The Twilight craze and Katy Perry topping the charts proves

[midnightpulp]

that mainstream consumers are dumber than ever before.

Seriously, what has happened to good taste and intellectual curiosity? There was a time when a band like the Beatles could sell millions of records and a film like The Godfather could gross over a 100 million at the box office. In today's entertainment landscape the former would be a struggling indie band and the latter probably wouldn't even be greenlit for production. What we have today is Paris Hilton's relevancy and Lady Gaga comparing herself to David Bowie.

Now, I'm all for tuning out and escaping into the latest blockbuster or shitty reality show, but I treat those guilty pleasures like a Double Down from KFC: something that should only be enjoyed in moderation. But moderation is word that today's 18-35 demographic has no understanding of. They crave constant escape and "entertainment" like the clinically obese crave saturated fats, the word "bored" scaring them in a similar fashion as the word "exercise" scares a 400 pounder.

This devolution is evident everywhere. From Kickass being ranked higher on IMDB's top 250 than Ikiru, The Hustler, and Wages of Fear, to Autotune, ringtone rap, and Ke$ha having a career, to Nigahiga having 2 million subscribers on Youtube.

Call me an elitist, I don't care, but I can't think of any other decade since television was invented that the movie going, tv watching, and music buying public has been so apathetic, merely content to consume whatever Madison Avenue tells them to. To be unaware of the "alternative" is inexcusable in today's world. With the Internet, you can expose yourself to anything with the touch of the button. I remember having to shell out 40.00 for artsy-fartsy foreign movies. Now you can stream such movies instantly with Netflix.

What does it tell you when people have become more myopic and resistant to exploration when the access to information has expanded, literally, a million-fold in the last 15 years?

Tells me what I opened this rant with: "Mainsteam consumers are dumber than ever before."

Now my question to all of you is: Why?

[JoeChalupa]

that mainstream consumers are dumber than ever before.

Seriously, what has happened to good taste and intellectual curiosity? There was a time when a band like the Beatles could sell millions of records and a film like The Godfather could gross over a 100 million at the box office. In today's entertainment landscape the former would be a struggling indie band and the latter probably wouldn't even be greenlit for production. What we have today is Paris Hilton's relevancy and Lady Gaga comparing herself to David Bowie.

Now, I'm all for tuning out and escaping into the latest blockbuster or shitty reality show, but I treat those guilty pleasures like a Double Down from KFC: something that should only be enjoyed in moderation. But moderation is word that today's 18-35 demographic has no understanding of. They crave constant escape and "entertainment" like the clinically obese crave saturated fats, the word "bored" scaring them in a similar fashion as the word "exercise" scares a 400 pounder.

This devolution is evident everywhere. From Kickass being ranked higher on IMDB's top 250 than Ikiru, The Hustler, and Wages of Fear to Autotune, ringtone rap, and Ke$ha having a career, to Nigahiga having 2 million subscribers on Youtube.

Call me an elitist, I don't care, but I can't think of any other decade since television was invented that the movie going, tv watching, and music buying public has been so apathetic, merely content to consume whatever Madison Avenue tells them to. To be unaware of the "alternative" is inexcusable in today's world. With the Internet, you can expose yourself to anything with the touch of the button. I remember having to shell out 40.00 for artsy-fartsy foreign movies. Now you can stream such movies instantly with Netflix.

What does it tell you when people have become more myopic and resistant to exploration when the access to information has expanded, literally, a million-fold in the last 15 years?

Tells me what I opened this rant with: "Mainsteam consumers are dumber than ever before."

Now my question to all of you is: Why?

You and Trainwreck should form a support group. What I love about living in the great USA and having a mind of my own is that I am damn well free to enjoy what I enjoy, read what I want to read, watch what I want to watch, eat what I want to eat, see what I want to see and I don't have to give a damn what anyone else thinks and likes. For I am myself and don't have to be or like what someone thinks I should like. It is called personal FREEDOM. I am free to explore science, nature, literature, art, theatre, love, hate and to any depths I feel like it.
I watch TMC all the time, the discovery channel, history channel, natgeo to learn and expand my mind but I can also enjoy lame pathetic movies such as Avatar, who many flocked to see and it nothing more than just a movie with a plot that was as clear from the beginning to end. A glorified, computer animated story of Native people wanting to protect their land. Simpe and had been done many times before yet so many raved and went to see it in masses... but I didn't..why? Because I didn't buy into the mass media hype like so many others did. What does that say about all those that did? Am I an elitist?
Oh well, back to a game of backgammon.

[midnightpulp]

You and Trainwreck should form a support group. What I love about living in the great USA and having a mind of my own is that I am damn well free to enjoy what I enjoy, read what I want to read, watch what I want to watch, eat what I want to eat, see what I want to see and I don't have to give a damn what anyone else thinks and likes. For I am myself and don't have to be or like what someone thinks I should like. It is called personal FREEDOM. I am free to explore science, nature, literature, art, theatre, love, hate and to any depths I feel like it.
I watch TMC all the time, the discovery channel, history channel, natgeo to learn and expand my mind but I can also enjoy lame pathetic movies such as Avatar, who many flocked to see and it nothing more than just a movie with a plot that was as clear from the beginning to end. A glorified, computer animated story of Native people wanting to protect their land. Simpe and had been done many times before yet so many raved and went to see it in masses... but I didn't..why? Because I didn't buy into the mass media hype like so many others did. What does that say about all those that did? Am I an elitist?
Oh well, back to a game of backgammon.

Can't really tell if you're chastising me or agreeing with me.

My point is that today's primary consumer public only "enjoy lame pathetic movies and music." There's no yin of TCM, History Channel, good literature and music, to the shitty yang of Twilight, Jersey Shore, and Katy Perry.

Nothing wrong with "low-brow" fare. Snake Eater with Lorenzo Llamas has a comfortable place in my movie collection, and I'm about to watch TNA wrestling here in a bit. Just seems all people want out of their entertainment these days is unchallenging garbage that takes not one brain cell to comprehend.

[koriwhat]

and there's actually fans of that shitty movie the hangover and paranormal activity out there... surprise surprise!

[monosylab1k]

and there's actually fans of that shitty movie the hangover and paranormal activity out there... surprise surprise!

everyone's a fuckin' comedian these days... i mean carlos mencia and dane cook can get jobs in LA posing as comedians so why not everyone else especially here on ST? go get 'em!

[monosylab1k]

tbh dane cook probably has calf tats. never seen his legs but he's such a douchebag that he's gotta have them.

[JoeChalupa]

Can't really tell if you're chastising me or agreeing with me.

My point is that today's primary consumer public only "enjoy lame pathetic movies and music." There's no yin of TCM, History Channel, good literature and music, to the shitty yang of Twilight, Jersey Shore, and Katy Perry.

Nothing wrong with "low-brow" fare. Snake Eater with Lorenzo Llamas has a comfortable place in my movie collection, and I'm about to watch TNA wrestling here in a bit. Just seems all people want out of their entertainment these days is unchallenging garbage that takes not one brain cell to comprehend.

Just venting. I'm with you on the Jersey Shore and Katy Perry craze.
In the words of Billy Joel, "I don't need no clever conversation...I never want to work that hard...mmmm..mmmmm..mmmmmm". I watch that Tom Cruise movie, and yeah everybody loves to bash his so called "gay" ass, Valkrie (sp) a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty damn good yet many hated it. I can understand some people's frustration and yeah I know much of today's youth doesn't read but "watches" the world around them. I loved it when my daughter came up to me and told me "To Kill A Mockingbird" is now one of her favorite books and then I gave her my totally worn out paperbook copy of "The Pearl" to read and she loved it.
I just go with what I like and pretty much forget the rest.

[redzero]

Kick-Ass was awesome.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

If the question is why the answer is:

Money.

[midnightpulp]

Kick-Ass was awesome.

I never said it wasn't, but that movie is not in the same universe as Ikiru or Wages of Fear.

That movie even having a place on the IMDB 250 demonstrates how fuckin stupid mainstream movie goers are. Not to mention Shawshank Redemption being the "greatest film of all time" according to them.

[CuckingFunt]

Crap has always been popular. Always. It's just recently become harder to escape.

[ALWAYS bet on BLACK]

So the OP is just a fag, right?

doesnt like tv and doesnt like fat people.

in other news mel gibson doesnt like black men and apparently thinks his ex girl is subject to be fucked by black guys.

also, kesha is sexy as fuck.
katie perry is responsible for encouraging females to be bisexual
and the 610 in Houston is still not completely fixed.

[midnightpulp]

Crap has always been popular. Always. It's just recently become harder to escape.

True. But today's crap is far worse than yesterday's crap. Like I said in my op, there was once a time when the Godfather was the highest grossing film of all time. Today, that film would be lucky to gross 20 million.

And this is not nostalgia or some kind of latent generational bias speaking. A blockbuster from the 80s like Top Gun has the figurative pace of a Ingmar Bergman film when you compare it to one of today's blockbusters. Filmmakers seem to hit the panic button and cut away if a scene should last more than 10 seconds.

As for music, just compare the charts from 25 years ago to today. Like a Virgin was the big album of 1985 (you also had Prince, Tears for Fears, Dire Straits, etc on the list) and granted, you can draw a parallel between Madonna and Katy Perry, but if you were to listen to the two records back to back, you'd get out your eraser in a hurry and try to forget you ever made the comparison.

Yesterday was also a world without The Hills, Paris Hilton, and Youtube vloggers who have become celebrities in their own right.

[thispego]

I never said it wasn't, but that movie is not in the same universe as Ikiru or Wages of Fear.

That movie even having a place on the IMDB 250 demonstrates how fuckin stupid mainstream movie goers are. Not to mention Shawshank Redemption being the "greatest film of all time" according to them.

Isn't it?

[midnightpulp]

Isn't it?

No.

[thispego]

Rofl. But how could you argue that it's not? I mean, it's pretty fuckin good.

[midnightpulp]

Rofl. But how could you argue that it's not? I mean, it's pretty fuckin good.

Personally, I find it too sentimental and melodramatic.

Good film, at times great, but not one of the 10 or 20 greatest films ever made. And no respected critic would place it that high.

I'm by no means saying it's Manos the Hands of Fate, I just don't think it deserves to be ranked ahead of Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Rashomon, La Dolce Vita, etc, etc...

[CubanSucks]

Didn't know 10-15 yr old girls were supposed to be intellectual and sophisticated. But agree, movies and music today are...



http://vgchan.org/poke/93/DERP.png

[xellos88330]

The truly talented are basically getting good roles taken away by no names who have no skill, only a cheaper contract.

The more people that want entertainment, the more "entertainers" there will be. It is all about quantity right now since entertainment is so easily accessible. It used to be that if you wanted to be famous, you better be damn good because people will have to get up and leave their house to buy your movies/music etc. If you aren't you will definitely know it and will most likely never work in the industry again. Now all people have to do is click the mouse and the entertainers and their companies or whatever make their money even if they do not like the result. They already got you with advertising and having to buy machines, portable devices, and programs to even preview it. It is going to be like this for a long long long time.

[JoeChalupa]

Crap has always been popular. Always. It's just recently become harder to escape.

Hard to escape? I just don't listen or watch or read what I consider crap and it isn't that hard at all. If you don't like what Hollywood is putting out these days just don't go to the movies. You are free to pick and choose. Granted some of you all are much more critical and into movies and look at plots, character development, lighting, etc. where as many don't take it so deeply. Does that mean crap is more successful these days? Sure sounds like that to me.

Oh, I put Shawshank Redemption as one of my top movies but I like crap so that probably doesn't mean much.

[JoeChalupa]

And I don't condsider those, me included, who enjoy or don't mind watching a movie that is not critically acclaimed are stupid. I've been told to watch Hangover by many but I have no desire to watch that crap at all yet so many so called movie critics say it is great.

[JoeChalupa]

The truly talented are basically getting good roles taken away by no names who have no skill, only a cheaper contract.

The more people that want entertainment, the more "entertainers" there will be. It is all about quantity right now since entertainment is so easily accessible. It used to be that if you wanted to be famous, you better be damn good because people will have to get up and leave their house to buy your movies/music etc. If you aren't you will definitely know it and will most likely never work in the industry again. Now all people have to do is click the mouse and the entertainers and their companies or whatever make their money even if they do not like the result. They already got you with advertising and having to buy machines, portable devices, and programs to even preview it. It is going to be like this for a long long long time.

Isn't it the movie makers decision on who get the roles? If they want to lessen their movie by selecting lesser talent then the blame is on the maker and not the viewer. No?

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Meh. Not any worse than last decade when Titanic was obliterating everything in its path and the Backstreet Boys were selling out arenas. Hell, in 1990 Home Alone was the #1 earner at the Box Office and Vanilla Ice and the New Kids on the Block had hit songs. If I was willing to spend more time digging around Wikipedia I'm sure I could find equally egregious crimes against the arts in the 80's.

I'm with CF. The difference is that it's tougher to escape exposure to the crap and its surrounding hype these days and if you don't like it then it's also easier to find a laundry list of blogs, boards, etc. devoted to griping about how it's worse than ever as well. For as long as there has been crap there have been people saying it's the worst crap ever.

[JoeChalupa]

I liked Titanic and I find escape pretty easily.

[Stringer_Bell]

All Katy Perry proves is that people like listening to the same songs with different titles.
All Twilight proves is that women have a pedophile fantasy (Edward is MUCH older than Bella).

Do I think it's always been this way? No, but it's been getting to this point for a decade or two.

[ashbeeigh]

CF hit the nail on the head. I'm sure 5/10/15/20/25+ years ago there was someone else ambling around spouting the same bullshit that midnightpulp is today.


We cannot even imagine what type of stuff there is going to be in 5 years to compare to the shit that is out there today. You just have to grin and bear it or might I even suggest enjoy it for a split second. I eagerly admit that yes, I have seen Twilight and New Moon but have yet to see Eclipse but will soon. And I sing along karaoke style to Katy Perry songs. I "like" things on facebook at an excess rate to increase my chances of winning things. I have a twitter account....I blog every once in a while.

But, in 5 years will this be the "cool" thing to do? Maybe, maybe not.

Am I going to hide my excess love for an occasional Justin Beiber song? Naw. Because it's funny that I kind of like that damn "Baby, Baby, Baby" song. It's called "popular" culture for a reason. Because it's "popular. "

No one is forcing you to like it, and go right ahead and bitch about it, but I'll continue to roll my eyes at you because the second you proclaim something as awesome is the second it also becomes popular. Remember when Blink 182, koRn and Limp Bizkit weren't pop in the late 90s? Then tons of people decided they were cool and they were "pop." It's just a cycle. And we live in in.

[fraga]

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/DieByTheSignOfTheKey/katyadjusting5.gif

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/todpicsgus/Babes/katyperryrides.gif

You wanna know how I know you're gay...you don't like Katy Perry...

[JoeChalupa]

Of course all this crap is more accessible now it is called progress and the internet and tv have made it more accessible than before. I agree though that crap and popular bs has always been around but if you don't watch much tv, movies or internet you can isolate yourself from all of it. It really isn't that hard. I still don't see what all the hype about Avatar was for either. I couldn't escape all the hype.

[JoeChalupa]

movie insults are timeless though
PSEYXWmEse8&

[Leetonidas]

CF hit the nail on the head. I'm sure 5/10/15/20/25+ years ago there was someone else ambling around spouting the same bullshit that midnightpulp is today.


We cannot even imagine what type of stuff there is going to be in 5 years to compare to the shit that is out there today. You just have to grin and bear it or might I even suggest enjoy it for a split second. I eagerly admit that yes, I have seen Twilight and New Moon but have yet to see Eclipse but will soon. And I sing along karaoke style to Katy Perry songs. I "like" things on facebook at an excess rate to increase my chances of winning things. I have a twitter account....I blog every once in a while.

But, in 5 years will this be the "cool" thing to do? Maybe, maybe not.

Am I going to hide my excess love for an occasional Justin Beiber song? Naw. Because it's funny that I kind of like that damn "Baby, Baby, Baby" song. It's called "popular" culture for a reason. Because it's "popular. "

No one is forcing you to like it, and go right ahead and bitch about it, but I'll continue to roll my eyes at you because the second you proclaim something as awesome is the second it also becomes popular. Remember when Blink 182, koRn and Limp Bizkit weren't pop in the late 90s? Then tons of people decided they were cool and they were "pop." It's just a cycle. And we live in in.

Blink 182 was always pop except in the very beginning before Travis Barker, Korn was never considered pop, and neither was Limp Bizkit (pretty sure to anyone with a brain that was considered hot garbage).

Just sayin'.

[to21]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/todpicsgus/Babes/katyperryrides.gif

Just found my new sig......:toast

[ashbeeigh]

Blink 182 was always pop except in the very beginning before Travis Barker, Korn was never considered pop, and neither was Limp Bizkit (pretty sure to anyone with a brain that was considered hot garbage).

Just sayin'.

Were they not on TRL back in the day? Anything that was on TRL is pop in my eyes.

[midnightpulp]

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/DieByTheSignOfTheKey/katyadjusting5.gif

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/todpicsgus/Babes/katyperryrides.gif

You wanna know how I know you're gay...you don't like Katy Perry...

I do find Katy Perry hot.

But her looks have nothing to do with the irrefutable fact that she's a talentless hack.

[Pick of Destiny]

give it up chalupa :lmao

[mrsmaalox]

I just don't get why people get so torqued about this stuff. I live in the same country and I have absolutely no problem escaping it. Mostly I just ignore it.

Except for movies on IFC and Turner Classic Movies, and basketball, my televsion is on about an hour per day. I don't watch any reality tv, competitions, or "dramas". Sure if I hear something by word of mouth that interests me I'll check it out usually online. Read all my news online too. I don't listen to hype about movies and wait for their release. I just catch them after the fact if they seem interesting to me.

And as far as music goes, the only way I know what is popular right now is from what you guys write here. I honestly can't say I'm aware of any of the music by any artists that have been mentioned here so far. I listen to a little radio with my kids, but mostly it's just on for NPR. I have Sirius, and I know what I like so that's what I listen to. I find new music thru World Cafe and I download only from a site that features independent music labels. I just find what sounds good to me.

I read and listen to a lot of book reviews and then decide what sounds interesting. I go to bookstores and explore the shelves, not head straight for the bestsellers rack. There's tons of books out there that are interesting to me.

What the masses buy/consume makes no difference to me. I don't care if everyone doesn't "think outside the box". As long as I "think outside the box", the money driven, commercial hype has no effect on me, at all.

[Skywalker]

that mainstream consumers are dumber than ever before.

Seriously, what has happened to good taste and intellectual curiosity? There was a time when a band like the Beatles could sell millions of records and a film like The Godfather could gross over a 100 million at the box office. In today's entertainment landscape the former would be a struggling indie band and the latter probably wouldn't even be greenlit for production. What we have today is Paris Hilton's relevancy and Lady Gaga comparing herself to David Bowie.

Now, I'm all for tuning out and escaping into the latest blockbuster or shitty reality show, but I treat those guilty pleasures like a Double Down from KFC: something that should only be enjoyed in moderation. But moderation is word that today's 18-35 demographic has no understanding of. They crave constant escape and "entertainment" like the clinically obese crave saturated fats, the word "bored" scaring them in a similar fashion as the word "exercise" scares a 400 pounder.

This devolution is evident everywhere. From Kickass being ranked higher on IMDB's top 250 than Ikiru, The Hustler, and Wages of Fear, to Autotune, ringtone rap, and Ke$ha having a career, to Nigahiga having 2 million subscribers on Youtube.

Call me an elitist, I don't care, but I can't think of any other decade since television was invented that the movie going, tv watching, and music buying public has been so apathetic, merely content to consume whatever Madison Avenue tells them to. To be unaware of the "alternative" is inexcusable in today's world. With the Internet, you can expose yourself to anything with the touch of the button. I remember having to shell out 40.00 for artsy-fartsy foreign movies. Now you can stream such movies instantly with Netflix.

What does it tell you when people have become more myopic and resistant to exploration when the access to information has expanded, literally, a million-fold in the last 15 years?

Tells me what I opened this rant with: "Mainsteam consumers are dumber than ever before."

Now my question to all of you is: Why?


Can't really tell if you're chastising me or agreeing with me.

My point is that today's primary consumer public only "enjoy lame pathetic movies and music." There's no yin of TCM, History Channel, good literature and music, to the shitty yang of Twilight, Jersey Shore, and Katy Perry.

Nothing wrong with "low-brow" fare. Snake Eater with Lorenzo Llamas has a comfortable place in my movie collection, and I'm about to watch TNA wrestling here in a bit. Just seems all people want out of their entertainment these days is unchallenging garbage that takes not one brain cell to comprehend.


I see many of your points, and agree that the self control is getting worse and not better as the generations pass, but you are either part of the solution or part of the problem. If you yourself indulge in these 'guilty pleasures' as you so accurately called them, then you are not part of the solution.

Yes, moderation is the key for unhealthy things that we take pleasure in from time to time.

But the fact that you admit in your second post that you see 'Nothing wrong with "low-brow" fare.' is the foundation of the larger problem altogether.

We know each generation is going to push the limits farther and farther as we grow more and more out of self-control.

The nature of the beast, so to speak.

However, if we don't recognize what is destructive to us in the long haul, and imbibe in these spoon fed bad behaviors, irregardless of moderation, then again, we are at a root cause for some major societal problems. Do not expect for others to show self-control and restraint when we don't do it ourselves.

Zero tolerance for destructive 'pleasures' should be the rule.

I enjoyed kick-ass the first couple of times I saw it. But I changed. I wanted my friend to see it recently, so I put it on, and it was just different. I no longer receive any pleasure for 'cool killing action sequences'. What is so cool about it? A child murdering in the name of justice? It's sick. I won't watch that movie again.

Good topic though. Good luck to you.

[midnightpulp]

CF hit the nail on the head. I'm sure 5/10/15/20/25+ years ago there was someone else ambling around spouting the same bullshit that midnightpulp is today.


We cannot even imagine what type of stuff there is going to be in 5 years to compare to the shit that is out there today. You just have to grin and bear it or might I even suggest enjoy it for a split second. I eagerly admit that yes, I have seen Twilight and New Moon but have yet to see Eclipse but will soon. And I sing along karaoke style to Katy Perry songs. I "like" things on facebook at an excess rate to increase my chances of winning things. I have a twitter account....I blog every once in a while.

But, in 5 years will this be the "cool" thing to do? Maybe, maybe not.

Am I going to hide my excess love for an occasional Justin Beiber song? Naw. Because it's funny that I kind of like that damn "Baby, Baby, Baby" song. It's called "popular" culture for a reason. Because it's "popular. "

No one is forcing you to like it, and go right ahead and bitch about it, but I'll continue to roll my eyes at you because the second you proclaim something as awesome is the second it also becomes popular. Remember when Blink 182, koRn and Limp Bizkit weren't pop in the late 90s? Then tons of people decided they were cool and they were "pop." It's just a cycle. And we live in in.

Of course there was. I was spouting off "bullshit" 10 years ago about how terrible Limp Bizkit and the whole rap-metal movement was.


Liking "crap" is not unique to today's consumers. Mainstream consumers have always liked content that is easily accessible. My contention is that said consumers are lazier and more intellectually apathetic than ever before and the crap they consume is worse than ever before.

Agree or disagree?

[Höfner]

Blaming pop culture for being popular proves you're not as insightful as you think. For example, why use the Beatles as a way to prove your point? That's a timeless band, and there's timeless groups like them in every era. There were shitty bands back then, too, that did well on the charts.

[midnightpulp]

Blaming pop culture for being popular proves you're not as insightful as you think. For example, why use the Beatles as a way to prove your point? That's a timeless band, and there's timeless groups like them in every era. There were shitty bands back then, too, that did well on the charts.

I don't think I necessarily blamed pop-culture.

Why not use the Beatles to prove my point? They were the dominant trend of their time. Now compare them to the dominant trends of today and you'll grasp my point.

[ashbeeigh]

My contention is that said consumers are lazier and more intellectually apathetic than ever before and the crap they consume is worse than ever before.

Agree or disagree?


No, disagree. I just think you're noticing today's crap because it's today not yesterday or tomorrow's crap.

[JoeChalupa]

Of course there was. I was spouting off "bullshit" 10 years ago about how terrible Limp Bizkit and the whole rap-metal movement was.


Liking "crap" is not unique to today's consumers. Mainstream consumers have always liked content that is easily accessible. My contention is that said consumers are lazier and more intellectually apathetic than ever before and the crap they consume is worse than ever before.

Agree or disagree?

It makes it sound that just because I enjoy crap I am lazy or less intellectual because of it and I disagree. I guarantee you that there are people of high IQ's and education who enjoy crap to just get away and enjoy it and not have to think so much about it. I don't just watch crap all the time. And to think that one is more intellectual and not lazy just because they find themselves above all the so called crap is just a bunch of crap to me.

[midnightpulp]

It makes it sound that just because I enjoy crap I am lazy or less intellectual because of it and I disagree. I guarantee you that there are people of high IQ's and education who enjoy crap to just get away and enjoy it and not have to think so much about it. I don't just watch crap all the time. And to think that one is more intellectual and not lazy just because they find themselves above all the so called crap is just a bunch of crap to me.

We've already had this discussion. I have no issues with the enjoyment of "crap." Like I said, I'm a big wrestling fan and some of the movies I like would make Twilight look like the greatest film of all time by comparison.

My issue is with the people who "watch crap all the time" and have no interest in expanding their horizons, which seems to be the mentality that most of today's consumers have.

