debuts. Much else has been less clearly of this decade, but more combining elements from all sorts of periods, and somehow has not seemed identifiable of these times, in way music from previous decades seems of it's time. Maybe it will though, with more perspective. Maybe too much fucking perspective, as was once memorably said.

Then there's been The Wire and Lost, significant in their field.

0
Sven Garlic | 27 March 2009 - 9:19am

How old are we?

I suspect we're probably mostly too old around Word Heights to know what the landmarks of the decade are ; or maybe we're looking in the wrong places.

For instance there have been console/gaming events that have reached more people than any band in the last ten years.

Imagine being 40 something in 1968. I suspect we'd have missed some of the things going on...

0
SimonL | 26 March 2009 - 10:31pm

I'd like to think I still had my finger on the pulse

in most areas. Not all. But most.

0
Five-Centres | 27 March 2009 - 1:35pm

The signifigance of the internet

as a consumer item really really cannot be over-estimated in the noughties. If you told someone in 1999 that 1 billion vidoes would be watched every day, or that, with Google Street Maps, you could see a picture of anywhere on earth at the click of a button, I think they'd be flabbergasted.

While, clearly, as a tehcnological and business development the internet really coming into play late 8os/early 90s, as a "way-of-life" accessory that we all rely on, it must be akin to the Industrial Revolution, mustn't it? And seeing as a big chunk of that happenned in the last ten years, and its affected culture from top to bottom, I don't think the noughties can be called a technological dustbin.

Unless you hate the internet, I suppose.

0
Jonah | 26 March 2009 - 11:23pm

Controversial, but...

also, this has been a great decade for the re-issue. Things which we never thought would come out, have come to light in the last ten years and been brilliant. Brian Wilson's SMILE anyone? Or a complete version of Dexys' "Don't Stand Me Down"?

It's the increasingly retrospective focus of the noughties that has allowed this stuff to come into being. And though there are downsides (the fact that a forum of culture-lovers can only think of a limited number of 00s cultural works that aren't rubbish, for example), without this trend we wouldn't have had these records. Good I'd say?

And something like, for exmaple, Leoord Cohen's recent tour, may have had its roots in the late 60s, but it was most definitely a noughties proposition. So, even if you're not thrilled by dubstep or Lady GaGa, there's still good stuff from this epoch, even if it's roots were planted long ago.

0
Jonah | 26 March 2009 - 11:29pm

The Sopranos

The Sopranos. NEXT!

0
Iainso | 27 March 2009 - 2:31pm

British TV loses world best crown

Multi-channels have been slowly killing British TV since the mid-90s. The new channels have produced little of any lasting worth and the older channels have sold themselves down the river in a panic to compete. BBC TV seems to spend as much money advertising itself nowadays as it does on programmes.

This is also the decade where we've had the word "accessible" thrown around like confetti by TV people. A dishonest word that's just a cover excuse for dumbing down everything, with the added insinuation that this is somehow democratic rather than insulting. Whereas words like "theatrical" (you know, what we're actually good at in this country) have been demonised. Cause apparently Spooks Code 9 can teach Abigails Party a thing or two.

You only get any feeling of what the organisation is meant to be about nowadays by listening to Radio 4. BBC4 started out with good intentions, but it seems more interested recently in Val Doonican and Nana Mouskouri nights than being a safe ghetto for high culture.

Good on HBO incidentally, but I'd like some great television to reflect my own culture too.

0
Extra Texture | 27 March 2009 - 4:17pm

Well said

I couldn't agree more. I'm rather hoping the credit crunch might see off a few of these spurious channels. Who needs Wedding TV, Audi TV or Zone Romantica?

And, much as I'm on it all day, the internet really has changed everything, and not necessarily for the better.

0
Five-Centres | 27 March 2009 - 4:47pm

Modern telly is rubbish

Russell T Davies being treated like a writing god is another sign of the creative armageddon. He comes out with the odd nice line, but is obsessed with pop culture trivia, soap operas and can't construct a plot. Sorry critics, "the next Dennis Potter" he aint.

And have you seen the people they hand out Bafta's to this decade? Ross Kemp, I'm A Celebrity, Casualty, The X Factor. If there aren't enough good shows for an award ceremony, don't hand any out.

0
Extra Texture | 28 March 2009 - 3:37pm

"Russell T Davies being treated like a writing god "

It seems to me tht he's treated as a Producer God as much as a writing God. Nowadays, it seems to me, his reputation is for running a fabulous show, rather than nessecarily writing it. Assessing his legacy, it's important to recognise the wonderous epsidoes that were made under his administration, even if he didn;t get a writing credit.

