Roflcakes: @Lapp: You're actually right... I'm a bit iffy on having a "retro revival" of something that was only around like... 30 years ago, but if it means we get more synth heavy music with minimal electronic drums then I'll just shut up and let it happen.
Lapp: @Roflcakes: Well, I think it's more of coincidence than the cycle of retro.
The 70s and 80s happen to have a lot of style worth bringing back, and this just exemplifies why hoop earrings are the coolest shit.
Roflcakes: @Lapp: I feel the same way about the styles of the 20s and 40s, but we ain't never gonna see that shit come back. I guess it's easier to "revive" a decade when you can just raid your parents old clothes bin and declare it "retro".
Honestly, as far as fashion goes, "retro" doesn't really work for clothes actually from the target time period. Rather, it's an adaptation of styles from that era.
20s and 40s had good styles, but are so long past, that pretty much everyone that tries it looks like an uncannily styleless dumb. Again, "retro" isn't necessarily a cycle. It's a new thing that almost exclusively applies to the 70s and 80s, with exceptions, of course.
Roflcakes: @Lapp: What about all the hipsters and neo-hippies that flock to thrift stores to buy old clothing and jewelery because it's considered "retro"?
Are you telling me you think something like this is styleless? It fits your definition of retro, no? An adaptation of styles from the era.
Lapp: @Roflcakes: Not styleless, but a citizen of uncanny valley unless in the right context. I didn't call the clothes styleless, but the implication that someone would wear that to any but the most specific of occasions. Like a costume party.
Really: clothes from those time periods look good. Very good. But it's like someone wearing a fedora to the grocer's; I love noir, but it captures much too much attention. 70s and 80s, by basic proxy of time period, can still blend rather well if someone understands fashion. The goal isn't to parade in costume-ish fashion in public, y'know?
I'd be on-board as fuck if style returned to that, but as it stands, you'll look more a gigolo or attention-starved cocaine babby than someone with style. Even with super stylish clothes, like those.
Lapp: @Roflcakes: Eh, I've always seen it like comedy.
If you take fashion too seriously, you cease to be pertinent to fashion. Like a comedian that accepts a comedy award must take comedy seriously, and therefore must not understand comedy (from South Park); someone that must go out of their way to be fashionable/trend-setting is neither fashionable or trend-setting, only an attention-slut. So you're doing it right.
...though, myself, I guess I somewhat fit into that demographic, because I've always been finicky when it comes to what I wear, so long as it's demure enough to not catch any attention. I couldn't care less what others wear, given I'm not a shallow piece of shit (at least not to that extent), but I've always been that way. Spend way too much on clothes, even though I don't have many clothes compared to most people.
- Reply
- Reply
The 70s and 80s happen to have a lot of style worth bringing back, and this just exemplifies why hoop earrings are the coolest shit.
- Reply
Honestly, as far as fashion goes, "retro" doesn't really work for clothes actually from the target time period. Rather, it's an adaptation of styles from that era.
20s and 40s had good styles, but are so long past, that pretty much everyone that tries it looks like an uncannily styleless dumb. Again, "retro" isn't necessarily a cycle. It's a new thing that almost exclusively applies to the 70s and 80s, with exceptions, of course.
- Reply
Are you telling me you think something like this is styleless? It fits your definition of retro, no? An adaptation of styles from the era.
Really: clothes from those time periods look good. Very good. But it's like someone wearing a fedora to the grocer's; I love noir, but it captures much too much attention. 70s and 80s, by basic proxy of time period, can still blend rather well if someone understands fashion. The goal isn't to parade in costume-ish fashion in public, y'know?
I'd be on-board as fuck if style returned to that, but as it stands, you'll look more a gigolo or attention-starved cocaine babby than someone with style. Even with super stylish clothes, like those.
- Reply
Myself, I'm just a Jeans n' t-shirt guy, so it's probably safe to say I know nothing about serious fashion.
If you take fashion too seriously, you cease to be pertinent to fashion. Like a comedian that accepts a comedy award must take comedy seriously, and therefore must not understand comedy (from South Park); someone that must go out of their way to be fashionable/trend-setting is neither fashionable or trend-setting, only an attention-slut. So you're doing it right.
...though, myself, I guess I somewhat fit into that demographic, because I've always been finicky when it comes to what I wear, so long as it's demure enough to not catch any attention. I couldn't care less what others wear, given I'm not a shallow piece of shit (at least not to that extent), but I've always been that way. Spend way too much on clothes, even though I don't have many clothes compared to most people.
- Reply