What "Generation" are you?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Jul 26, 2002 12:40 pm

Generation X usually refers to people born or grews up in the 1960's and 1970's. In the 60's, there was a fairly famous underground book about violence among mods and rockers in Britain called Generation X. In the 70's, there was a classic punk band called Generation X, with Billy Idol as singer. Generation X however refers to a generation who knows they have bleak future prospects, who are disillusioned and cynic and provokes the older generation a lot.

In other words, the decription fits a lot a people that are born later - I guess those who spend the teens in their 90's have the same general disposition.

I was born 1970, I grew up with punk and new wave and the 80's idealisation of the 40's and the 60's, which meant jazz clubs, "sophistication", being blase and being liberal about everything. When I was about 14, my friends used to call me "Morticia" (the mother in the Adam's family) because of my long black hair and my dressing style (long tight skirts and stiletto heels).

When I was 15-16 I used to wear 60's and 40' style clothes. Then came the late 80's with acid house and hiphop and the club scene changed from hanging in jazz bars to dancing all night.

Musically speaking I've loved modern Russian composers since my mid-teens, but I also liked and grew up with the 70's glamrock and early punk era, cooljazz and some modern jazz like freeform and fusion, and then some very experimental stuff like contemporary classic and Residents.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sat Jul 27, 2002 1:36 am

Originally posted by Obsidian
@ Ode,
The cloud of green haze that surrounds you wouldn't have seemd quite so obvious I suppose....

Aside from the green bit, which I'm not entirely sure about (

), then nope, probably not.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Sat Jul 27, 2002 8:00 pm

HAHA, trust CE to clearly define the question at hand with facts and flare haha.
Do you have to be a cynic to be gen x though?
Rock on Billy Idol!

Logic IsAThreat · Post by **Logic IsAThreat** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 2:00 am

generation x is people who grew up in the early ninetees, certainly not late ninetees, but CE is, as usual, also correct. being only a couple months younger than aegis i fit i the same generation as him, which appears to be y, although, i think that's a pretty lame name for a generation and we ought to change it.

also, we seem to be leaving out generation before the 60's which of course were the baby boomers and the generation before them which recently received it's name through the book "the greatest generation"

oh, and to weasel, i very much disagree with calling the 70's disco. but whatever. it's nice to be back on the board

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 7:34 am

I guess I'm a Gen-Y, being born '87..
(or come to think about it, I'm not even that since I can't remember all of the 90's)

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 8:08 pm

1320's.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 8:17 pm

Originally posted by fable
1320's.

ROFL

So what did you do to annoy the older generation back then? Playing the lute too loud late at night? Did they complain about your reading this new upcoming author Dante?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 8:35 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

ROFL So what did you do to annoy the older generation back then? Playing the lute too loud late at night? Did they complain about your reading this new upcoming author Dante?

I also told them that the majority of the world's population had never heard of Christianity. That went over very well.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 8:36 pm

The Rainbow Generation, Baby!

Hmmm...

I was born during the last gasps of Flower Power ('69)...

My first really clear, cognizant memory was of "Tricky Rick" (Richard Nixon, former US President) resigning ('74)...

I unfortunately recall being tortured by the likes of the Bee Gees, Cool and the Gang, KC and the Sunshine Band, Donna Summer, et al ('76 - '79)...

I clearly recall being a snot-nosed pre-teen and blasting AC/DC's "Back in Black" really loud in order to torque my parents ('80 - '82)... (I stole the cassette from my older sister's collection, hehe, along with a choice few other bands, like Ozzy, and Black Sabbath)

I *ahem* dimly recall the herbal experiments I conducted as an inquisitive teenager during the Age of Bob Marley (all throughout the '80s)...

I enjoyed discovering Metallica when I was living in Germany ('84), and then Slayer a little later ('86)... (my hair was the envy of my sisters, hahaha!)

I recall somewhat sheepishly my odd decision to join the US Army ('89 - '93)...

I wandered around aimlessly like most did during the remainder of the '90's...

And now, in this current epoch, I have slid right into a Paleolithic lifestyle very well.

I would say that I am of the Rainbow Generation!

Vinin · Post by **Vinin** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 8:47 pm

Im a 00 kid, 90's I was too young, and these 00 years will be what makes me up.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Jul 28, 2002 11:54 pm

Re: The Rainbow Generation, Baby!

Originally posted by Chanak
Hmmm...

I was born during the last gasps of Flower Power ('69)...

My first really clear, cognizant memory was of "Tricky Rick" (Richard Nixon, former US President) resigning ('74)...

