Where have all the subcultures gone?

.......

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d presume you just can’t tell the differences between the kids styles. Imagine an old boy when you were young. Do you reckon they knew about the differences between rockers? Or would thy have seen a bunch of rockets all dressed the same?

I’d say the kids could tell each other’s styles apart even if you Oder people can’t.

No I dont buy this.

The differences in the various subcultures that have been named on this thread were quite distinct.

My ma (at my age) knew the difference between rockers and cureheads and townies and goths (bit of crossover with the cureheads and goths alright).

Sure no one can even name a subculture that exists today - none do!

benjamin d

My "internet" was Planet Sound on Channel 4 teletext and a lot of my musical choices were made from that. I was somewhat of a rocker/skater punk type but never fully committed to the fashion or anything outside of the general faux pas (remember early 2000s flaired cord trousers, WTF!)

I definitely agree with the previous posts that identity politics is where young people choose their niche these days. At least back when you identified with a group through music it was fairly harmless nonsense.

.......

Maybe modern music isnt divided into particular looks anymore?

Badly Drunk Boy

J Mysterio wrote: »

You recorded it off the radio and shared mix tapes. You watched MTV or Kerrang or whatever. You bought music magazines.

Yeah, that's how it was for me as a teenager in the 80s and early 90s. We didn't have much money so most knowledge of music came from Melody Maker, NME, and Dave Fanning's radio programme.

I still have the taped recording of the first time Dave Fanning played Morrissey's debut single, Suedehead. Dave played it at the wrong speed and burst out laughing, and acknowledged that he had probably messed it up for loads of people trying to record it. He wasn't wrong...

tomofson

benjamin d wrote: »

My "internet" was Planet Sound on Channel 4 teletext and a lot of my musical choices were made from that. I was somewhat of a rocker/skater punk type but never fully committed to the fashion or anything outside of the general faux pas (remember early 2000s flaired cord trousers, WTF!)

I definitely agree with the previous posts that identity politics is where young people choose their niche these days. At least back when you identified with a group through music it was fairly harmless nonsense.

Remember the JNCO jeans?

.......

tomofson wrote: »

Remember the JNCO jeans?

We had unbranded versions of those back in the 70s. They were just called flares.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Nerds and jocks seems to be the one constant.

It has always existed in one form or the other.

tomofson

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Nerds and jocks seems to be the one constant.

It has always existed in one form or the other.

The strong bulky and brutish vs the shy intelligent and weak.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Sure no one can even name a subculture that exists today - none do!

There are still punks and hippies and metal heads and skaters. Grime is probably very close to an old fashioned subculture, specific look tied to a specific music. Vegans probably count, that's way more than a diet now. Sneakerheads would be a new, weird one. Like I said within techno there'd be a lot of distinct scenes. Certain "fandoms" would fit the criteria too, though they probably operate mostly online.

Just because you can't tell what music someone listens to by what they're wearing doesn't mean subcultures have stopped existing.

.......

Marie Grumpy Query wrote: »

There are still punks and hippies and metal heads and skaters. Grime is probably very close to an old fashioned subculture, specific look tied to a specific music. Vegans probably count, that's way more than a diet now. Sneakerheads would be a new, weird one. Like I said within techno there'd be a lot of distinct scenes. Certain "fandoms" would fit the criteria too, though they probably operate mostly online.

Just because you can't tell what music someone listens to by what they're wearing doesn't mean subcultures have stopped existing.

I meant specifically the type of subcultures that are visible in what you wear and how you look. How self expression and individuality in how you present yourself to the world seems to be gone compared to the recent past.

I mean there are millions of subcultures out there that have absolutely nothing to do with how you look or what you wear but are about something you like to do or a particular way you choose to live. Thats not what I was talking about though.

tomofson

Is "townies" really a subculture though? Is it more just a slang term for a person living in a certain part of the country?

A townie can technically be a member of all those subcultures mentioned and still be a townie because he/she is from the inner city.
Though I'm sure the vast majority of people from the inner city would have no interest in those subcultures for one reason or another.

Niles Crane

Niles Crane wrote: »

Identity politics has taken over from all that sort of stuff.

Or was Musical subculture Identity politics for the masses?

.......

tomofson wrote: »

Is "townies" really a subculture though? Is it more just a slang term for a person living in a certain part of the country?

