Originally posted by thirteenpointhree@Jun 30 2004, 01:53 AM
....it is SO over
I am not a cowboy and it is NOT 1984 anymore people ...
It's amusing that you cite a period of time a mere 20 years ago. Jeans have been around since the 1870's (not 1970's!
and have been popular as casual wear in some circles since just after WWII. In the 4-decade period following the war, they became increasingly popular in widening circles. So, jeans have a long, enduring legacy, of which 20 years is really too little to judge by. In fact, the last 20 years just represent a series of bad miscalculations by jeans makers, after which the original styles will probably re-emerge.
You are correct in pointing to the period from the mid 70s through 80s, because this is the time period in which designers and manufacturers began to destroy the jean, in the name of improving it. The waning popularity today, in my opinion, is the result of the industry's own actions. However, I predict that the original, pre-improvement version of the jean will once again come back.
Jeans originally became popular as casual wear for several reasons:
1) They were cheap.
2) They were not pretentious.
3) They were durable.
4) They were pragmatic, simple, and universal, so you didn't have to waste time thinking what goes with what, and didn't care that everyone else was wearing the same thing.
5) Despite being designed as workwear, they provided a flattering fit on the human body. By flattering, I mean that they showed off the body well, but were not overtly exhibitionist.
The late 1970s saw the disco jean, then the whole designer jean thing began to heat up in the 80's. However, if you consider the original points of merit above, the designer jean industry decided to destroy all of them, and then was astonished that the popularity of their product waned. First, $12 Levis (which is what I actually did pay for US made Levis for years) became replaced by $50+ jeans, which despite the higher price, obviously didn't cost the manufacturer any more to make (and probably cost less, since they came from offshore sweatshops). Thus, jeans became pretentious, with people paying for perceived status, not intrinsic value. Further, since jeans were now a fashion item, rather than made as workwear, durability became a secondary consideration, further eroding value. People even paid to have them pre-worn-out, which I always regarded as absurd. As a result of all the fashion conscious styles, jeans were no longer simple, further negating their original virtues.
But, the biggest area where jeans seem to have lost track is in terms of fit. First designers embarked on a trend where the flattering fit was changed, going from appealing and mildly suggestive to overtly exhibitionist. In those years, we saw all the tight jeans, and the very suggestively cut jeans, the ultra-low rise, etc. Not surprisingly, that trend didn't last long with everyone, as after about a decade some people got tired of looking like sluts and whores, and being uncomfortable to boot. Plus, there was the horrifying spectacle of the aging baby boomers (I'm one myself, although I'm in better shape now than when 25) trying to wear such clothes; no wonder it put the younger generation off!
However, the industry decided it didn't want to go back to promoting the basic, tradition jean, and instead responded with clothes that fit so poorly as to obscure the human form altogether. While some percentage of the population apparently does want to go around looking like they are wearing a potato sack for clothes, in pants that fit like a diaper with a big load in it, neither I, no anyone I know, does.
But, not only does the industry mostly promote two ranges of absurd styles at the expense of the one that works for most people, but they have also screwed with the traditional style as well. For example, Levis will swear that their "original" 501 shrink-to-fit (not the preshrunk!
are made to the same pattern as always. Perhaps, but I now have to bring a tape measure when I shop, because the labels now understate the waist size by 3 inches. So, instead of buying a 36, I now have to buy 501s marked 33, which actually measure 35.5 inches, to get the same fit as before. (Note: this does not apply to the preshrunk.) Last time I bought a pair, I had an argument with the salesperson, who said they would never fit. I showed him the tape measure, and assured him I had been wearing this measurement since before he was born. The receipt got stamped "No return" and we were both happy. (They fit perfectly, just like my old ones, after a nice hot wash.)
Someday, all this lunacy will pass, and we will get the simple, basic, flattering jean again. Cheap, durable, comfortable pants that give even me a bit of a butt, have a crotch that looks like a man, but aren't too tight or too loose.
