|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 84 responses total. |
polygon
|
|
response 25 of 84:
| 
May 6 04:28 UTC 2002 |
A couple of years ago, a lot of the pop music which was being played on
the radio was quite listenable. Maybe that's because it resembled in many
large and small ways the music that came out 30 years ago.
I thought this was interesting, and shared the observation around. But
most others of my generation just gaped uncomprehendingly at the notion
that new music might be even passingly worthwhile.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 26 of 84:
|
May 6 06:50 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, but 'rap' is still crap. I mean it doesn't take a lot of
creativity and spirit to lay down a heavy and repetitive 2 note
base 'melody' with a simple drum rif -also heavy - while
shouting out antisocial comments at the top of your voice.
On the otherhand some of the (c)rap resembles german
techno of the later 70s and is quite clever and listenable...
My fave (c)rap number is _You's a Ho_.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 27 of 84:
|
May 6 09:34 UTC 2002 |
resp:26 I don't think that's a fair assessment-- hip-hop is indeed
creative and diverse, and it falls flat just as much as rock or any
other genre did, honestly.
Every decade has its crap--- ALL THE WAY back to Bach, and beyond.
Time weeds out what was crappy.
|
mary
|
|
response 28 of 84:
|
May 6 12:10 UTC 2002 |
Re: #26 Kind of like, "Hey, Jude" but with attitude?
|
scott
|
|
response 29 of 84:
|
May 6 13:25 UTC 2002 |
The best music from any era is gradually filtered free of impurities by the
passage of time (wow, I should sell that to a "best of" CD company!). The
biggest difference between the music then and the music now is that the music
now hasn't been filtered yet. After all, we're not comparing "every pop song
from 2002" with "every pop song from 1971".
Then there's the "I know what I like, and I like what I know" side of it.
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 84:
|
May 6 13:37 UTC 2002 |
I think part of the reason college-age people seem to care less about
issues, and engage less in protests, these days is that most world issues no
longer directly affect them. There is no draft; no one's going to war who
didn't sign up for it.
|
mary
|
|
response 31 of 84:
|
May 6 15:44 UTC 2002 |
I suspect that if we engaged in another Vietnam today, and again
initiated a draft for soldiers, that a higher percentage of young
people would revolt and not follow marching orders than did so
in the sixties.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 32 of 84:
|
May 6 16:00 UTC 2002 |
not if they were promised a HAPPY MEAL (tm)
|
scott
|
|
response 33 of 84:
|
May 6 17:07 UTC 2002 |
No, I agree with Mary. When Tom Brokaw's book about the WWII generation was
being hyped, there was a fair amount of talk about how much more purposeful
that generation was, allowing them to deal with being in such a major war.
Implied is that today's kids are too lightweight.
But the WWII generation were a bunch of partying lightweights too, back in
the 20's and 30's. The rose to the occasion, and I'd expect today's kids to
do the same if another real war happened.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 84:
|
May 6 19:02 UTC 2002 |
I wonder how well a reinstating of the draft would hold up today, legally.
You would think the male-only nature of it would draw legal challenges, at
very least.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 35 of 84:
|
May 6 19:40 UTC 2002 |
I'd certainly hope so. I think as an affirmative action thing, they should
draft only women for the next two world wars and several police actions.
;-)
|
jp2
|
|
response 36 of 84:
|
May 6 20:18 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 37 of 84:
|
May 6 20:30 UTC 2002 |
Same here. It's offensive. The draft should have become co-ed when women
got the vote.
(Ideally, there shouldn't be a draft, but if we're going to have one it
shouldn't be unequal.)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 38 of 84:
|
May 6 20:48 UTC 2002 |
In my ideal world, there would be a required two years of national service,
with different types of service available: military, hospital, teaching,
etc. Required between the ages of 17 and 20. Both sexes.
|
slynne
|
|
response 39 of 84:
|
May 6 21:41 UTC 2002 |
That is a nice idea actually although I would rather see the program be
voluntary with some kind of reward at the end of it (College tuition
paid for perhaps?)
|
jp2
|
|
response 40 of 84:
|
May 6 23:48 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 41 of 84:
|
May 6 23:59 UTC 2002 |
You know, the Internet was originally a government service that was opened
to the public. Witness your tax dollars at work.
Witness Jamie using your tax dollars.
*cough*Socialism*cough* seems to only apply to services that Jamie doesn't
personally wish to exploit.
|
klg
|
|
response 42 of 84:
|
May 7 00:24 UTC 2002 |
re: "But the WWII generation were a bunch of partying lightweights too, back
in the 20's and 30's."
Hey, Child, ever hear of the Depression? It was that thing back in the
"partying" '30s - a real good time was had by all.
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 84:
|
May 7 00:29 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 44 of 84:
|
May 7 02:28 UTC 2002 |
Re 42: Yes, I have indeed heard of the depression. It did not, contrary to
what you think, last from 1930-1939. Not only that, but escapist
entertainment was a pretty good industry.
|
other
|
|
response 45 of 84:
|
May 7 02:38 UTC 2002 |
Another factor was that the military establishment of another sovereign
nation was deployed in an attack on American soil, making for a very
clear set of enemies on which to focus the attention of our declaration
of war in response. That scenario is not in evidence today.
Additionally, the younger generation of today has been raised in a
culture in which the antiwar sentiments of the 60's have become pervasive
not as a counter-culture movement, but as part of the establishment.
|
brighn
|
|
response 46 of 84:
|
May 7 02:40 UTC 2002 |
#43> I fail to see how the modern privatization of the Internet means "you
lost." The Internet wouldn't exist without the government's original outlay.
With tax dollars.
Sorry, YOU lost. Actually, you already lost with the roads nonsense, this is
just further demonstration. You use government (or government-seeded) services
when it suits you, and when there's something you don't want to pay for, you
whine about socialism. Fucking hypocrite.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 47 of 84:
|
May 7 03:01 UTC 2002 |
Re #38: Why? To put people who currently do those jobs for a living out
of work?
|
bru
|
|
response 48 of 84:
|
May 7 03:28 UTC 2002 |
If only all government services worked that well. Let teh government start
it and then get them to hell out of the way. REural electrifi cation is one
example that worked. The national roads are another. Teh erie canal? Teh
panama Canal. The Soo Locks. All were government projects that went private.
Tell NASA to get out the way.
|
jp2
|
|
response 49 of 84:
|
May 7 03:29 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|