A townie can technically be a member of all those subcultures mentioned and still be a townie because he/she is from the inner city.
Though I'm sure the vast majority of people from the inner city would have no interest in those subcultures for one reason or another.

Townies wore shiny tracksuits and had gold sovereign rings, Im not sure what they listened to?

But you didnt have to be from a city (or inner city) to be a townie.

I think Chavs took over from townies.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Niles Crane wrote: »

Identity politics has taken over from all that sort of stuff.

5rtytry56 wrote: »

YES.
Such subcultures are not compatible with the entailing Political Correctness.

Political correctness literally killed music.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

....... wrote: »

Marie Grumpy Query wrote: »

There are still punks and hippies and metal heads and skaters. Grime is probably very close to an old fashioned subculture, specific look tied to a specific music. Vegans probably count, that's way more than a diet now. Sneakerheads would be a new, weird one. Like I said within techno there'd be a lot of distinct scenes. Certain "fandoms" would fit the criteria too, though they probably operate mostly online.

Just because you can't tell what music someone listens to by what they're wearing doesn't mean subcultures have stopped existing.

I meant specifically the type of subcultures that are visible in what you wear and how you look. How self expression and individuality in how you present yourself to the world seems to be gone compared to the recent past.

I mean there are millions of subcultures out there that have absolutely nothing to do with how you look or what you wear but are about something you like to do or a particular way you choose to live. Thats not what I was talking about though.

But that's an atypical definition of what a subculture is that's no longer as relevant in a digital society. Things move quicker, influences are more diverse, and people can find their tribe so to speak without that dictating the style they have to wear.

And even still there's diversity and self expression in what young people wear and look like. The silverhaired longnailed contoured "penneys hun" girl is making a very different statement than the girl with dreads and harem pants and the girl dressed to toe in ll bean and the girl in athleisure and they all exist, in abundance.

Subcultures are differently expressed because culture has undergone the most significant paradigm since the sixties, but they're still there. You may as well say films have stopped existing because nobody's renting videos any more.

.......

Marie Grumpy Query wrote: »

And even still there's diversity and self expression in what young people wear and look like. The silverhaired longnailed contoured "penneys hun" girl is making a very different statement than the girl with dreads and harem pants and the girl dressed to toe in ll bean and the girl in athleisure and they all exist, in abundance.

I havent seen a girl with dreads in many a long year.

penneys hun/ll bean and athleisure all look the same.

tomofson

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Political correctness literally killed music.

And comedy, and movies.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

....... wrote: »

Marie Grumpy Query wrote: »

And even still there's diversity and self expression in what young people wear and look like. The silverhaired longnailed contoured "penneys hun" girl is making a very different statement than the girl with dreads and harem pants and the girl dressed to toe in ll bean and the girl in athleisure and they all exist, in abundance.

I havent seen a girl with dreads in many a long year.

penneys hun/ll bean and athleisure all look the same.

I've seen several today *shrug*

Maybe they look the same to you like, I guarantee you not to each other, not to me.

.......

Marie Grumpy Query wrote: »

I've seen several today *shrug*

Maybe they look the same to you like, I guarantee you not to each other, not to me.

Throw up some pics of what you mean then.

Im not seeing any kind of radically different recognisable style differences in hair/shoes/dress.

Not like rockers used to have long hair/heavy metal t shirts/doc martens while cureheads had robert smith hair/black clothes/creepers and make up.

kunst nugget

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Political correctness literally killed music.

tomofson wrote: »

And comedy, and movies.

That's weird… I keep hearing new music and new comedy and seeing new movies.

ablelocks

i just had a quick conversation with my 12 year old on his way in the door about the same look that he and his friends have....he replied

"it's not my fault everyone wants to look like me"

and then :

"and anyway, if ye don't want us to look the same, why do we have to wear a uniform in school, hah, HAH?"

F.F.S

kunst nugget

Maybe kids are just expressing their individuality online as opposed to being a walking billboard of their tastes like the youth of yonder day.

.......

kunst nugget wrote: »

Maybe kids are just expressing their individuality online as opposed to being a walking billboard of their tastes like the youth of yonder day.

When I see the type of worrying interactions people make online (think the comments section of thejournal.ie for even a bland view of it), thats a disturbing thought.

kunst nugget

....... wrote: »

When I see the type of worrying interactions people make online (think the comments section of thejournal.ie for even a bland view of it), thats a disturbing thought.

Most of the comments on the likes of thejournal.ie are made by sad acts that are old enough to know better. The kids aren't down with that, G.

tomofson

kunst nugget wrote: »

Most of the comments on the likes of thejournal.ie are made by sad acts that are old enough to know better. The kids aren't down with that, G.

I often wonder how much of that is satirical and how much is actually serious, I have wondered the same regarding some comments on boards.ie too.

El_Duderino 09

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm calling BS on that one

Put a bunch of Skinheads in a room with a bunch of Rockers and anyone, even my old Granny, could tell the difference between a shaved head and a head full of long, greasy hair.

Same goes for the Mods with their clean cut appearance and fancy suits. Punks with Mohicans and studded leather jackets most definitely did not look like the ridiculously foppish New Romantics.

True, a lot of old people would just have seen us all as young hooligans, and might not have known the specific name of the "subculture" we adhered to, but they would have had to be blind not to see the difference in dress.

That’s like saying you can’t tell the difference between someone dressed as a hipster and someone dressed as a gym bunny. Obviously anyone cooks foot the difference be between genres.

But would they tell the difference between the skinhead’s styles? Or would they have seen them all as the same?

Would they have been able to tell the difference between rocker styles or would they have seen them as all the same?

LLMMLL

Unless my experience is super unique I think people are overestimating the subcultures of the past. I was a teenager in the 90s and in my year we had one goth, a few stonery types, and the rest mainstream. Everyone dressed similarly apart from the goth girl, one of the stoners and another guy who favoured army type gear. In my view, nothing’s changed.

I quite like the men’s look at the moment. That haircut suits a lot of faces, and the tight jeans and trackies can be very flattering. Not a fan of the no socks look either but it’s a minor sin.

Some of ye seem to genuinely believe that your look or attempt at a look was better than the modern kids attempts. The lack of self awareness is astounding.

.......

LLMMLL wrote: »

I quite like the men’s look at the moment. That haircut suits a lot of faces, and the tight jeans and trackies can be very flattering. Not a fan of the no socks look either but it’s a minor sin.

So whats it called?

What does it mean?

What does dressing that way tell the world?

LLMMLL

....... wrote: »

So whats it called?

What does it mean?

What does dressing that way tell the world?

That they’re smart enough not to think that the way you dress says anything that important about you?

What did dressing as part of some of the music subcultures under discussion tell people? That you liked a certain kind of music?

kunst nugget

LLMMLL wrote: »

Some of ye seem to genuinely believe that your look or attempt at a look was better than the modern kids attempts. The lack of self awareness is astounding.

I had a look at a picture of me as a teenager with long hair. It was horrifying. I looked like Eric Stoltz in Mask

El_Duderino 09

....... wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d presume you just can’t tell the differences between the kids styles. Imagine an old boy when you were young. Do you reckon they knew about the differences between rockers? Or would thy have seen a bunch of rockets all dressed the same?

I’d say the kids could tell each other’s styles apart even if you Oder people can’t.

No I dont buy this.

The differences in the various subcultures that have been named on this thread were quite distinct.

My ma (at my age) knew the difference between rockers and cureheads and townies and goths (bit of crossover with the cureheads and goths alright).

Sure no one can even name a subculture that exists today - none do!

Have you never seen hipsters? Gym bunnies? The lads who wear shorts and wooly hats in winter?
Young men who wear 3 piece suits?

Then you have divisions according to class like tracksuited/pyjama benefits class. That one is obvious to see. You also have hoodie student class, and ripped jeans belly tops got girls.

The styles are there to see. If you think all young people dress the same then you’re not really paying attention. The divisions in style are different from the past.

judeboy101

Tow wrote: »

Go up the Belfast city centre, it is like stepping back to Dublin the 80's

The 1780's

.......

LLMMLL wrote: »

What did dressing as part of some of the music subcultures under discussion tell people? That you liked a certain kind of music?

Good lord - you dont even know what it meant!!

It meant you liked a certain type of music and you werent afraid to be different. It was a cultural expression. You liked the fashion associated with it. It meant that you celebrated individuality and in some ways it was 2 fingers to authority because you could even express it in a limited way even while in school uniform - you werent conforming. You werent a sheep.

Its telling that you cite the numbers as so low in your experience. That 1 goth girl was truly expressing her individuality by being different within a bunch of mainstream people. If everyone else was a goth she would have been something different. The very nature of being in a subculture is that you are a minority.

What you described about young lads applies to all of them. Its not a subculture. It has no name, no cultural statement and its the opposite of individuality - its about conforming.

El_Duderino 09

....... wrote: »

penneys hun/ll bean and athleisure all look the same.

Yeah and sure the mods and the rockets are all the same to anyone whose too far removed to tell them apart. 🙄

.......

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah and sure the mods and the rockets are all the same to anyone whose too far removed to tell them apart. ��

Except that they really didnt.

They were distinctive. Hair/clothes/shoes/make up. All were quite different.

El_Duderino 09

....... wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah and sure the mods and the rockets are all the same to anyone whose too far removed to tell them apart. ��

Except that they really didnt.

They were distinctive. Hair/clothes/shoes/make up. All were quite different.

Are you saying you can’t tell the difference between young people’s styles today? Seriously?

LLMMLL

....... wrote: »

Good lord - you dont even know what it meant!!

It meant you liked a certain type of music and you werent afraid to be different. It was a cultural expression. You liked the fashion associated with it. It meant that you celebrated individuality and in some ways it was 2 fingers to authority because you could even express it in a limited way even while in school uniform - you werent conforming. You werent a sheep.

Its telling that you cite the numbers as so low in your experience. That 1 goth girl was truly expressing her individuality by being different within a bunch of mainstream people. If everyone else was a goth she would have been something different. The very nature of being in a subculture is that you are a minority.

What you described about young lads applies to all of them. Its not a subculture. It has no name, no cultural statement and its the opposite of individuality - its about conforming.

Subcultures are incredibly conformist.

It may be an expression of non mainstreams but it’s certianly not a measure of non conformity.

For example, there is a bear subculture among gay men. It always goes the same way. Guy is into hairier, larger guys, starts hanging out in the subculture, ends up with Celtic cross tattoo, giant beard, check shirt, hanging out in a working class pub instead of s traditional gay bar. Completely conformist.

Zirconia

Talking of the 80's don't forget the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all used to think I was a righteous dude!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHa1zTLrXO8

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I seriously doubt if you took someone who was say, in their fifties in the 1980s, gave them a mixed group of rockers, Cureheads, Goths and punks and asked them to organise by type theyd be all "No problem, they all look really different from each other in ways that are easily discernible and decodable to me".

Pinning your flag to one specific subculture and sticking to it doesn't really say "I'm an individual" to me. It was useful in a different time when the mainstream culture was more monolithic, the internet wasn't real life etc. It's not useful anymore. If there is any central message people want to communicate about themselves it's probably expressed across several social media platforms and not on their t-shirt. That's not better or worse, it's just different.

I'm on my phone right now so I can't do pictures but I had a quick browse through my own social media and at any friends/follows I have in late teens up to mid twenties. Some would have a specific style, like hippie, gym bunny, raver, most would have a bunch of different looks in different contexts and moods. But there's no way they all look the same, they don't even look the same as themselves ffs.

The Crowman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Have you never seen hipsters? Gym bunnies? The lads who wear shorts and wooly hats in winter?
Young men who wear 3 piece suits?

Then you have divisions according to class like tracksuited/pyjama benefits class. That one is obvious to see. You also have hoodie student class, and ripped jeans belly tops got girls.

The styles are there to see. If you think all young people dress the same then you’re not really paying attention. The divisions in style are different from the past.

Is the pyjamas in public thing a deliberate "style"? Are these people (mostly females) aware that they're part of some sort of sub culture?

ablelocks

LLMMLL wrote: »

Some of ye seem to genuinely believe that your look or attempt at a look was better than the modern kids attempts. The lack of self awareness is astounding.

in the interests of honesty and transparency then : (I have posted this before) :

Summer, 1985, just before I started secondary school so I was only just gone 12. We went to visit a friend of my mothers in Howth (might as well have been Monaco to us culchies). Go in there to my son and his friends says she, they're watching live aid (they had taped it. A Video Recorder!).

The other boys were about a year older, dressed in standard mid-80's teen clothes. To me, they were cooler than any kid I had ever seen.

I was dressed in :

Hand knitted, cream Aran Jumper, burgundy school type trousers and black patent shoes. With white socks.

2 hours I was in that room. They couldn't hide their shock. I assume they had heard of culchies, but here was a live one in their sitting room. I don't recall any conversation, just 6 pairs of eyes trying their hardest to keep watching live aid. Every so often I'd catch one of those pairs of eyes looking at me.
More pitied than scorned, but the same result.