I unfortunately recall being tortured by the likes of the Bee Gees, Cool and the Gang, KC and the Sunshine Band, Donna Summer, et al ('76 - '79)...

I clearly recall being a snot-nosed pre-teen and blasting AC/DC's "Back in Black" really loud in order to torque my parents ('80 - '82)... (I stole the cassette from my older sister's collection, hehe, along with a choice few other bands, like Ozzy, and Black Sabbath)

I *ahem* dimly recall the herbal experiments I conducted as an inquisitive teenager during the Age of Bob Marley (all throughout the '80s)...

I enjoyed discovering Metallica when I was living in Germany ('84), and then Slayer a little later ('86)... (my hair was the envy of my sisters, hahaha!)

I recall somewhat sheepishly my odd decision to join the US Army ('89 - '93)...

I wandered around aimlessly like most did during the remainder of the '90's...

And now, in this current epoch, I have slid right into a Paleolithic lifestyle very well.

I would say that I am of the Rainbow Generation!

Hey, Chanak's back!

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Jul 29, 2002 12:43 am

Hiya Ode! Like the avatar!

Yep, I'm back.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Jul 29, 2002 3:28 am

The Sly Generation

Originally posted by fable
1320's.

To be fair, Weasel told me you were born in 1300...and he meant for the 00 to cover you as well.

Originally posted by Chanak
I clearly recall being a snot-nosed pre-teen and blasting AC/DC's "Back in Black" really loud in order to torque my parents ('80 - '82)...

What do you do for money honey

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Mon Jul 29, 2002 1:40 pm

I'm no generation...

For some reason, I don't feel like part of a generation.
I can't imagine what gen X is actually.

Somehow I believe I "flow in between". I have learnt morals, ideas etc from my parents's gen and I see big differences between me and frinds form my age. But I also created my own in gen X, here differences are less obvious.

Oh, and about gen '00. Here in Holland, that gen sucks!
Kids have no respect and think the world rotates around them.
So I'd call it "the lost gen..."

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 7:57 am

Re: I'm no generation...

Originally posted by Rob-hin
For some reason, I don't feel like part of a generation.

Just my opinion, but I think your intuition is spot-on. The generation game is largely played today, IMO, by advertising agencies who want to push the nostalgia button or the "join a group" button, getting people to buy stuff they normally wouldn't. Some people genuinely do feel a sense of belonging to a specific group, but I don't think a decade during which tens of millions of people were born forms an effective means of bonding.

Just my POV.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 10:55 am

I think you're on to something Fable.
Remember the "Generation X" commercials from Pepsi? That was pretty sad...

Once the big money interfeers, everything gets less fun.
Just look at soccer clubs in Europe. In the old days people felt "club-love" for a certain team. But now everybody looks at the teams and see the companies they have become. Same thing with the Tour de France. It's way to commercial.

Nothing is real anymore.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 10:59 am

Originally posted by Rob-hin
I think you're on to something Fable.
Remember the "Generation X" commercials from Pepsi? That was pretty sad...

Once the big money interfeers, everything gets less fun.
Just look at soccer clubs in Europe. In the old days people felt "club-love" for a certain team. But now everybody looks at the teams and see the companies they have become. Same thing with the Tour de France. It's way to commercial.

Nothing is real anymore.

True that. However while it could be degrading, thats the only way it can survive. They need money somehow, and the fans cannot support everything they need. They have to look for sponsors. Same can be said for any motor racing-all the sponsors. However I dont think the sponsors have really had a large negative effect on NASCAR, F1, nor CART. That can be debatable.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:05 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus
However I dont think the sponsors have really had a large negative effect on NASCAR, F1, nor CART. That can be debatable.

Indeed it is!

I feel sponsors do have a negative effect on F1. I don't follow the rest but I try to keep up with F1.

Just look at Ferrari. Micheal is champion before the season is half gone. Why should I watch? He ALWAYS wins. So they keep getting the best sponsors thus the most money. This way they keep on top.
They make money on the F1 while other teams loose a lott of money. If every team had the same buget, it would level the teams up and keep things interesting.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:07 am

Originally posted by Rob-hin
Just look at Ferrari. Micheal is champion before the season is half gone. Why should I watch? He ALWAYS wins. So they keep getting the best sponsors thus the most money. This way they keep on top.

I think he should be forced to drive for Arrows.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:11 am

Originally posted by Georgi

I think he should be forced to drive for Arrows.

And then to be kicked out when Walkinshaw (sp?) feels like it. (or earn $$$ with it)
Just like what he did to our Dutch driver Verstappen..

@Walkinshaw

I hope Arrows will be gone ASAP! (or Walkinshaw at least)