Nothing less than 15 years old shall be considered "retro" by law of Obner.

Vote in the poll.
If "no", state your preferred timeframe.

If we're creating a timeframe, it should be at least 20.

I'd say that's about right. When I was in college around 95' it was pretty "retro" to listen to disco music. There would be these disco dance nights downtown that would be PACKED with students dancing to "Ring My Bell" and shit. A year later nobody went to those nights. (For my UGA alums, Funkadelica @ the Theater anyone? DJ Romeo Cologne?)


Then again people are always trying to be that one that starts the trend. Example: there is a big party happening this weekend in Buckhead(Atlanta) at this club and it boasts a "90's cover band"

i agree. 20 sounds about right. i don't consider "nevermind" retro but i don't have much of a problem saying "life's rich pagent" is. (close. might need to go 25.)

It's smack dab between 15 and 20.

I used to agree with the 20-year rule, but things seem to change a lot faster these days.
Think about it. 15 years ago, how many of you had the Internet, at all? And what did you have if you did; Prodigy chat rooms?

Popular music has gone through several mutations since then, too.
Shit moves fast. Hence the 15-year.

Virtually no one had a personal computer, answering machine or vcr in their homes in 1975, but that does not make it retro when looked at from the vantage point of 1985...

Think about it, disco was just about to begin in 1975 and by 1985 we had already gone through new wave, punk and post punk.

I think that more people just have access to the means of music production these days, so the possibilities for stylistic permutations have become literally limitless.

I don't care. Let me know when you guys figure this thing out.

Strokes and White Stripes are retro. So are the Rapture. Arcade Fire will be retro next year.

ha ha

This is important, man. We have to stop paladisiac from having "2002 retro week". The fate of the world is at hand.

i'd just like to clarify that disco as the tripe people now think about was just about to begin, but the first wave had already been in gear for awhile by then.

To me, "retro" implies trendy chic. I'm probably out of the loop, but I don't see grunge or Native Tongue hip-hop gaining a resurgence any time soon.

Post-punk retro peaked around '02-03... twenty-plus years later than the original.

Yeah, well technically speaking punk began around 1969 or so too.

I'm with the 20yr mark, it is a straightforward rule and easily applied. Wasn't that the first time they had another Woodstock show?

The answer to this thread is, if you describe anything as retro, kill yourself.

i plan on having retro weeks through 2006. existence will implode.

Hmmmm...15 years sounds right. But so does 10 years. I mean, Alanis' Jagged Little Pill, No Doubt's Tragic Kingdom, Garbage's self titled, etc. all seem pretty retro at this point. And those are all 1995 releases that were big all the way through mid-1997.

Woodstock '94, a/k/a Green Day's coming-out party, was twenty-five years after the original.

Woodstock '99, a/k/a Fred Durst's Open-air Rape-van, was five years after that.

Woodstock '09, a/k/a Guns n' Roses's reunion (w/ Steven on drums?), will occur in less than three.

Took longer for this post than I expected.
I thought for sure it would be the 2nd or 3rd post, MAX.

If everyone agrees that nothing less than 15 years old should be retro, why do the vast majority of the answers to the poll say "no?"

read the pizoll. It said "15 years minimum". 20 years = more than 15.

I should have known with the subtraction, but I wasn't quite thinking straight at that moment. If there is another Woodstock it can't be any sooner than 2019, the 50yr mark.

I had a busy morning. Couldn't get around to posting as soon as I would have liked.

If I hated it before you, it's retro.

rolling stones != retro