I am also prepared to admit that my subsequent attempt at a hybrid beastieboys / waterboys "look" was so uniquely unique that i was a subculture of 1.

Sardine

The Crowman wrote: »

Is the pyjamas in public thing a deliberate "style"? Are these people (mostly females) aware that they're part of some sort of sub culture?

Yeah it's still going on, I see it in North Inner City Dublin all the time. I suppose their ma's would have done the same, walk to the shops without bothering to get changed, and then it just became the norm. To the rest of us it just looks like lazy slobbery.

El_Duderino 09

The Crowman wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Have you never seen hipsters? Gym bunnies? The lads who wear shorts and wooly hats in winter?
Young men who wear 3 piece suits?

Then you have divisions according to class like tracksuited/pyjama benefits class. That one is obvious to see. You also have hoodie student class, and ripped jeans belly tops got girls.

The styles are there to see. If you think all young people dress the same then you’re not really paying attention. The divisions in style are different from the past.

Is the pyjamas in public thing a deliberate "style"? Are these people (mostly females) aware that they're part of some sort of sub culture?

They wouldn't do it if it wasn't part of a subculture. This idea that 'there were subcultures back in my day but the kids these days just all look the same' is ridiculous.

Maybe the ones with shorts and wooly hats in winter, all happen to be out forma run, or maybe it's a subculture which older people wouldn't understand.

To be fair, if older folk did understand it, it wouldn't really be a young people's subculture, would it? It would just be part of the culture for everyone

El_Duderino 09

Sardine wrote: »

The Crowman wrote: »

Is the pyjamas in public thing a deliberate "style"? Are these people (mostly females) aware that they're part of some sort of sub culture?

Yeah it's still going on, I see it in North Inner City Dublin all the time. I suppose their ma's would have done the same, walk to the shops without bothering to get changed, and then it just became the norm. To the rest of us it just looks like lazy slobbery.

I wonder what the old folks said about the styles back in the day? Did they think the punks were cleverly dressed to subvert the culture? Or did they think they were just (insert derogatory remarks here)

rainbowtrout

I teach in a secondary school and have noticed that there is far less individuality as a whole. Granted they are wearing school uniforms most of the time, but if we have a group away for the day and they are not in uniform, there generally isn't anything fashion wise that makes any student stand out as being different.

And short hair for girls as a hairstyle is pretty much non existent these days. Whatever about the differences between goths and rockers within their own groups in the 80s, seeing a teenage girl with short hair is a rare sight these days where I work. Short styles like a bob or a pixie cut just don't exist. That in my book wouldn't be in anyway radical, but I imagine for the girls I teach it would.

The Crowman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I wonder what the old folks said about the styles back in the day? Did they think the punks were cleverly dressed to subvert the culture? Or did they think they were just (insert derogatory remarks here)

We didn't get many punks round my way but my grandmother would always react with complete horror and disbelief if she saw anyone on the telly who looked like that.

pgj2015

id love to see the late late show guests today, especially the punk who looked like beetlejuice, saying he would be a punk for life.

andekwarhola

It's symptomatic of a specific problem of cultural exhaustion and circularity ultimately leading to pastiche. Post-modernists called it Cannibalization. Major narratives are now fragmented. Accelerated access to information has led to a pick-and-mix approach to culture, subculture and the past.

Classic teenage subcultures as we understand them were usually class-specific, regional cults that slowly spread outwards. Subculture has now hyper-accelerated and become self-referential leading to a levelling out of sorts.

It has a corollary with the music that directly inspires subcultures. Not only have most genres like alternative rock become exhausted and circular but music is no longer difficult to obtain. Kids in bands 30 years ago had to painstakingly seek out music and make connections, now you can do a Cliff Notes summary of entire genres on You Tube in 2 hours.

Basically, teenage subcultures are a historical artefact of which you can appropriate elements but it will never be a thing in the way that it was.

The Crowman

A few years on from the LLS clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkiU6NwPm8o

Badly Drunk Boy

pgj2015 wrote: »

id love to see the late late show guests today, especially the punk who looked like beetlejuice, saying he would be a punk for life.

I reckon it'd be a good idea to suggest to The Late Late Show to do an updated version of that, with members of all of the many new subcultures.