However, I'd direct you towards the Doctor Who episode "Midnight", one he wrote himself, as an example of him crafting a tightly constructed plot.

0
Jonah | 28 March 2009 - 4:09pm

Writer, god!!

"It seems to me that he's treated as a Producer God as much as a writing God"

That's what should be the case. Maybe it is amongst Doctor Who fans, but certainly not with the mainstream media. And even as a producer, he's getting away with murder because the old Doctor Who had no CGI and cardboard sets to compare him with. A producer's job also involves seeing a good script is produced, and most of them are generally rancid.

But when the new Doctor Who is occasionally good, its because its the stories furthest away from the shallow house style, and almost certainly not written by its lead writer. Midnight is the only half-decent thing he's written for the show in four years, as a batting average, that's just dismal.

A clip from old Doctor Who out of that gentleman's realm.

0
Extra Texture | 28 March 2009 - 10:31pm

"the old Doctor Who had no CGI and cardboard sets"

The sets Tom-Baker era Doctor Who, while certainly made from carboard, are, for me one of the joys of the programme. Jack White says that he enjoys the White Stripes because the restriction means he has to be really innovative. The same is true of those sets - the fact that they actually had to be consturcted means that the were made with real love and attention to detail. The alien planet constructed in the Brain of Morbius is a great example.

Russel T Davis, as Prodcuer, has been involved in a stack of classic epsidodes: Blink, Human Nature/A Family of Blood, Dalek and a load of others, and, even if you prefer the older stuff, has brought the programme, and its past, into the hearts of millions of young people who woild never have been interested in it otherwise, There's certainly some total duff in the new series though, and he has to take like repsonisbility for that.

Plus, I would argue its slightly stingy to use his budgets as a negative, in relation to what went before - the stuff he's really competeting against, i.e. Hollywood movies, have colossally bigger budgets than he gets. A Doctor Who writer will be given a set amount of CGI they're allowed to use (often around 10 seconds) when writing - to my mind, the old, experimental, make-do-with-what-you've-got spirit of the Doctor lives on!

0
Jonah | 30 March 2009 - 4:22pm

Love the old sets

I'm not criticising the old sets of Doctor Who, the very opposite. I'm just saying that a lot of modern critics use the fact that it wasn't always slick or filmic looking to bash the overall quality of the entire old series. I'm like you, I don't care how slick they looked. And yes, they often were more inventive.

The fact that the new version of Doctor Who is popular is no real defence for its quality though, Noels House Party used to get 17 million viewers a week without ever once being mistaken for an episode of I Claudius. I'm sure Noel Edmonds brought his show into the hearts of young people as much as Rusty ever has with Who.

Even with the stories you mention (none written by him), that's still only one good story a season. I'm still mystified why the worst writer on the show gets to be the boss.

It used to be a show for clever kids who were into sci-fi. Now it's for people who hate sci-fi. The very type of people who probably bullied Russell T at school for being a Doctor Who fan.

0
Extra Texture | 30 March 2009 - 7:01pm

It seems we're pretty much in agreement...

in so far as we both think that the new show's hit rate isn't good enough.

Plus, there's precedent to do this kind of show (with an entirely differnt cast/set of characters each week) without letting the quality slip. It can be done Cartoon Network animation Samurai Jack features a similar format (the titular hero wonders from one entirely seperate adventure to another each week) with far greater consistency.

In fact, I've never seen Samurai Jack mentioned here. Watch It! It shows that absolutely legendary American TV is not limited to HBO drama! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai_jack

I know what you mean, Extra Texture, about it being a show for kids who don't like sci-fi though. I'm 18, and I said to one of my mates the other day that our English teacher would make a great doctor who. The reply she gave me was "No Way! he's way too Old!" That teacher can only be 40 years old, absolute maximum. That made me feel that something had been lost, I must admit.

0
Jonah | 30 March 2009 - 7:17pm

Here's one we made earlier

Photobucket
(Apologies if I've posted this before, but it's a childhood-defining picture for me.)

0
Archie Valparaiso | 30 March 2009 - 7:17pm

Some good films?

There Will Be Blood

The Lives of Others

Pan's Labryinth

No Country For Old Men

City Of Good

The works of Pixar

& The Decemberists

0
Paul Chandler | 30 March 2009 - 1:04am

Music all landfill indie?

Band of Horses
Arbouretum
Okkervil River
Arctic Monkeys

As for general culture

Glitter and Doom tour
BBC4
Early Doors
Mad Men
Kill Your Friends
GTA IV

etc.

Miserable old sod!

0
waldorf | 30 March 2009 - 7:30pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd