Miscellaneous desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 11

Refdesk giving more satisfactory answers

Why does the refdesk seem to give more satisfactory answers than yahoo answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.71.235 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to offer speculation, nor handle opinion-based questions. I mean this as an explanation for why we're not actually supposed to answer the kind of question you just asked, though I admit there might be other ways to take this response. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if you raise this at the Talk Page, you might get longer shrift. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have changes in fasion, hairstyles, and music slowed since the 90s?

I see some women's fashion a bit different now than it was in the 2000's, with more of an emphasis on higher waistlines, closed toe shoes, and a slightly more conservative look.

So it's not like total stasis since 1995 or anything.

But the question remains. Have you noticed that after a period of quite rapid fashion change from the late 1950's to the 1990's, the rate of change in men's and women's fashion (and music) has really slowed down since the late 90's?

Any idea as to why? Zombiesturm (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the rise of digital existence may be something to look into..that is, people exist now more via social-networking, their smart phones etc than they do in the "real world"...fashion being a manifestation of living in "the real world"...studies suggest teens would rather have a smart phone than a car today...another manifestation of tangible/real world things declining...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1995 music and whatever Tamla Motown is was before my time but maybe you're right about pop being better when there were more uninvented songs available. I'm in my 20s and know practically no music theory but I noticed that contemporary songs keep getting less and less novel the older I get. This must be cause much (most?) pop note progressions are very, very simple/predictable and lowest common denominator in an effort to make more money and you can only hear so many of those before getting deja vu. Now to make more money they've even discovered how to make songs that don't even bother with tunes/melody, real rhythm or intellectual simulation and just try to get low IQ peeps as amped up as possible (i.e. Shots - LMFAO, that ~2013 song with that ridiculously long rising drum glissando..) Before ~2008 chart music was light years behind electronic or classical music on some or all those 3 factors. Even something good for modern pop often still sounds like this. Repetitive, redundant, saying the same thing more than once, repeating long stretches over and over slightly transposed each time (or not even that) and just a vehicle for a hook basically. If you're going to build up to something make it good! (like some dubstep breakdowns) The first 9 notes of the hook (CGCGCGCGF with that rhythm and timbre) are awesome but there's much better ways to continue that than what they did here. My thoughtless idle whistling's way better than that hook, they should be paying me to write songs. #1 lyrics often sound retarded when read. Many people aren't open to experience or intellectual though which is why a completely awesome song by a popular artist can peak at #27 on a week that sudden bipolar shuttling ("sweet"/screaming) was #1. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book I found online called Fashion Forecasting : [1], that based on some google searches through it, [2] may have the sort of information that will help you research the answer for your question. --Jayron 32 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the 1990s, when the web was young ad The Onion was funny! It is a humor piece, but I think think you might find some interesting views in this story: U.S. Dept. Of Retro Warns: "We May Be Running Out Of Past". SemanticMantis (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is OR, but median wages have been flat or declining in most of the developed world since the 1990s. There has been a series of economic downturns followed by slow, weak recoveries and little long-term economic growth. In this climate, consumers tend to be conservative. Few can afford any more to buy a new wardrobe each year, so, aside from outlandish designer fashions aimed at the top 1%, mass-market clothing designers aim to produce "classic" and largely familiar designs that consumers can count on wearing for several years. Also, in a context of widespread job insecurity, many people, especially young people, who have set new fashion trends in the past, want to look staid and professional rather than avant-garde. Marco polo (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a few articles also, when looking for the above source, which discuss the role of sustainable fashion is having on the industry as a whole; designing less changes into clothes so trends last longer. I don't know how much this actually happens, but it has been mentioned, see for example [3]. --Jayron 32 18:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, the telescoping effect. Our brains tend to exaggerate how long ago relatively recent changes were, while underestimating how old much less recent things are. The way history is remembered and taught also encourages us to think that there were bright dividing lines that didn't exist in reality – The Beatles didn't just appear, but emerged from the skiffle scene and gradually became psychedelic/prog – and to forget how long "obsolete" styles stayed around (according to our article big band, a style overwhelmingly associated with the 40s, there were actually notable performances right up to the 70s). I think as get into the 2020s people will start seeing how culture has changed (the first few posters for retro 2000s parties have started appearing around my town). I don't think there's much solid evidence that culture is slowing down. Looking at the popularity of different film genres for instance shows some significant changes in the best-selling films since 1990. In pop music, every genre has reinvented itself at least once (gangsta rap has been replaced by alternative hip hop, British soul has exploded into the adult contemporary gap that used to be filled by smooth R&B, Britpop and grunge gave way to pop-punk and indie, bubblegum pop has replaced by the much more earnest Taylor Swift/One Direction kind of pop, and so on). I can't say much about hairstyles or fashion, but certainly beards have made a big comeback. Smurrayinchester 12:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many elements of fashion still mark the early 2000s as distinct from now; chunky highlights, exposed thong underwear on women with ultra-low-rise jeans, tattoo chokers are all marks of