[Skywalker]

It makes it sound that just because I enjoy crap I am lazy or less intellectual because of it and I disagree. I guarantee you that there are people of high IQ's and education who enjoy crap to just get away and enjoy it and not have to think so much about it. I don't just watch crap all the time. And to think that one is more intellectual and not lazy just because they find themselves above all the so called crap is just a bunch of crap to me.

This is no jab at yourself JoeChalupa, but more a general statement of our state of affairs.

There is absolutely nothing intellectual about 'enjoying crap'.

It can be watched, studied, evaluated for it's good and bad points.

But 'crap' is 'crap' at the end of the day.

To derive pleasure from 'crap' means something is wrong with our perspectives.

Laziness is another topic, however I can see how it relates. If we accept the 'crap' that is served to us on television and do not seek out value added television, entertainment, what have you, then that could be attributed to laziness, but more likely apathy is the more accurate description of the problem.

[MiamiHeat]

that mainstream consumers are dumber than ever before.

Seriously, what has happened to good taste and intellectual curiosity? There was a time when a band like the Beatles could sell millions of records and a film like The Godfather could gross over a 100 million at the box office. In today's entertainment landscape the former would be a struggling indie band and the latter probably wouldn't even be greenlit for production. What we have today is Paris Hilton's relevancy and Lady Gaga comparing herself to David Bowie.

Now, I'm all for tuning out and escaping into the latest blockbuster or shitty reality show, but I treat those guilty pleasures like a Double Down from KFC: something that should only be enjoyed in moderation. But moderation is word that today's 18-35 demographic has no understanding of. They crave constant escape and "entertainment" like the clinically obese crave saturated fats, the word "bored" scaring them in a similar fashion as the word "exercise" scares a 400 pounder.

This devolution is evident everywhere. From Kickass being ranked higher on IMDB's top 250 than Ikiru, The Hustler, and Wages of Fear, to Autotune, ringtone rap, and Ke$ha having a career, to Nigahiga having 2 million subscribers on Youtube.

Call me an elitist, I don't care, but I can't think of any other decade since television was invented that the movie going, tv watching, and music buying public has been so apathetic, merely content to consume whatever Madison Avenue tells them to. To be unaware of the "alternative" is inexcusable in today's world. With the Internet, you can expose yourself to anything with the touch of the button. I remember having to shell out 40.00 for artsy-fartsy foreign movies. Now you can stream such movies instantly with Netflix.

What does it tell you when people have become more myopic and resistant to exploration when the access to information has expanded, literally, a million-fold in the last 15 years?

Tells me what I opened this rant with: "Mainsteam consumers are dumber than ever before."

Now my question to all of you is: Why?

http://officeforward.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/1067629-cool_story_bro_super.gif

[midnightpulp]

No, disagree. I just think you're noticing today's crap because it's today not yesterday or tomorrow's crap.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

I find 80s pop infinitely better than today's pop. Catchier hooks and melodies, and better produced. And I'm trying to be objective here and not let bias or nostalgia color my perspective.

The use of autotune has removed all integrity and merit from today's pop music, giving it a hollow and artificial sound. Do the comparison yourself. Play a GoGos record and a Lady Gaga record back to back and you'll see what I mean. Or compare the ringtone rap of someone like Souja Boy with a truly forgettable rapper like Young MC.

If you still think yesterday's pop/crap is no better than today's pop/crap, I'm not sure what to say about your taste.

[mrsmaalox]

We've already had this discussion. I have no issues with the enjoyment of "crap." Like I said, I'm a big wrestling fan and some of the movies I like would make Twilight look like the greatest film of all time by comparison.

My issue is with the people who "watch crap all the time" and have no interest in expanding their horizons, which seems to be the mentality that most of today's consumers have.

Well how do we actually know who is watching crap all the time and have no interest in expanding their horizons? We know the numbers of people who are succumbing to some of the crap because those who produce it count them and tell us a thousand times in a thousand different ways. But who is counting the numbers of people who don't succumb? And of those who do get counted amongst the masses, how is it known if they are constant feeders or someone like yourself who occasionally give in to a guilty pleasure (ie wrestling, movies that would make Twilight look the greatest film of all time)? Would it be fair to label all of them as having no interest in expanding their horizons? It just seems to me that you may one of the ones falling for the hype.

[Trainwreck2100]

it's one thing to be new edgy or different. It's completely something else when you have stupid people united in their celebration of stupid

[Skywalker]

Here is one of Debbie Gibson's greatest songs.

Someone feel free to post one Katy Perry's best for comparison.

I make no judgment of which is better, but am interested in what Katy fans think her best is.


UO-9xbIvdMY

[midnightpulp]

Well how do we actually know who is watching crap all the time and have no interest in expanding their horizons? We know the numbers of people who are succumbing to some of the crap because those who produce it count them and tell us a thousand times in a thousand different ways. But who is counting the numbers of people who don't succumb? And of those who do get counted amongst the masses, how is it known if they are constant feeders or someone like yourself who occasionally give in to a guilty pleasure (ie wrestling, movies that would make Twilight look the greatest film of all time)? Would it be fair to label all of them as having no interest in expanding their horizons? It just seems to me that you may one of the ones falling for the hype.

Fair point. But the evidence of what consumers are truly interested in is all around us. Nielsen ratings, Billboard charts, box office receipts, IMDB voter numbers, etc.

What those numbers tell me is that people are more of the "constant feeder" variety than of the "guilty pleasure" variety.

[IronMexican]

In the 80's there was shitty synthpop. In the late 90's and and even to date there has been shitty Nu-Metal. It's not like this is some recent thing, OP.

[Skywalker]

here is her latest i think.

it is clear. one is selling love. the other is selling sex and indulgence.

such is the transformation of our society.


CwE-SLnLkqY

[midnightpulp]

In the 80's there was shitty synthpop. In the late 90's and and even to date there has been shitty Nu-Metal. It's not like this is some recent thing, OP.

Shitty synthpop is much better than today's shitty autotune heavy electropop. To be a pop-star in the 80s, you at least had to have some vocal chops.

Compare this:

PIb6AZdTr-A

to this:

CwE-SLnLkqY

Katy Perry couldn't hit the notes Lauper does if her life depended on it.

[ALWAYS bet on BLACK]

The OP must be a real pleasure in real life....

GOD DAMNED KIDS! GOD DAMNED MUSIC!

[Skywalker]

Cyndi Lauper is awesome. :toast

There are not many that are on her level.

Bx63G2eiyo0

[midnightpulp]

The OP must be a real pleasure in real life....

GOD DAMNED KIDS! GOD DAMNED MUSIC!

This is true.

God damned kids today like god damned shitty music and movies, and the shit they like is exponentially worse than the shit kids of yesterday liked.

Do you deny this?

[Skywalker]

Who is damned is not for us to judge.

Each of us seals our own fate, one way or another.

But I agree with the premise that there is a difference between the music of the damned and the music of the saved.

[JoeChalupa]

This is no jab at yourself JoeChalupa, but more a general statement of our state of affairs.

There is absolutely nothing intellectual about 'enjoying crap'.

It can be watched, studied, evaluated for it's good and bad points.

But 'crap' is 'crap' at the end of the day.

To derive pleasure from 'crap' means something is wrong with our perspectives.

Laziness is another topic, however I can see how it relates. If we accept the 'crap' that is served to us on television and do not seek out value added television, entertainment, what have you, then that could be attributed to laziness, but more likely apathy is the more accurate description of the problem.

I disagree, although I understand your stance. What if I simply don't have a desire or need for such intellectual crap? That doesn't necessarily make me lazy. It may in your eyes but that doesn't make you right. But we could go on and on because it all boils down to what each individual like or dislikes. Yeah, I'm sure there are some who simply are not interested in expanding their minds and one could call it lazy but it is not always the case which is obvious.
I know many who love the Simpsons and I don't find anything intellectual about that show but does that make them lazy?

[ALWAYS bet on BLACK]

This is true.

God damned kids today like god damned shitty music and movies, and the shit they like is exponentially worse than the shit kids of yesterday liked.

Do you deny this?


Yep.

I like this
h8growuncz0

more than i like this
ry4iwzS4Na0

[JoeChalupa]

I don't listen to much of today's music as I find most of it to be crap. Classic rock is real music.

[Skywalker]

I disagree, although I understand your stance. What if I simply don't have a desire or need for such intellectual crap? That doesn't necessarily make me lazy. It may in your eyes but that doesn't make you right. But we could go on and on because it all boils down to what each individual like or dislikes. Yeah, I'm sure there are some who simply are not interested in expanding their minds and one could call it lazy but it is not always the case which is obvious.
I know many who love the Simpsons and I don't find anything intellectual about that show but does that make them lazy?


I must thank you Joe. In finding the definition for my copy/paste, I have discovered, upon reading the last sentence, that I have been apathetic as well. I shall leave for today with the definition, which as I said, is more accurate than lazy regarding our state of affairs, and go onto my work for the day. May GodBless everyone.


Apathy (also called impassivity or perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion. An apathetic individual has an absence of interest or concern to emotional, social, or physical life. They may also exhibit an insensibility or sluggishness. The opposite of apathy is flow.[1] In positive psychology, apathy is described as a response to an easy challenge for which the subject has matched skills.

[midnightpulp]

I disagree, although I understand your stance. What if I simply don't have a desire or need for such intellectual crap? That doesn't necessarily make me lazy. It may in your eyes but that doesn't make you right. But we could go on and on because it all boils down to what each individual like or dislikes. Yeah, I'm sure there are some who simply are not interested in expanding their minds and one could call it lazy but it is not always the case which is obvious.
I know many who love the Simpsons and I don't find anything intellectual about that show but does that make them lazy?

Truthfully, it does make you intellectually lazy with regard to artistic content. Doesn't mean you're intellectually lazy overall.

I also think you're just playing devil's advocate. Someone who enjoys Steinbeck and To Kill a Mockingbird isn't someone I'd consider intellectually lazy. However, someone who enjoys Twilight and only Twilight and refuses to read Steinbeck, Hemingway, Faulkner, etc because it's "boring" and "old" or will only watch entertaining blockbusters and not give Kurosawa or Fellini a chance because "they are in black and white and have subtitles" is an intellectually lazy person.

And from my perspective, modern consumers are more intellectually lazy than ever before.

[IronMexican]

I think 80's was the worst decade in music. Apart from Joy Division and New Order, nothing worth mentioning.

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE=ALWAYS bet on BLACK;4467723]Yep.

I like this
h8growuncz0

Soulja Boy should be tried for crimes against Hip-Hop and humanity. The cat can't even write lyrics or rap. He just repeats the same nonsense over a crappy track that sounds like it was produced by a 15 year old using Windows Music Maker.

And comparing him to a synthpop song isn't really accurate.

Try this:

3Jrb78l5NYM

[JoeChalupa]

Truthfully, it does make you intellectually lazy with regard to artistic content. Doesn't mean you're intellectually lazy overall.

I also think you're just playing devil's advocate. Someone who enjoys Steinbeck and To Kill a Mockingbird isn't someone I'd consider intellectually lazy. However, someone who enjoys Twilight and only Twilight and refuses to read Steinbeck, Hemingway, Faulkner, etc because it's "boring" and "old" or will only watch entertaining blockbusters and not give Kurosawa or Fellini a chance because "they are in black and white and have subtitles" is an intellectually lazy person.

And from my perspective, modern consumers are more intellectually lazy than ever before.

It is a different era. And it comes from exposure. I know when I met JT and he was all into the classic rock it was because he was exposed to it growing up. I have quite a few classic books and am always listening to my classic music and my kids like it. Sure they listen to modern music but they also love the Beatles, the Stones, the Boss, etc.. I get your point about being so called intellectually lazy but I don't hold it against someone if they choose not to. It is their choice to do so. Oh well, not all minds think alike.

[silverblk mystix]

This is just MY opinion fwiw!

As far as music, I think if you really are honest you will discover that the day that MTV (OR EMPTY-V) went on the air---it was the END of good music.

BEFORE empty-v music was based on talent; singing talent,instrumental talent,songwriting talent,etc...and when you HEARD something on the radio---it was your OWN imagination and your OWN video that played in your HEAD--and some music provoked a great many inspirational ideas,thoughts,creativity,etc...

AFTER empty-v ; music became based on looks-period.

Compare the two and it will be easy to see that starting from the 80's (which I personally think was a shitty era for music and the madonna's, prince's and their ilk all were PALE imitators of earlier REAL talented artists)

CUT to today and VIDEO is STILL the worst thing that can be paired with music...it is still based on looks,sex and shock value...

look at ANY video today (I don't---hell I STOPPED watching video around 1990) and what you will notice is that EVERY shot---lasts LESS than a second to a second-and-a-half tops!
what does that tell you?

that this generation has been programmed and conditioned to have a very,very tiny attention span---and the avg consumer NEEDS to be ENTERTAINED----RIGHT NOW!

no-one has the TIME to use their OWN imagination and/or develop any talent, any taste,any discretion,any patience...it is RIGHT NOW---

American Idol; make me famous---right now...
Movies; entertain me RIGHT now---BLOW up shit every second of the 2 hour movie and kill, curse,chase,sex,etc...right NOW!

