Reply With Quote
ty synthpop is much better than today's ty autotune heavy electropop. To be a pop-star in the 80s, you at least had to have some vocal chops.
Compare this:
to this:
Katy Perry couldn't hit the notes Lauper does if her life depended on it.
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.
ty synthpop is much better than today's ty autotune heavy electropop. To be a pop-star in the 80s, you at least had to have some vocal chops.
Compare this:
to this:
Katy Perry couldn't hit the notes Lauper does if her life depended on it.
The OP must be a real pleasure in real life....
GOD DAMNED KIDS! GOD DAMNED MUSIC!
Cyndi Lauper is awesome.
There are not many that are on her level.
This is true.
God damned kids today like god damned ty music and movies, and the they like is exponentially worse than the kids of yesterday liked.
Do you deny this?
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.
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?
Yep.
I like this
more than i like this
I don't listen to much of today's music as I find most of it to be crap. Classic rock is real music.
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.
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 sub les" is an intellectually lazy person.
And from my perspective, modern consumers are more intellectually lazy than ever before.
I think 80's was the worst decade in music. Apart from Joy Division and New Order, nothing worth mentioning.
[QUOTE=ALWAYS bet on BLACK;4467723]Yep.
I like this
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:
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.
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 ty 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--- 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 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...
WTF!?!?! The hair bands of the 80's rocked!!
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 en led 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.
Prince is a great talent and I love his music.
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.
2000 music for the most part sucks major ass.
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 ty 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.
I go through the Coac a, 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 ty 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.
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.
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.Why not use the Beatles to prove 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?They were the dominant trend of their time. Now compare them to the dominant trends of today and you'll grasp my point.
Repeat: there were plenty of popular groups and trends in the 60's that were considered stupid, even then. Pill-box hats, for instance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