the era for women, while certainly some of those styles are coming back around at times, and others are not, I wouldn't call any of those current fashion trends. For men, styles such as the man bun and the undercut with a full beard: [4] didn't really exist in 2002 let's say. There are many aspects of fashion from the early 2000s that would look out of place today, and visa versa. I'm nto sure the supposition of the OP is quantitatively correct, and as you note, may be due to misconceptions rather than anything. --Jayron 32 14:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least everyone's hair doesn't look like they just got electrocuted (1980s). And all the girls don't look like 1970s Farrah Fawcett. And every female doesn't wear very short miniskirts like it's still 1969. And 60s beehives are not ubiquitous. And no one would mistake a 1950s crowd with the wide long dresses for anything after the early 60s. And the 40s had long hair and medium hemlines during the war. And the 30s had long skirts and short finger weaved hair. And the 20s had boyish haircuts and breast binding/figure hiding. And the teens had corsets — like the 1900s but more colorful. And the 1890s another fashion. And there was that figure showing period before that, the 1880s or 1870s. There was an artificial big butt period somewhere around here. And the 60s had skirts so big that they had metal hoops in them to hold shape. And the 1850s and 40s had a distinctive boyish short hairstyle. I think bonnets stopped being hot a bit before here. It seems fashion changed more obviously and frequently in the past. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Things that disappeared post-World War 2: men's hats (totally gone by 1965), buttons on the front of men's pants (the zipper replaced them), men's suspenders (aka braces in some countries - totally gone by 1965). They all disappeared in 20 years. We haven't seen any radical changes for men in the 25 years since 1990. Akld guy (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Totally" is an overstatement. Although I agree they have all become less common, both I and my father sometimes wear hats in cold weather, and at least two of my personal friends wear suspenders/braces (which become necessary when the disappearance of one's waist negates the utility of belts). I wore buttoned-fly trousers in my teens (in the '70s), and bemoan their disappearance, as zip-fasteners are more prone to failure and are more difficult to replace. Much depends on one's particular milieu (mine being semi-rural Southern England). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.142 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button flies are making a comeback, and personally I hate them (probably because I'm not used to them). Hats and suspenders/braces falling out of favour is fairly unique, since these are both a binary decision (both partially affected by techology; the former driven by the rise of cars and shampoo, the later by new fabrics and manufacturing methods that improved the fit of cheap trousers), whereas most fashion changes happen more gradually – although the mainstreaming of tattoos in the last 20 years is definitely very noticeable, and tracksuits seem to have disappeared overnight. Smurrayinchester 09:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button flies went away? Where? I never noticed, I've preferred and worn them since the 90s ;) I'm not certain but I don't think Levi's has every not sold button fly jeans. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of total mens pants sales are Levi's 501s? While it is a non-zero proportion, it is close enough to not make any difference. --Jayron 32 14:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I used to wear 501s back in HS. Very comfortable. Sadly, the fit is designed for someone very different than my current shape. Since they discontinued the Silver Tab line in the early 2000s, I've had to switch to 565/569 to fit my fat ass in. They don't make those in button fly. --Jayron 32 14:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps surprisingly, fashion and trends in the USA are not completely homogenized. I bet you'll see a lot more 501's if you go out into the mountains, or hang out with the tobacco and pig farmers in rural Carolina. When I arrived in TX a few years ago, I noticed the relative share of 501s seemed higher than other places I've lived, probably in part due to influence of cowboy culture, and the various hangers-on and wannabees. Obviously this is far off topic, and yes button flies are no longer have the widely "in" status they once briefly had. I guess I was just pointing out that some of us just wear what we want, even if that's the same jeans for decades :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old enough to remember President Eisenhower talking on the radio one Christmas about peace in the Middle East. It's no exaggeration to say that men's hats and ~~zippers~~ button flies disappeared between 1945 and 1965. Even if a tiny percentage of men clung onto them through the decades or there's been a resurgence in the wearing of hats in recent years, it doesn't alter what happened at the time. Until the mid-1950s, a man was not properly dressed in public without a hat, but by 1965 virtually nobody did. I was there at the time and noticed it at the time. My grandfather at the age of about 64 marked the end of his hat wearing in about 1963-65 (based on the date our family moved house) by kicking his hat to pieces in front of the family after losing a bet. Akld guy (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zippers are not obsolete at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant button flies. Corrected. Akld guy (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button flies obsolete? About 80% of the pairs of Levi's 501s I own has a button fly. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: I do not think button flies disappeared between 1945 and 1965 (or at least not permanently); here is a photo of a part of my collection of Levi 501s. That is 8 pairs of Levi 501s with button flies, and I have at least one more. I am not a Photoshop expert. The website levistrauss.com contains the text "For denim puritans, it’s button or bust. The button fly has gained widespread appeal in recent years for its classic vintage look, and traces roots all the way back to the original pair of 501s created on May 20, 1873. That’s 20 years before the zipper was even conceived, and almost a half-century prior to the invention of the zipper as we know it.". I don´t like shopping for clothes, so I have been wearing those 501s for the past 20 years or so. When I buy new ones I simply point at the ones I am wearing and ask the shop assistant to find me those (and sometimes I specify if I want them in black or in blue). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]