I personally VALUE my time and IF i am going to invest 2 hours of my time and a few bux to spend on entertaining myself--I am damn well going to choose something to do that will benefit me in some way, either with a really well-made thought provoking film---or some music that moves me in some way that is substantial TO ME...

NOW --if OTHERS decide to spend their time differently and it works for them---more power to them---enjoy YOUR OWN LIFE the way you see fit...

rant over...

[JoeChalupa]

I think 80's was the worst decade in music. Apart from Joy Division and New Order, nothing worth mentioning.

WTF!?!?! The hair bands of the 80's rocked!!

[midnightpulp]

I think 80's was the worst decade in music. Apart from Joy Division and New Order, nothing worth mentioning.

Seriously?

Um, Echo and the Bunnymen, Depeche Mode, Psychedelic Furs, U2, Jane's Addiction, The Talking Heads, The Pixies, The Smiths, REM, Elvis Costello...

All artists that had a prominent influence on your heroes Radiohead.

Not to mention Sonic Youth, Guided by Voices, The Cure, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Public Image Ltd, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Ministry, The Beastie Boys, the countless hip-hop artists and post-punk bands that rose to fame.

Obviously you're entitled to not like those artists, but if you're at any all objective, you'll recognize the artistic merit and profound influence those groups had.

[JoeChalupa]

Prince is a great talent and I love his music.

[IronMexican]

Seriously?

Um, Echo and the Bunnymen, Depeche Mode, Psychedelic Furs, U2, Jane's Addiction, The Talking Heads, The Pixies, The Smiths, REM, Elvis Costello...

All artists that had a prominent influence on your heroes Radiohead.

Not to mention Sonic Youth, Guided by Voices, The Cure, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Public Image Ltd, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Ministry, The Beastie Boys, the countless hip-hop artists and post-punk bands that rose to fame.

Obviously you're entitled to not like those artists, but if you're at any all objective, you'll recognize the artistic merit and profound influence those groups had.

I don't like Pixies at all. I haven't given the Smiths much of a listen.


Joy Division/New Order is the only band I really love from the 80's. It's just an overrated decade. I still think the 2000's had better music. It's just not as mainstream, thus harder to find.

[JoeChalupa]

2000 music for the most part sucks major ass.

[midnightpulp]

I don't like Pixies at all. I haven't given the Smiths much of a listen.


Joy Division/New Order is the only band I really love from the 80's. It's just an overrated decade. I still think the 2000's had better music. It's just not as mainstream, thus harder to find.

The Indie bands of today aren't really doing anything that hasn't been done before and better in the 90s. The 2000s is by far the worse decade in music, for both mainstream and alternative.

The birth of the millennium gave us bands like Limp Bizkit, Staind, and the whole ensuing rap-metal abomination. This gave way to Nu-metal and adult-alternative bands like Nickelback. Now we have ringtone rap and shitty electropop. Nothing in the 80s comes close to this level of suck, not even hair-metal.

As for "Indie/Hipster" music there's definitely some great bands out there: Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The Kills, The White Stripes, The Black Keys, Clinic, Placebo, The National, The Minutemen, etc, etc, but these bands don't break any new ground and feel more like throwbacks (which is a good thing, mind you) than anything revolutionary.

And the period most of these bands are throwing back to? The 80s. Like it or not, it has been the most influential decade on today's Indie rock scene.

Now I'm not biased for the 80s. The greatest period in popular music has to be the 60s, but to call the 80s an overrated decade is far from accurate.

I gather you really haven't explored much of the music from that time. Because anyone who likes New Order would no doubt dig a band like Echo & The Bunnymen or even The Cure by proxy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2000 music for the most part sucks major ass.

I go through the Coachella, ACL, Bonnaroo etc lineups. I go through all the NME, RollingStone, and metacritic reviews and look for good music and its out there.

I think one of the major problems that people have once they get out of high school and college is that the avenues that people have for finding new music just dry up. All your friends are no longer going to concerts all the time anymore and people just have other things take up their attention.

I remember in high school that was what we were all about. Now its fulltime jobs, kids and the like. So people resort to having to look to the radio, MTV and top 40 for music. That has been a shitty place to look for music.

As for movies you are going by a lot of false assumptions here. There are very few good movies each year that gross well and are really quality cinema. Sure you have the Departed and LoTR but for the most part its Shrek, Transformers and Spiderman. Its just the nature of the beast. Kids and there parents are the preponderance of who goes to the movies.

Also there has been somewhat of a brain drain from film to TV. Premium cable channels are producing shows like the Soprano's, the Wire, Breaking Bad, and the like. These shows are given budgets like movies and are being shot, written and directed more like movies.

Compare Hill Street Blues to the Wire or Lonesome Dove to Deadwood and you start to get my meaning.

The landscape has just changed. There is still good art out there you just cannot look in the same places necessarily as you used to. Don't get old and in a rut.

[IronMexican]

What was so great about the 90's? Bands like Smashmouth and TV like TRL was popular.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What was so great about the 90's? Bands like Smashmouth and TV like TRL was popular.

Faith No More, Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Tool, Tribe, Beastie Boys, NWA, Pantera, Primus, and Sublime were all 90s bands that sold really well.

[Höfner]

I don't think I necessarily blamed pop-culture.

:lol :lol

How else did you mean to group the Katy Perry and the Twilight series?

You absolutely are referencing pop culture, whether you realize it or not.


Why not use the Beatles to prove my point?Because there's bands in every decade that are compared with the Beatles and are just as loved, including this one.
They were the dominant trend of their time. Now compare them to the dominant trends of today and you'll grasp my point.What do the Beatles have to do with Twilight? Or even Katy Perry? And why do you think one popular band proves your point in any, way, shape or form?

Repeat: there were plenty of popular groups and trends in the 60's that were considered stupid, even then. Pill-box hats, for instance.

[midnightpulp]

What was so great about the 90's? Bands like Smashmouth and TV like TRL was popular.

The 90s was Indie rock's Golden Age. Bands like Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, Pavement, Neutral Milk Hotel, and Radiohead were all at their respective peaks then. Not to mention more mainstream bands like U2 cutting classic albums. And the best hip-hop and electronica arguably came from the decade.

Claim to any editor from Pitchfork that the 2000s is in any way comparable to the 90s, and they would :lmao

[Höfner]

The 90s was Indie rock's Golden Age. Bands like Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, Pavement, Neutral Milk Hotel, and Radiohead were all at their respective peaks then. Not to mention more mainstream bands like U2 cutting classic albums. And the best hip-hop and electronica arguably came from the decade.

Claim to any editor from Pitchfork that the 2000s is in any way comparable to the 90s, and they would :lmao

Let me guess: you grew up, or were in your 20's in in the 90's.

[midnightpulp]

:lol :lol

How else did you mean to group the Katy Perry and the Twilight series?

You absolutely are referencing pop culture, whether you realize it or not.

Because there's bands in every decade that are compared with the Beatles and are just as loved, including this one. What do the Beatles have to do with Twilight? Or even Katy Perry? And why do you think one popular band proves your point in any, way, shape or form?

Repeat: there were plenty of popular groups and trends in the 60's that were considered stupid, even then. Pill-box hats, for instance.

I don't really know how to get my point through to you with anymore clarity.

I know there has always been stupid trends, music, and cinema, my overarching point is that the trends of today are far stupider and more vapid than the stupid trends of yesterday. A person wearing a pill-box hat still looks a lot less ridiculous than an androgynous emo fucktard. And the best selling artists and biggest movies of yesterday, like The Beatles and The Godfather, are better than the best selling artists and biggest movies of today, like Katy Perry and Twilight.

I'm using the comparisons to demonstrate how mainstream tastes have changed for the worse.

What don't you understand?

[JoeChalupa]

I go through the Coachella, ACL, Bonnaroo etc lineups. I go through all the NME, RollingStone, and metacritic reviews and look for good music and its out there.

I think one of the major problems that people have once they get out of high school and college is that the avenues that people have for finding new music just dry up. All your friends are no longer going to concerts all the time anymore and people just have other things take up their attention.

I remember in high school that was what we were all about. Now its fulltime jobs, kids and the like. So people resort to having to look to the radio, MTV and top 40 for music. That has been a shitty place to look for music.

As for movies you are going by a lot of false assumptions here. There are very few good movies each year that gross well and are really quality cinema. Sure you have the Departed and LoTR but for the most part its Shrek, Transformers and Spiderman. Its just the nature of the beast. Kids and there parents are the preponderance of who goes to the movies.

Also there has been somewhat of a brain drain from film to TV. Premium cable channels are producing shows like the Soprano's, the Wire, Breaking Bad, and the like. These shows are given budgets like movies and are being shot, written and directed more like movies.

Compare Hill Street Blues to the Wire or Lonesome Dove to Deadwood and you start to get my meaning.

The landscape has just changed. There is still good art out there you just cannot look in the same places necessarily as you used to. Don't get old and in a rut.

I concur. As I got older my priorities changed and I didn't keep with the latest music as I did before. I still enjoy some of the newer music but I never like or got into the whole rap thing. Most of the bands some of you all list I've never listened to so to be honest I may like it I just haven't had the desire to listen to it. Perhaps I am stuck in a classic rock rut.

[midnightpulp]

Let me guess: you grew up, or were in your 20's in in the 90's.

I was a teenager in the 90s. If anything, the 2000s is my formative decade and I just have to shake my head at the amount of crap my generation shits out.

I don't see what my age has to do with the argument, although I know you're looking to play the "nostalgia" angle on me and deem my arguments biased.

I wasn't alive in the 60s and I consider it the best period in pop-music history. I wasn't alive in 70s and I consider it the best period in American cinema (with the 40s a very close second).

So, yeah, nostalgia plays no role in my taste or the perspective of my arguments.

[JoeChalupa]

Did anyone get into hip-hop country line dancing?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/clintsquint/cowboydance.gif

[mrsmaalox]

Did anyone get into hip-hop country line dancing?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/clintsquint/cowboydance.gif

Hey!! My mom is a dance teacher and that stuff is her bread and butter at senior citizens' centers :lol

[Höfner]

I don't really know how to get my point through to you with anymore clarity.

I know there has always been stupid trends, music, and cinema, my overarching point is that the trends of today are far stupider and more vapid than the stupid trends of yesterday. A person wearing a pill-box hat still looks a lot less ridiculous than an androgynous emo fucktard. And the best selling artists and biggest movies of yesterday, like The Beatles and The Godfather, are better than the best selling artists and biggest movies of today, like Katy Perry and Twilight.

I'm using the comparisons to demonstrate how mainstream tastes have changed for the worse.

What don't you understand?


:lol I understand exactly, now. You have an opinion that's mostly misinformed and judgmental, and want to get it out there.

Knock yourself out.

[Höfner]

I was a teenager in the 90s.

As I predicted.


I don't see what my age has to do with the argument, although I know you're looking to play the "nostalgia" angle on me and deem my arguments biased.It's not an angle to "play", as much as it is an easily predicted fact about you. You, like billions before you, hearken back to the "good ol' days" and think those who live in the present and follow current trends are idiotic, "scene", ignorant to the past, or worse, while believing the past was this much better golden age.

The same types of people said the same types of things back then, back forever. This type of opinion is rather common.

And if there's anyone to say this to you, it's me: the 60's and 70's are easily my favorite decades. Hell, we probably share many opinions about some of today's trends and artists.

That doesn't make it okay to generalize an entire generation from your rather small perspective.

[marini martini]

Did anyone get into hip-hop country line dancing?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/clintsquint/cowboydance.gif


Hey!! My mom is a dance teacher and that stuff is her bread and butter at senior citizens' centers :lol

That is sooo cool mrsm. you never told me that!!!:toast


Ever since we moved out to the country, all our kids grew up doing this in the Old Dance Halls, Anhalt, Twin Sisters, Community Center's New Years Eve Parties, etc. Now at every wedding reception of our kids, it's just a given that we'll all be doing line dancing. :rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[midnightpulp]

As I predicted.

It's not an angle to "play", as much as it is an easily predicted fact about you. You, like billions before you, hearken back to the "good ol' days" and think those who live in the present and follow current trends are idiotic, "scene", ignorant to the past, or worse, while believing the past was this much better golden age.

The same types of people said the same types of things back then, back forever. This type of opinion is rather common.

And if there's anyone to say this to you, it's me: the 60's and 70's are easily my favorite decades. Hell, we probably share many opinions about some of today's trends and artists.

That doesn't make it okay to generalize an entire generation from your rather small perspective.

Yawn. Yeah, you might've predicted a fact about me, but I predicted how you'd use that fact just the same. Try being objective and responding to my argument rather than deflecting.

Yes or no: Are modern consumers, namely the 18-35 demo, more myopic in taste and prone to media manipulation than in years past? Are today's trends artistically worse than yesterday's trends?

And as part of today's young "generation," my perspective is anything but small, and my arguments are anything but judgmental and misinformed. My examination of today's trends is done with cold objectivity and not some kind of nostalgic bias. And the fact that I think 60s were music's best decade proves your contention wrong that I desire to hearken back to the good ole days. How the hell can I hearken back to a time I wasn't even alive during?

The 60s are the best decade in music because they just are. Today is the worst decade in music because it just is. Today's biggest films are mostly piles of shit, yesterday's biggest films were actually good.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't really know how to get my point through to you with anymore clarity.

I know there has always been stupid trends, music, and cinema, my overarching point is that the trends of today are far stupider and more vapid than the stupid trends of yesterday. A person wearing a pill-box hat still looks a lot less ridiculous than an androgynous emo fucktard. And the best selling artists and biggest movies of yesterday, like The Beatles and The Godfather, are better than the best selling artists and biggest movies of today, like Katy Perry and Twilight.

I'm using the comparisons to demonstrate how mainstream tastes have changed for the worse.

What don't you understand?

You mention two of what boil down to be aberrations and then hold current trends up to them as if that proves anything.

The Beatles were a kids band to start off with. Have you seen footage from Shea Staium in the early 60s with all the teenie boppers crying? They were putting out shit like I Want To Hold Your Hand for christ's sake.

I have talked to my uncles and they both have said that they hated the early Beatles and essentially their attitude towards them was the same as our was towards NKOTB and NSync.

It wasn't until Revolver in the mid sixties with songs like Tomorrow Never Knows that they started doing the strange modes and studio experimentation that revolutionized music.

They were a once in a lifetime phenomenon.

Comparing summer movies to films that come out later in the year right before the Oscars is laughable and shows you know nothing how the movie industry works.

Quite frankly if you look at the top grossing films and top 40 music for the last 50 years its a whole slew of shit that is just terrible. Pointing out two acts during that time frame doesn't show anything.

[Höfner]

:lol like I said, misinformed and judgmental.

For example, what would it change that I think the 60's was a better decade musically? I still think there's a shitload of great music from each subsequent decade. And there's plenty (read: majority) of people who don't find the 60's an appealing decade musically, simply because it sounds so goddamn ancient compared with what they've been exposed to and enjoyed their entire life.



I'll say it again: what does Twilight sucking *according to you* or the Beatles being much better than today's hit artists *according to you* mean, empirically? Nothing, because they're puffs of hot, misinformed, judgmental air hearkening back to the good ol' days.

[Höfner]

Quite frankly if you look at the top grossing films and top 40 music for the last 50 years its a whole slew of shit that is just terrible. Pointing out two acts during that time frame doesn't show anything.

Egg. Fucking. Zactly.

Why use a couple notable names to qualify such a wide-reaching appraisal? The simple concept behind your "arguments" makes you wrong immediately.

[IronMexican]

I like the 70's better than the 60's for music. So much classic albums in the 70's.


To go completely off topic, my favorite albums by decade:

60's: In the Court of the Crimson King
70's: Animals, Thick as a Brick, or Selling England by the pound. This one is too hard for me to choose.

80's: Joy Division's Closer

90's: OK Computer

00's: Kid A

[midnightpulp]

You mention two of what boil down to be aberrations and then hold current trends up to them as if that proves anything.

The Beatles were a kids band to start off with. Have you seen footage from Shea Staium in the early 60s with all the teenie boppers crying? They were putting out shit like I Want To Hold Your Hand for christ's sake.

I have talked to my uncles and they both have said that they hated the early Beatles and essentially their attitude towards them was the same as our was towards NKOTB and NSync.

It wasn't until Revolver in the mid sixties with songs like Tomorrow Never Knows that they started doing the strange modes and studio experimentation that revolutionized music.

They were a once in a lifetime phenomenon.

Comparing summer movies to films that come out later in the year right before the Oscars is laughable and shows you know nothing how the movie industry works.

Quite frankly if you look at the top grossing films and top 40 music for the last 50 years its a whole slew of shit that is just terrible. Pointing out two acts during that time frame doesn't show anything.

Um, early Beatles is some of the best "pop" music ever produced. Every music critic worth his weight would acknowledge that. And how about other pop acts like The Shangri-Las and The Ronettes? Let's compare those "teenage girl groups," who were produced by geniuses like George Shadow Martin and Phil Spector to Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. The former has mood, atmosphere, strong melodies and hooks while the latter is simply a steaming pile of artificial sounding, heavily computerized garbage.

Forget the Godfather, it was an example I used with the intention of showing how a slow moving, 3 hour film with a predominantly middle-aged cast wouldn't pull those numbers in today's theaters. So let's compare Summer movies shall we. Back to the Future better than Twilight. Yes or no? Ghostbusters better than Twilight. Yes or no? Jaws better than Twilight. Yes or no? Raiders of the Lost Ark better than Twilight. Yes or no?

Do I really need to go on?

At least blockbusters had a little bit of artistic merit back then. Since the 90s, outside the Dark Knights, LOTRs, etc, blockbusters are terrible films. You said it yourself in an earlier post.

[Veterinarian]

Höfner's takes in this thread have been consistently retarded.

[Höfner]

Höfner's takes in this thread have been consistently retarded.

Thank you, kind veterinarian, sir.

[midnightpulp]

Egg. Fucking. Zactly.

Why use a couple notable names to qualify such a wide-reaching appraisal? The simple concept behind your "arguments" makes you wrong immediately.

So you think the acts that occupied the top ten list in 1969 are no better than acts that occupy the current top ten?

:lmao

I'd admire your egalitarian attitude, I often find myself in that role arguing the merits of Spielberg with wannabe cinephiles on the IMDB boards, but you're absolutely fuckin' deluded if you think the top 100 musical acts and top 20 films of 1969 are on "equal footing" with today's top 100 and 20.

But I love the way you two are simply focusing on my Beatles and Godfather examples and not even considering the argument I'm implying by citing those examples.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you think the acts that occupied the top ten list in 1969 are no better than acts that occupy the current top ten?

:lmao

I'd admire your egalitarian attitude, I often find myself in that role arguing the merits of Spielberg with wannabe cinephiles on the IMDB boards, but you're absolutely fuckin' deluded if you think the top 100 musical acts and top 20 films of 1969 are on "equal footing" with today's top 100 and 20.

But I love the way you two are simply focusing on my Beatles and Godfather examples and not even considering the argument I'm implying by citing those examples.

Those are the only two examples you have given numbnut. And we have addressed the argument on general merits.

And you can try and speak for music critics but if you do not understand that there was a dramatic shift in the type of music the Beatles put out before and after 1965 then you do not know shit about music.

Quite frankly your attitude is cliche and if you are under the age of 50 and acting like this then that is pretty fucking sad.

[midnightpulp]

Those are the only two examples you have given numbnut. And we have addressed the argument on general merits.

And you can try and speak for music critics but if you do not understand that there was a dramatic shift in the type of music the Beatles put out before and after 1965 then you do not know shit about music.

Quite frankly your attitude is cliche and if you are under the age of 50 and acting like this then that is pretty fucking sad.

Do you really need me to do the work for you and write out every popular musical act and popular film of the 60s through 90s for the sake of comparing them to today's popular acts and films?

Again, I challenge you to compare the Billboard chart from 1969 to today and tell me that the artists who occupy the former list are no better than the artists on today's list. If you cop out with the "aw shucks" attitude that it all comes down to opinion and neither is "empirically" better than the other, then the only thing that I can tell you is your taste fuckin' sucks.

Where did I deny there wasn't a radical shift in the Beatles music as they matured? I was addressing your opinion that implied that pre-1965 Beatles were simply a teeny-bopper group that lacked artistry (quote you: They were putting out shit like I Wanna Hold Your Hand), which can't be further from the truth.

Tell me how my attitude is "sad?" Please.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you really need me to do the work for you and write out every popular musical act and popular film of the 60s through 90s for the sake of comparing them to today's popular acts and films?

Again, I challenge you to compare the Billboard chart from 1969 to today and tell me that the artists who occupy the former list are no better than the artists on today's list. If you cop out with the "aw shucks" attitude that it all comes down to opinion and neither is "empirically" better than the other, then the only thing that I can tell you is your taste fuckin' sucks.

Where did I deny there wasn't a radical shift in the Beatles music as they matured? I was addressing your opinion that implied that pre-1965 Beatles were simply a teeny-bopper group that lacked artistry (quote you: They were putting out shit like I Wanna Hold Your Hand), which can't be further from the truth.

Tell me how my attitude is "sad?" Please.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211064005/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1978

Actually I am looking at the Billboard top 100 for the last 50 years and as time goes by I am just laughing my ass off.

1978 sure was a great year with the Beegees and John Fucking Travolta topping the music charts.

The early 60s it was a bunch of showtunes shit like Camelot with an occasional Elvis album. Who were the top 2 albums in 1967? They were Monkees albums. Thats right the fucking Monkees outsold Sgt Peppers in 1967.

Here are the top songs of 1967:

http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/1967.php

There was a great period from 1968 to 1971 that included CCR, Beatles, Led Zep, Jimi etc, then it starts into John Denver, The Carpenters, Barbara Streisand and Peter Frampton, Start getting into the late 70s and you see disco bullshit and ABBA and then the eighties are when MJ takes over. Then you start getting into Whitesnake Heart and Bon Jovi.

Youre just full of shit. I already looked over the movies box office sales I can go over those too.

And your attitude is sad because you obviously have no fucking clue what are actually on the charts and spout this nostalgic bullshit pining for the good old days. Youre acting like the elderly do and that conservative mindset is as I said, sad.

And Jesus have you even listened to Beatles for Sale or With the Beatles? Yu just have no clue whatsoever.

[koriwhat]

also, kesha is sexy as fuck.

no even! chick has no ass and looks like every other blonde chick. no ass!

[midnightpulp]

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211064005/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1978

Actually I am looking at the Billboard top 100 for the last 50 years and as time goes by I am just laughing my ass off.

1978 sure was a great year with the Beegees and John Fucking Travolta topping the music charts.

The early 60s it was a bunch of showtunes shit like Camelot with an occasional Elvis album. Who were the top 2 albums in 1967? They were Monkees albums. Thats right the fucking Monkees outsold Sgt Peppers in 1967.

Here are the top songs of 1967:

http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/1967.php

There was a great period from 1968 to 1971 that included CCR, Beatles, Led Zep, Jimi etc, then it starts into John Denver, The Carpenters, Barbara Streisand and Peter Frampton, Start getting into the late 70s and you see disco bullshit and ABBA and then the eighties are when MJ takes over. Then you start getting into Whitesnake Heart and Bon Jovi.

Youre just full of shit. I already looked over the movies box office sales I can go over those too.

And your attitude is sad because you obviously have no fucking clue what are actually on the charts and spout this nostalgic bullshit pining for the good old days. Youre acting like the elderly do and that conservative mindset is as I said, sad.

And Jesus have you even listened to Beatles for Sale or With the Beatles? Yu just have no clue whatsoever.

Monkees are actually not a bad listen. I won't try to convince you otherwise, but they are a 100x better than Katy Perry and Lady fuckin Gaga.

And Bon Jovi and Whitesnake are twice the bands Nickelback and Daughtry are. That's the point you seem to miss. I never denied there wasn't crap in the past, I'm contending that today's crap is far worse than past crap, and the fact I think that Bon Jovi sounds like the Velvet Underground when compared to shit like Nickelback proves that.

Do you deny this? You haven't made one claim in this whole conversation. You default to deflection all too quickly, resorting to calling me "nostalgic" and my attitude "sad."

Let's get back on track and clarify, okay.

My argument: Mainstream consumers, namely the 18-35 demographic, are more tasteless than ever, and the popular "crap" of today is far worse than popular "crap" of yesterday. I've cited Billboard charts (and I do have a clue about them since I got the fuckin' book right in front of me) and box office receipts as evidence of how consumer taste has progressively gotten worse.

Agree or disagree?

Make an argument instead of caterwauling about my "attitude."

And if your first salvo is referencing the BeeGees and Michael Jackson's popularity as "proof" that consumer taste was as bad back then as it is today, my response to that is those artists are much better than fuckwits like Gaga, Justin Bieber, and Drake.

[xellos88330]

Isn't it the movie makers decision on who get the roles? If they want to lessen their movie by selecting lesser talent then the blame is on the maker and not the viewer. No?

Exactly. I don't think it is a problem with the movie goers, but the movie makers. Economy went to shit, so shitty actors is what we get.

[midnightpulp]

And Jesus have you even listened to Beatles for Sale or With the Beatles? Yu just have no clue whatsoever.
:lmao:lmao:lmao

Yeah, two classic albums that have consistently received high ratings from a variety of critics, with Pitchfork - who are arguably the toughest critics out there - giving the albums a 9.3 and 8.8 respectively upon their reissue.

Terrible albums!

[IronMexican]

I can get a 9.0 on pitchfork. Just say that I'm indie, grow a neckbeard and make music.

[midnightpulp]

I can get a 9.0 on pitchfork. Just say that I'm indie, grow a neckbeard and make music.

But pre-1965 Beatles weren't Indie and didn't have neckbeards, so...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Katy Perry has two huge beautiful bouncing titties which is timeless.

Eclipse is just flat out faggery.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Monkees are actually not a bad listen. I won't try to convince you otherwise, but they are a 100x better than Katy Perry and Lady fuckin Gaga.

And Bon Jovi and Whitesnake are twice the bands Nickelback and Daughtry are. That's the point you seem to miss. I never denied there wasn't crap in the past, I'm contending that today's crap is far worse than past crap, and the fact I think that Bon Jovi sounds like the Velvet Underground when compared to shit like Nickelback proves that.

Do you deny this? You haven't made one claim in this whole conversation. You default to deflection all too quickly, resorting to calling me "nostalgic" and my attitude "sad."

Let's get back on track and clarify, okay.

My argument: Mainstream consumers, namely the 18-35 demographic, are more tasteless than ever, and the popular "crap" of today is far worse than popular "crap" of yesterday. I've cited Billboard charts (and I do have a clue about them since I got the fuckin' book right in front of me) and box office receipts as evidence of how consumer taste has progressively gotten worse.

Agree or disagree?

Make an argument instead of caterwauling about my "attitude."

And if your first salvo is referencing the BeeGees and Michael Jackson's popularity as "proof" that consumer taste was as bad back then as it is today, my response to that is those artists are much better than fuckwits like Gaga, Justin Bieber, and Drake.

If you would rather listen to the Beegees than Nickelback or the Monkees over Lady Gaga then fine. Personally I think its all crap. What this really boils down to though is that YOU do not like the music now. Your attempt at social criticism is just complete fail.

Whats funny is that you fail to notice that the people back in 1967 thought that the Monkees were worth buying more than the most revolutionary rock album ever produced demonstrates that the general taste in music has always been shit. I think only 2 Beatles albums ever produced were in the top 5 sold in that particular year.

You use the Beatles to speak of how great music was back then but society back then did not even consider them the best. Oh and your either lying or stupid because if you had those charts in front of you then you would know that the Beatles are a horrid example to use.

My comment on your attitude is an observation. One which you do not deny.
I have never understood why people with your attitude dont just stick your head in the oven and get it over with. Everything sucks now and all the good stuff is in the past after all.

[IronMexican]

Katy Perry has two huge beautiful bouncing titties which is timeless.


Till she gets old.

[JoeChalupa]

I remember watching the Monkees after school. If I were younger I'd be defending my taste in music because it is what I know and grew up with. Era's people..different era's.

[midnightpulp]

If you would rather listen to the Beegees than Nickelback or the Monkees over Lady Gaga then fine. Personally I think its all crap. What this really boils down to though is that YOU do not like the music now. Your attempt at social criticism is just complete fail.

Whats funny is that you fail to notice that the people back in 1967 thought that the Monkees were worth buying more than the most revolutionary rock album ever produced demonstrates that the general taste in music has always been shit. I think only 2 Beatles albums ever produced were in the top 5 sold in that particular year.

You use the Beatles to speak of how great music was back then but society back then did not even consider them the best. Oh and your either lying or stupid because if you had those charts in front of you then you would know that the Beatles are a horrid example to use.

My comment on your attitude is an observation. One which you do not deny.
I have never understood why people with your attitude dont just stick your head in the oven and get it over with. Everything sucks now and all the good stuff is in the past after all.

What kind of drugs are you are on? The Beatles were the most popular band of their era.

In 1964, they had 3 records in the top 5 with the year's number 1 record.
1965, they had 3 records in the top 10 with the year's number 2 record, behind Elvis.
1966 they once again had 3 records in the top 10 with the year's number 1.
1967 you already covered. Nice move in cherry picking a year the Beatles didn't dominate.
1968, 2 records in the top 10 with the year's number 1.
1969, 1 record in the top 10.
1970, their last hurrah Let It Be placed number 4, with Paul McCartney's debut ranking ahead of it at number 3.

Society didn't consider them the best and they're a horrid example to use! Even though they had the most number 1 records and singles during their run.

I never said or even implied "it all sucks now." Indie rock is still going strong and the 2000s have arguably been the strongest decade for Foreign cinema since the 60s.

And yeah, the general taste in popular culture has always been shit, but it's shittier than it's ever been, and I've provided countless examples showing that. My point is that, collectively speaking, past artists from music to film to literature have produced better material than the artists working today, and that consumer taste has gotten progressively worse over the years.

[JoeChalupa]

I got my kids Beatles Rock Band and introduced them to some of the best music evah!! They love them!!! Beatles rock baby!!

[Skywalker]

timeless.

zLtbmCUILko

[midnightpulp]

I remember watching the Monkees after school. If I were younger I'd be defending my taste in music because it is what I know and grew up with. Era's people..different era's.

The Monkees are actually a respected band, so I'm not sure what Lumpkins was trying to prove with that example. Just because he doesn't like it doesn't mean it is without merit.

I really can't stand swing and ragtime, but I realize it's musical sophistication and the huge influence the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie had on some of my favorite Jazz artists like Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Swing has a lot of merit even though I can barely stomach it.

Gaga, Perry, Bieber, Drake, Nickelback, on the other hand, are absolute garbage totally devoid of any redeeming qualities.

[JoeChalupa]

The Monkees are actually a respected band, so I'm not sure what Lumpkins was trying to prove with that example. Just because he doesn't like it doesn't mean it is without merit.

I really can't stand swing and ragtime, but I realize it's musical sophistication and the huge influence the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie had on some of my favorite Jazz artists like Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Swing has a lot of merit even though I can barely stomach it.

Gaga, Perry, Bieber, Drake, Nickelback, on the other hand, are absolute garbage totally devoid of any redeeming qualities.

I hate the Drake!! yeah the mOnkees had some cool tunes.

[Skywalker]

and lets not hate on 1978...

YWSevt_i51w

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What kind of drugs are you are on? The Beatles were the most popular band of their era.

In 1964, they had 3 records in the top 5 with the year's number 1 record.
1965, they had 3 records in the top 10 with the year's number 2 record, behind Elvis.
1966 they once again had 3 records in the top 10 with the year's number 1.
1967 you already covered. Nice move in cherry picking a year the Beatles didn't dominate.
1968, 2 records in the top 10 with the year's number 1.
1969, 1 record in the top 10.
1970, their last hurrah Let It Be placed number 4, with Paul McCartney's debut ranking ahead of it at number 3.

Society didn't consider them the best and they're a horrid example to use! Even though they had the most number 1 records and singles during their run.

I never said or even implied "it all sucks now." Indie rock is still going strong and the 2000s have arguably been the strongest decade for Foreign cinema since the 60s.

And yeah, the general taste in popular culture has always been shit, but it's shittier than it's ever been, and I've provided countless examples showing that. My point is that, collectively speaking, past artists from music to film to literature have produced better material than the artists working today, and that consumer taste has gotten progressively worse over the years.

There is really no point if you are just going to lie.

1964: http://web.archive.org/web/20071211040812/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1964

1)Hello Dolly 2) Peter Paul and Mary 3) Al Hirt 4) Barabara Streisand 5) West Side Story

1965:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211063920/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1965

No #1 here

1966:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211063925/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1966

Youre still full of shit

1968:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071214042251/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1968

Hendrix was #1 dumbass

1969:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211063930/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1969

Not in the top 5

1970:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211063935/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1970

#4 was Abbey Road and when McCartney heads Chicago who actually did get #3 let me know.

I am still looking for a single #1 album. They got #2 in 1965 behind Mary Poppins at least.

Whats really sad here is that you think you are the gold standard when it comes to taste. You do not even know what the fuck you are talking about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Monkees are actually a respected band

By who? You?

:rolleyes

They didn't play their own instruments and lipsynced at their concerts.
At least they were on TV.

They were a gimmick band trying to entice teenage girls. Thats like saying Nsync is a respected band.

[midnightpulp]

There is really no point if you are just going to lie.

1964: http://web.archive.org/web/20071211040812/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1964

1)Hello Dolly 2) Peter Paul and Mary 3) Al Hirt 4) Barabara Streisand 5) West Side Story

1965:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211063920/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1965

No #1 here

1966:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211063925/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1966

Youre still full of shit

1968:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071214042251/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1968

Hendrix was #1 dumbass

1969:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211063930/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1969

Not in the top 5

1970:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211063935/www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1970

#4 was Abbey Road and when McCartney heads Chicago who actually did get #3 let me know.

I am still looking for a single #1 album. They got #2 in 1965 behind Mary Poppins at least.

Whats really sad here is that you think you are the gold standard when it comes to taste. You do not even know what the fuck you are talking about.

Well, the book I have in front of me shows different, and it's published by Billboard themselves. Also, I think my book is more accurate than your link. It's a well known fact that the Beatles had a total of 15 number one albums.

Doesn't matter though, the Beatles were still the best selling act of the 60s, which obliterates your claim that "society didn't think they were the best back then."

Here's some more info for you:

Total Weeks On Chart = 1,278
This is a record, NO act has had more weeks on the chart.
Number Ones = 15
This tops the list of "Most number Ones by any act", with the Rolling Stones 5 albums behind them in 2nd place.
Total Weeks At Number One = 175
A clear record, with no-one else coming anywhere near this total.
Most weeks at Number 1 in one year = 40
This was in 1964, in 1963 they were number one for 34 weeks, and 1967 for 26 weeks.
The record is by "South Pacific", which managed the whole of 1959 at number one (all 52 weeks).
Most number 1 albums in one year = 3
The Beatles did this in 1965, the feat was equalled by T.Rex in 1972.
(The Beatles had two number one's in a year on five occasions)
Album spending the longest at Number one, "Please Please Me" = 30 weeks
This is fourth in the all-time list.
Most Consecutive weeks at Number one, "Please Please Me" = 30 weeks
Second to "South Pacific", but the Beatles are 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th behind it.
Consecutive number one hit albums = 7
This is beaten by Abba and Led Zeppelin both with 8 consecutive number ones.
First EVER album to debut at number one = "Help !"
The Beatles then entered straight in at number 1 a total of 6 times.
Self-replacement at the top = 2
The Beatles are the only band to twice knock themselves off the top of the chart.
Total weeks at the top of album and singles chart at the same time = 45 weeks
This is over double the number of any other act.
Most consecutive weeks at the top of album and singles chart at the same time = 7 weeks
Once again a record, although a few have come close.
The most chart domination at ANY time in history = 12th December 1963
For THREE weeks, The Beatles had :
The number 1 and 2 top singles.
The number 1 and 2 top E.P.'s
The number 1 and 2 top albums.
The only ever "double-whammy" in history !! - 23rd July 1964
The Beatles knocked the Rolling Stones off the top slot in the Singles AND album charts.
Consecutive Christmas Number One albums = 3
1963-1965
The Beatles ARE the artist with the highest album sales in total in the U.S.
They have sold almost 107,000,000 albums in the U.S. (Garth Brooks is 2nd with 92,000,000)
Gold Albums
Paul McCartney has been awarded 17 in the U.K. (and 20 in the U.S.)
The Beatles been awarded 14 in the U.K.
Chart Information by The Guinness Book Of British Hit Albums

http://www.jpgr.co.uk/stats_trivia_a.html

But society never thought they were the best and they're a horrid example to use!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Apparently you do not understand that being #1 on the chart at a particular time and being #1 overall for the year are not the same thing. Did you notice that the Rolling Stones werent tops overall on any of those years? Again you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

I will trust links I can see over your mythical book.

[midnightpulp]

Apparently you do not understand that being #1 on the chart at a particular time and being #1 overall for the year are not the same thing. Did you notice that the Rolling Stones werent tops overall on any of those years? Again you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

I will trust links I can see over your mythical book.

http://i762.photobucket.com/albums/xx261/OGBobbyJohsonOWNsKoolaidman/001.jpg?t=1278127160

Want more pictures?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and another thing, that link you showed was of British album sales so its all worthless like the rest of your drivel.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lets get back to you saying the Monkees are a respected band. That was real entertainment there.

[midnightpulp]

Oh and another thing, that link you showed was of British album sales so its all worthless like the rest of your drivel.

Blah, blah, blah. Show me the Beatles aren't the best selling artist of their era then. You claimed "society didn't think they were best" and I countered with sales numbers proving otherwise.

And quit trying to deflect because you're getting your shit owned.

Now go to fuckin' bed:

"If you enjoy old music, you may enjoy reminiscing about the past 10 best selling artists of the 60’s. This list includes singers from both the country and rock categories. Most of these artists you will surely recognize, even today.

1. The Beatles: The Beatles were an English band that came from Liverpool. They are known as one of the most popular commercial and acclaimed pop groups to date. In the 1960’s they had such hits as: “A Hard’s Days Night” and “Help.”

http://www.mademan.com/mm/10-best-selling-artists-60s.html

Society didn't think they were best back then!!!
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Blah, blah, blah. Show me the Beatles aren't the best selling artist of their era then. You claimed "society didn't think they were best" and I countered with sales numbers proving otherwise.

And quit trying to deflect because you're getting your shit owned.

Now go to fuckin' bed:

"If you enjoy old music, you may enjoy reminiscing about the past 10 best selling artists of the 60’s. This list includes singers from both the country and rock categories. Most of these artists you will surely recognize, even today.

1. The Beatles: The Beatles were an English band that came from Liverpool. They are known as one of the most popular commercial and acclaimed pop groups to date. In the 1960’s they had such hits as: “A Hard’s Days Night” and “Help.”

http://www.mademan.com/mm/10-best-selling-artists-60s.html

Society didn't think they were best back then!!!
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Now youre getting petulant. I gave links from billboards archives showing your numbers were shit. It says on the bottom of your other link that those figures are from the Guiness Book of BRITISH Album Sales.

Then you had this gem:


The Monkees are actually a respected band,

Really after that you have no place talking about anyones taste in music or anything else for that matter.

I advise a head in the oven or a nice bus fire.

[midnightpulp]

MOAR:

The Beatles dominated the top ten best-selling albums list for the 1960s with six albums in the chart. But there were also signs of listening tastes moving away from pop and towards a more harder rock sound shown by the two Led Zeppelin albums. The band was to do well in the top ten albums of the 1970s chart as well.

http://50s-60s-pop-music.suite101.com/article.cfm/top-ten-albums-of-the-1960s

Top 10 List on the Ten Top Best Selling Albums of the 1960s

1 - The Beatles - White Album The Beatles (1968 )

2 - Led Zeppelin II - Led Zeppelin (1969)

3 - Abbey Road - The Beatles (1969)

4 - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles (1967)

5 - Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin (1969)

6 - Magical Mystery Tour - The Beatles (1967)

7 - Rubber Soul - The Beatles (1965)

8 - More Of the Monkees - The Monkees (1967)

9 - The Monkees - The Monkees (1967)

10 - Revolver - The Beatles (1966)

http://www.watchmojo.com/top_10/lists/music/album_sales_1960s.htm

Society didn't think they were best back then!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

MOAR:

The Beatles dominated the top ten best-selling albums list for the 1960s with six albums in the chart. But there were also signs of listening tastes moving away from pop and towards a more harder rock sound shown by the two Led Zeppelin albums. The band was to do well in the top ten albums of the 1970s chart as well.

http://50s-60s-pop-music.suite101.com/article.cfm/top-ten-albums-of-the-1960s

Top 10 List on the Ten Top Best Selling Albums of the 1960s

1 - The Beatles - White Album The Beatles (1968 )

2 - Led Zeppelin II - Led Zeppelin (1969)

3 - Abbey Road - The Beatles (1969)

4 - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles (1967)

5 - Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin (1969)

6 - Magical Mystery Tour - The Beatles (1967)

7 - Rubber Soul - The Beatles (1965)

8 - More Of the Monkees - The Monkees (1967)

9 - The Monkees - The Monkees (1967)

10 - Revolver - The Beatles (1966)

http://www.watchmojo.com/top_10/lists/music/album_sales_1960s.htm

Society didn't think they were best back then!!!

Again dumbass, there is a difference between overall sales and sales during a particular year.

I am done with this you think the Monkees are worthy of respect and thats all I need to know.

[midnightpulp]

Now youre getting petulant. I gave links from billboards archives showing your numbers were shit. It says on the bottom of your other link that those figures are from the Guiness Book of BRITISH Album Sales.

Then you had this gem:



Really after that you have no place talking about anyones taste in music or anything else for that matter.

I advise a head in the oven or a nice bus fire.

Since when is Britain not considered part of society? You said, "society didn't consider them the best back then."

And in all my posts in this thread, you'll find I don't single out any particular country.

"Mainstream consumers" extends to Europe, Japan, Canada, etc...

And yeah, the Monkees are respected. Not as much as The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, Stones, etc, but they have received a good amount of critical praise and influenced bands like the Sex Pistols and the Replacements.

And for yourself I'd consider a lobotomy or bashing your head against a hard surface, because any kind of surgery or damage to your brain would likely be an improvement of how fuckin' retarded you've been in this conversation.

[midnightpulp]

Again dumbass, there is a difference between overall sales and sales during a particular year.

I am done with this you think the Monkees are worthy of respect and thats all I need to know.

Answer this question:

Were the Beatles the best selling musical act during their era, specifically between the years 1962 and 1970?

Yes or no?

Back up your idiotic claim that "society didn't think they were the best back then."

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What every supporter of the "You are yet another previous generation scoffing current generation music" theory forgets to realize is that the state of the industry from a MONEY standpoint has changed and shifted dramatically over the past 20 years, compared to the entire history of the music industry.

This cannot be ignored because it is the driving force of pretty much every aspect of life, much less popular music.

I truly believe in the "My generation thinks the future generation of music sucks" theory up to a certain point. But after the mid 90's I think it became an outdated theory. It doesn't work anymore because the paradigm has shifted....like four times..



Money is the prime mover, the ultimate mover, they can create anything and shove it down your throats and gaurantee themselves ultimate profits...for a current example look at Justin Beiber and Drake.

[midnightpulp]

What every supporter of the "You are yet another previous generation scoffing current generation music" theory forgets to realize is that the state of the industry from a MONEY standpoint has changed and shifted dramatically over the past 20 years, compared to the entire history of the music industry.

This cannot be ignored because it is the driving force of pretty much every aspect of life, much less popular music.

I truly believe in the "My generation thinks the future generation of music sucks" theory up to a certain point. But after the mid 90's I think it became an outdated theory. It doesn't work anymore because the paradigm has shifted....like four times..

Money is the prime mover, the ultimate mover, they can create anything and shove it down your throats and gaurantee themselves ultimate profits...for a current example look at Justin Beiber and Drake.

Totally agree with this.

Technology has also played a huge role in altering our collective tastes, for the worse in my opinion. We interact with entertainment much differently than 10 or 15 years ago. We are overwhelmed with constant stimulation and have to develop a short attention span by necessity to keep up with it. On the internet, you can go from watching a Youtube video, to posting on a forum, to reading about something on Wikipedia, to listening to a song from your favorite band, to streaming an episode of a TV show on Netflix, to bidding on something on eBay, all in the matter of a couple of hours.

After a length of time interacting with media this way will no doubt have an effect on your perception. It's no secret why today's films have faster cuts, or why modern pop music moves around so much instead of settling into a melody.

It's had an effect on me, as well. I used to be a 100 page a day reader. Since I've gotten my laptop and a highspeed internet connection, I now average probably 5 pages a day. I can't keep focused like I used to without my mind wandering to other things.

[midnightpulp]

By who? You?

:rolleyes

They didn't play their own instruments and lipsynced at their concerts.
At least they were on TV.

They were a gimmick band trying to entice teenage girls. Thats like saying Nsync is a respected band.

You need to get yourself a book on rock history and read it ten times over. It was only initially that the Monkees didn't play their own instruments. Fact is, they were capable musicians, although none them could play the drums.

"Real or Fake band?
When the Monkees toured the U.K.in 1967, there was a major controversy over the revelation that the group did not always play all of their own instruments in the studio, although they did play them all while touring (except for the solo segments, which used backing band the Candy Store Prophets). The story made the front pages of several UK and international music papers, with the group derisively dubbed "The Pre-Fab Four". Nevertheless, they were generally welcomed by many British stars, who realized the group included talented musicians and sympathized with their wish to have more creative control over their music, and the Monkees frequently socialized with the likes of The Beatles, the Spencer Davis Group, and The Who.

The Monkees performing "What Am I Doin' Hangin' 'Round" in 1967. (l to r: Nesmith, Jones, Dolenz, Tork)
Many Monkees fans argued that the controversy unfairly targeted the band, while conveniently ignoring the fact that a number of leading British and American groups (including critical favorites such as the Byrds and the Beach Boys) habitually used session players on their recordings...including many of the very same musicians who performed on records by the Monkees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkees

Some reviews:

Review by Tim Sendra
After wresting control of the Monkees from Don Kirschner and recording the very good Headquarters album as a mostly self-contained unit, the bandmembers returned to using studio musicians to augment their sound as well as looking outside the group for the majority of the songs on their fourth album, Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd. Whatever the reason for the decision, the resulting album is one of their best. Filled with hooky pop like "She Hangs Out" and the Harry Nilsson-penned "Cuddly Toy," psychedelic ravers "Daily Nightly" and "Star Collector" (both of which feature the newly invented Moog synthesizer), Mike Nesmith-produced rockers ("Love Is Only Sleeping"), and ballads (the lovely "Don't Call on Me"), the album is filler-free and fun-filled. That it contains three of their finest songs ("Words," "Pleasant Valley Sunday," and the song that "invented" country-rock for better or for worse, "What Am I Doing Hangin' 'Round?") means that not only is it one of the Monkees' best, it is one of 1967's best. To think that both this album and Headquarters came out the same year! Most bands would be lucky to have two albums this good come out their entire career. Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd. is a must-have for any fan of smart, fun, and exciting '60s pop. It doesn't get much better than this. [Rhino's 1995 reissue of the album adds seven previously unreleased songs including alternate versions of "Daily Nightly" and "Star Collector."]

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:bnex97i7krjt

Review by Tim Sendra
After the release of More of the Monkees, on which the band had little involvement beyond providing vocals and a couple Mike Nesmith-composed songs, the pre-fab four decided to take control of their recording destiny. After a well-timed fist through the wall of a hotel suite and many fevered negotiations, music supervisor Don Kirschner was out and the band hit the studio by themselves. With the help of producer Chip Douglas, the band spent some time learning how to be a band (as documented on the Headquarters Sessions box set) and set about recording what turned out to be a dynamic, exciting, and impressive album. Headquarters doesn't contain any of the group's biggest hits, but it does have some of their best songs, like Nesmith's stirring folk-rocker "You Just May Be the One," the pummeling rocker "No Time," the MOR soul ballad "Forget That Girl," which features one of Davy Jones' best vocals, Peter Tork's shining moment as a songwriter, "For Pete's Sake," and the thoroughly amazing (and surprisingly political) "Randy Scouse Git," which showed just how truly out-there and almost avant-garde Micky Dolenz could be when he tried. Even the weaker songs like the sweet-as-sugar "I'll Spend My Life with You," the slightly sappy "Shades of Gray," or the stereotypically showtune-y Davy Jones vehicle "I Can't Get Her Off My Mind" work, as they benefit from the stripped-down and inventive arrangements (which feature simple but effective keyboards from Tork and rudimentary pedal steel fills from Nesmith) and passionate performances. Headquarters doesn't show the band to be musical geniuses, but it did prove they were legitimate musicians with enough brains, heart, and soul as anyone else claiming to be a real band in 1967. [Rhino's 1995 reissue adds six previously unissued tracks recorded during the Headquarters sessions including an early take of the single "The Girl I Knew Somewhere" and rare demos "Nine Times Blue" and "Pillow Time."]

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:sjdovwnva9tk

Sorry, dude, but you don't know shit.

[midnightpulp]

Again dumbass, there is a difference between overall sales and sales during a particular year.

I am done with this you think the Monkees are worthy of respect and thats all I need to know.

Uh, the 60s era would constitute "back then" and the people who lived during that time would constitute "society." So fuckin' what if The Monkees or Herb Albert outsold the Beatles for a particular year, they still won the decade, which proves that "society did think they were the best back then."

Anyhow, classic bitchmade message board move. Someone not being able to substantiate an argument resorting to the "I'm done with you because you think..." Besides, me stating The Monkees are a respected band, which is a fact BTW, has nothing to do with your claim that "society didn't think the Beatles were the best back then" and my subsequent refutation of it.

[Cleveland Steamer]

To be unaware of the "alternative" is inexcusable in today's world. With the Internet, you can expose yourself to anything with the touch of the button. I remember having to shell out 40.00 for artsy-fartsy foreign movies. Now you can stream such movies instantly with Netflix.

What does it tell you when people have become more myopic and resistant to exploration when the access to information has expanded, literally, a million-fold in the last 15 years?

i get what you're saying with this thread but I'm just wondering. is this all based off personal observations of the people around you or is there some kind of evidence that people have become more myopic and resistant to the alternative? just because people are buying Katy Perry and watching Twilight doesn't necessarily mean that they and the rest of the people out there are not exploring other information/entertainment too.

[bigzak25]

Guys, why use your knowledge to argue?

Better to use your opinions of good music to post the good music.

We'd all love to hear the songs you feel are really good.

Youtube is a goldmine.

Thanks in advance! :toast

[Shelly]

Lady Gaga may have sold out for fame, but she's actually very talented...

Stefani Germanotta (http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/vintage-lady-gaga/zgkgyd8b)

[midnightpulp]

Lady Gaga may have sold out for fame, but she's actually very talented...

Stefani Germanotta (http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/vintage-lady-gaga/zgkgyd8b)

I can dig that, and as much disdain I've thrown her way in this thread, I admit that she's talented and realize that "The Fame Monster" has received a good deal of critical praise.

"Poker Face" got her music off on the wrong foot with me and I find her forced image that desperately tries to recall everyone from Warhol to Bowie extremely annoying. I haven't been able to remain objective about anything concerning her even since.

That said, I think she has the potential to become an important artist. Katy Perry, on the other hand, is completely worthless as a musical talent.

[redzero]

I can get a 9.0 on pitchfork. Just say that I'm indie, grow a neckbeard and make music.

Or if your name is Thom Yorke.

[IronMexican]

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9183-the-eraser/

[redzero]

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9183-the-eraser/

No need to be so literal.

[IronMexican]

do agree that I have no idea how HTTT got anything over an 8.5.

It's a slightly above average album.

[redzero]

You might as well throw Amnesiac into that pool, too.

[DMX7]

Katheryn Hudson is the WORST! The lyrics to her songs make Britney Spears' seem intelligent.

[IronMexican]

Amnesiac > HTTT

[redzero]

Amnesiac > HTTT

Either way, every other Radiohead album besides Pablo Honey is better than those two.

[IronMexican]

Agreed. Though I prefer Amnesiac over The Bends at the moment. I just get tired of that 90's alt sound so easily.

[z0sa]

Agreed. Though I prefer Amnesiac over The Bends at the moment. I just get tired of that 90's alt sound so easily.

that's a great avatar. so many think of floyd as a stoner band with no merit (faggot ballijuana) when they were extremely adult and politically charged for most of their prime.

[IronMexican]

Animals is the best work they ever did.

[z0sa]

Animals is the best work they ever did.

While my inner Floydian agrees with you, it's hard for me to put it above The Wall or Dark Side or WYWH. Just because all of those albums are so great.

[fraga]

http://18.imagebam.com/dl.php?ID=35035649&sec=a4d8ed166b9d29a50bf3884eb57722f1
http://idolator.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/katyperry.gif
http://idolator.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/katy-perry2.gif

[midnightpulp]

http://18.imagebam.com/dl.php?ID=35035649&sec=a4d8ed166b9d29a50bf3884eb57722f1
http://idolator.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/katyperry.gif
http://idolator.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/katy-perry2.gif

But do you like her music?

[fraga]

She sings???

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Jesus those are impressive melons.

[redzero]

But do you like her music?

Katy Perry makes music?

[TheSullyMonster]

movie insults are timeless though
PSEYXWmEse8&

This is amazing.


I don't listen to much of today's music as I find most of it to be crap. Classic rock is real music.

Take 20 years to distill the crap out, and everybody will realize there is some great music now, too.:toast

Seriously. How many albums are played on classic rock stations? How many debut annually? Of course 'classic' stuff is better, the good stuff has risen to the top and the shit has been washed away.

[IronMexican]

While my inner Floydian agrees with you, it's hard for me to put it above The Wall or Dark Side or WYWH. Just because all of those albums are so great.

Those are all great, but I feel Animals is still better.

Out of the 4, it was the last I listened to, since it gets the least recognition.

[boutons_deux]

A memorable insult was in As Good As It Gets

Jack Nicholson was "consoling" Greg Kinnear's homosexual character who had been badly beat up.

Jack says: "I'm sure you'll be back on your knees in no time".

[Greg Oden]

I doubt I'm the only one who wants Katy Perry to jizz on them with her tits.

[Dick Hardigan]

ap4rq7GX410

[LnGrrrR]

Crap has always been popular. Always. It's just recently become harder to escape.

Really? I find it easier to escape than ever... we have the internet, video games, etc etc.

[mrsmaalox]

Really? I find it easier to escape than ever... we have the internet, video games, etc etc.

:tu True. I think one has to be really lazy not to be able to escape the crap. Instead of waiting to be spoon-fed, just make a little effort to find the good stuff.

[desflood]

There's actually a documentary out there - don't recall the name - about how (and why) so many people willfully choose to remain ignorant when it's now so easy to find information, or choose to study crap over quality stuff.

[Kamala]

Twilight is ok, but True Blood is amazing. Check it if you want to see some sexy,violent romantic, dark, and outlandish vampire-related stuff.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

True Blood has been anything but amazing this season

Talk about going all-out Sopranos boring, why do HBO shows do this

[Kermit]

True Blood has been anything but amazing this season

Talk about going all-out Sopranos boring, why do HBO shows do this

It's a whole lot better this season than in season 2. Last year was an abortion.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Really?

This season is going really slow to me. Alot of talk and non-important sub-plot progression but not much movement in the main plot.

Last season they made bull-lady the main plot, which actually is not in the book, the jason stackhouse-godrick-neocon army was the main plotline in the book...i thought they both progressed fairly decent, mostly because of all the titties in the bull-lady scenes

But this season they are progressing so much side shit I'm waiting for this whole mississippi-louisiana kingdom thing to get moving

[Kermit]

Really?

This season is going really slow to me. Alot of talk and non-important sub-plot progression but not much movement in the main plot.

Last season they made bull-lady the main plot, which actually is not in the book, the jason stackhouse-godrick-neocon army was the main plotline in the book...i thought they both progressed fairly decent, mostly because of all the titties in the bull-lady scenes

But this season they are progressing so much side shit I'm waiting for this whole mississippi-louisiana kingdom thing to get moving

The tits were nice. The Tara/Eggs plotline was slow as hell. The Jason/Church plotline was slow as hell (except for the handjob in the bathtub). It was just a really bad season. Jessica fucking sucked, although she's incredibly hot. I think this season has been pretty fast paced compared to the previous two. Lots of fucking and killing of strippers, which was a much better episode ending than the exorcist neck twist.

[Duff McCartney]

that mainstream consumers are dumber than ever before.

Seriously, what has happened to good taste and intellectual curiosity? There was a time when a band like the Beatles could sell millions of records and a film like The Godfather could gross over a 100 million at the box office. In today's entertainment landscape the former would be a struggling indie band and the latter probably wouldn't even be greenlit for production. What we have today is Paris Hilton's relevancy and Lady Gaga comparing herself to David Bowie.

Now, I'm all for tuning out and escaping into the latest blockbuster or shitty reality show, but I treat those guilty pleasures like a Double Down from KFC: something that should only be enjoyed in moderation. But moderation is word that today's 18-35 demographic has no understanding of. They crave constant escape and "entertainment" like the clinically obese crave saturated fats, the word "bored" scaring them in a similar fashion as the word "exercise" scares a 400 pounder.

This devolution is evident everywhere. From Kickass being ranked higher on IMDB's top 250 than Ikiru, The Hustler, and Wages of Fear, to Autotune, ringtone rap, and Ke$ha having a career, to Nigahiga having 2 million subscribers on Youtube.

Call me an elitist, I don't care, but I can't think of any other decade since television was invented that the movie going, tv watching, and music buying public has been so apathetic, merely content to consume whatever Madison Avenue tells them to. To be unaware of the "alternative" is inexcusable in today's world. With the Internet, you can expose yourself to anything with the touch of the button. I remember having to shell out 40.00 for artsy-fartsy foreign movies. Now you can stream such movies instantly with Netflix.

What does it tell you when people have become more myopic and resistant to exploration when the access to information has expanded, literally, a million-fold in the last 15 years?

Tells me what I opened this rant with: "Mainsteam consumers are dumber than ever before."

Now my question to all of you is: Why?

This is by far....one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. You do know that back when the Beatles were selling millions of albums, they were considered nothing more than a girl/pop/teen fad, much the same way Twilight is considered a girl/pop/teen fad?

Or how about the countless shows like Opportunity Knocks, The Partridge Family, The Osmonds, Fabian, for shits sake Elvis was a fucking sell out too man. He sold out the whole rock and roll attitude when he enlisted in the Army.

For you to insinuate that this decade is the "worst" for everyone wanting mainstream music is laughable. I'm sure some douchebag like you was ranting about this same thing back in 2000 on some barely functioning message board, and back in 1990 on his barely functioning bulletin board, and back in 1980 on his barely functioning chalk board, and so on and so forth.

[Nathan Explosion]

Katy Perry is all kinds of not half bad (appearance wise, not musically). That's all I have to contribute to the conversation.

[HarlemHeat37]

I like the True Blood season so far..

I don't read the books, so I don't know exactly what happens, not really interested..

I think they're building up well to later on in the season though, I'm interested in the upcoming vampire civil war that looks to be building up..

[midnightpulp]

This is by far....one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. You do know that back when the Beatles were selling millions of albums, they were considered nothing more than a girl/pop/teen fad, much the same way Twilight is considered a girl/pop/teen fad?

Or how about the countless shows like Opportunity Knocks, The Partridge Family, The Osmonds, Fabian, for shits sake Elvis was a fucking sell out too man. He sold out the whole rock and roll attitude when he enlisted in the Army.

For you to insinuate that this decade is the "worst" for everyone wanting mainstream music is laughable. I'm sure some douchebag like you was ranting about this same thing back in 2000 on some barely functioning message board, and back in 1990 on his barely functioning bulletin board, and back in 1980 on his barely functioning chalk board, and so on and so forth.

So you're comparing The Beatles "teeny bopper" period to the shit-fest that is Twilight? Uh, ok.

You do realize they were cutting groundbreaking pop music during that period? What ground does Twilight break other than the figurative 6 foot hole it'll no doubt find itself in before the end of the new decade?

This decade is the worst because almost all artistic integrity and creative innovation has been removed from the "mainstream." In Hollywood, they're turning bad TV shows into even worse movies and badly remaking classics and foreign films; while the music industry is busy figuring out which next "hawt gurl" to manufacture into a pop star by way of their silicone and autotune building method and which adult alternative band to sign.

And by comparison, modern consumers are the worst because they lap this shit up like a thirsty dog to water, preferring to stay insulated in the comfort of the low-brow, over commercialized, and intellectually unchallenging rather than explore what isn't advertised on Network television and MTV.

And yes, I realize "it has always been like this" with other eras and decades being close to equal offenders. 80s gloss and materialism was the prototype for the 2000s, but at least the overall style and feel of the 80s was somewhat unique, and the movies and music, as far as the mainstream goes, were simply better.

Now you tell me, what do you think is good about today's mainstream? Which mainstream artists and films are going to stand the test of time and be considered important 20 years from now? Or is your bone to pick that I'm "unfairly" singling out the 2000s?

[midnightpulp]

There's actually a documentary out there - don't recall the name - about how (and why) so many people willfully choose to remain ignorant when it's now so easy to find information, or choose to study crap over quality stuff.

Would love to see that.

[CuckingFunt]

Really? I find it easier to escape than ever... we have the internet, video games, etc etc.


:tu True. I think one has to be really lazy not to be able to escape the crap. Instead of waiting to be spoon-fed, just make a little effort to find the good stuff.

I was speaking more about the constant flood of information and aggressive advertising with my initial post. There are of course tons of options out there so that everyone, with varying degrees of effort, can watch/read/listen to only what genuinely interests them.

When I mentioned the crap being inescapable these days, I was thinking more of knowledge than consumption. Especially within the last decade or so, it feels like I know a hell of a lot about things I don't watch or people don't care about. I don't listen to Katy Perry's music, wouldn't even be able to recognize any of her songs other than the girl kissing one, and have no interest in her as a person, yet without even trying I know that she used to date some guy from Gym Class Heroes (another band I've never listened to) but is now engaged to Russel Brand. I don't want to know that, but since I don't live in a cave and occasionally go grocery shopping with my eyes open, I do. And I could think of countless other examples.

[LnGrrrR]

I was speaking more about the constant flood of information and aggressive advertising with my initial post. There are of course tons of options out there so that everyone, with varying degrees of effort, can watch/read/listen to only what genuinely interests them.

When I mentioned the crap being inescapable these days, I was thinking more of knowledge than consumption. Especially within the last decade or so, it feels like I know a hell of a lot about things I don't watch or people don't care about. I don't listen to Katy Perry's music, wouldn't even be able to recognize any of her songs other than the girl kissing one, and have no interest in her as a person, yet without even trying I know that she used to date some guy from Gym Class Heroes (another band I've never listened to) but is now engaged to Russel Brand. I don't want to know that, but since I don't live in a cave and occasionally go grocery shopping with my eyes open, I do. And I could think of countless other examples.

I think this is a result of that increased access to other forms of entertainment. As the number of ways to be entertained increase, the old guard has to ramp up their advertising to attract users fleeing from their base. That's the main way they know how to deal with the loss of viewers/listeners.