I know this will seem exceedingly shallow and forever brand me as "some stupid kid", but I was just wondering. So have at the poll: which is your favorite turning? Do you prefer:

• the bland security and optimism of a High
• the lively and challenging chaos of an Awakening
• the comfortable deterioration of an Unraveling
• the hopeful struggle of a Crisis

Anyway, have at the poll, and post whatever you want about it. It seems shallow and I'm sure no one will take me seriously after this, but hey, I was curious.

Originally Posted by 1990

I know this will seem exceedingly shallow and forever brand me as "some stupid kid", but I was just wondering. So have at the poll: which is your favorite turning? Do you prefer:

• the bland security and optimism of a High
• the lively and challenging chaos of an Awakening
• the comfortable deterioration of an Unraveling
• the hopeful struggle of a Crisis

Anyway, have at the poll, and post whatever you want about it. It seems shallow and I'm sure no one will take me seriously after this, but hey, I was curious.

I should like to see the Coming Crisis as I have been through a High, an Awakening, and the present Unravelling. Of the three so far the Awakening was my favorite as there was an appeal for variety that didn't exist during the High and was quashed by the Unravelling.

Originally Posted by 1990

I know this will seem exceedingly shallow and forever brand me as "some stupid kid", but I was just wondering. So have at the poll: which is your favorite turning? Do you prefer:

• the bland security and optimism of a High
• the lively and challenging chaos of an Awakening
• the comfortable deterioration of an Unraveling
• the hopeful struggle of a Crisis

Anyway, have at the poll, and post whatever you want about it. It seems shallow and I'm sure no one will take me seriously after this, but hey, I was curious.

This is not a "stupid kid" question, by the way. A lot can be gleaned about a generation from the experiences of its members, and which parts of their lives they look back favorably upon.

I went with Unraveling. Mid-Unraveling, specifically... the early 90s. All the other eras were/are conformist in one way or another. Only in an Unravelling are you (more or less) completely free to be yourself, with a minimum of static from people who don't share your take on life.

Being born on my particular cusp (Boom/X) makes it difficult to determine what is due to the Turning, or to the phase of life of any generation at any time. Most young adults in their early 30s are freer to be themselves in any turning, since they no longer need their parents for financial or moral support, are mature enough to know who they are and not rely on their friends for self-validation. However, an Unraveling is the time when society itself puts less pressure on people to conform to a common persona, whether that be the 40s ready-for-action soldier, 50s Man In A Grey Flannel Suit, or anti-establishment 70s radical.

Truth be told, I've found something to like, and dislike in every Turning. I'm old enough to remember the tranquility and security of the High mood, which lasted in my hometown until '67-'68... though after growing up I learned that all was not peachy-keen back then for everyone everywhere. Although the Awakening was pretty traumatic in many ways, the music (and the cars!) were awesome to say the least.... and a few of my pastimes from the High-era, like family road trips to the beach, continued to some extent until the early Unravelling.

So I don't know... maybe I feel better about the 3T only because it's the most recent Turning before the current one, and my memories of it are fresher.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Truth be told, I've found something to like, and dislike in every Turning.

I agree. I don't think your overall happiness has much to do with turnings. It's what you do (although the turnings may affect that).

But, I fully expect that the crisis will be the worst. Then again, I'll still be pretty young throughout it. Who knows?

I spent a good chunk of this past weekend plodding through a charity home tour. Set aside the obvious fact that the houses on the tour were incredibly out of reach, it was still and interesting veiw of how the other half think. -One of the houses had the entire bottom floor (basement is not a proper way to envision the space) as a replica of a typical small town in the 1950s, complete with a Soda Shoppe, Movie Theatre, Bakery and Laundry. The owners are semi-retired Silents in their early 70s. He has a business that operates just fine on auto-pilot, hence the 'semi'-retirement rather than the real thing.

I talked to the owner. They have a 6 year-old grandson, and wish him to see the last 1T. Hanging around their faux '50s diorama, I was willing to take a nostalgia trip too.

I would vote for the late Awakening as my favorite time in the saeculum. There was a lot more freedom possible then than there has been at any time since then. To me there are both good and not so good points about each turning. Therefore, the oft-quoted literaly phrase "It was the best of times -- it was the worst of times" applies here. There are groups of people for whom one particular turning is the best of times and vise versa. Would like to open up for discussion for what groups each turning is the best of times for, and what groups each turning is the worst of times for.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I would vote for the late Awakening as my favorite time in the saeculum.

There is a Chevy commercial currently running along patriotic themes, hitting significant events in recent US history. The images that stuck in my mind are mostly of the Awakening and the recent 3T / 4T cusp era. There was Rosa Parks from the High, though she feels like a precursor to the awakening to me. There was the Dream speech, a Vietnam scene, Nixon's Farewell and Golf on the Moon from the Awakening period proper. I didn't spot much that spoke specifically of the unraveling. The closest might be the black #3 NASCAR, a Chevy mind you. The cusp featured New Orleans under flood, and the towers of light September 11th memorial. In between the historic photos were a wide variety of purple mountain's majesty and amber waves of grain shots.

Many of the Awakening and High scenes had negative or conflict aspect to them, but it is odd that the images that evoked memories of difficult times also evoked pride and patriotism.

But, thus far, I'm not sure what is coming out positive from the cusp moments. My vote was for the Awakening, but we are still in the cusp of the crisis. Our Finest Hour has not yet arrived.

I was far, far happier from 1965 to 1977 or so than I have ever been since. I recognize now that older generations made the Awakening possible, but we made it happen. At the same time, it was much easier for me to function in a GI/Silent-run university than in a Boomer one. . .sigh.

I wonder how many will pick a turning in which they were NOT young adults. The world does seem fresher then.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I wonder how many will pick a turning in which they were NOT young adults. The world does seem fresher then.

David K '47

Erm, not if you're a Nomad, darlin'. :P

I vote for the High. The Awakening was my favorite as far as music and social activism goes, but the darker side of it is what has alienated me from a large swath of my gen, as a late Xer with preseasonal Boomer parents. The Unraveling has been pretty frustrating, as it began when I was barely seven years old and I'm looking at 30 now. And no need to vote for the coming Crisis, for it's near, even at the very doors.

Something about the 1950s and early 1960s appeals to me and a lot of my friends. For one thing, it was the last time that my community (African-American) was semi-functional and wanted to buy into integration and the American dream. For another, I like the way that social roles were defined in a way that they are not now. No one gave my gen a road map for anything. This is something that we will correct in the future.

Another reason why I feel this way is because I can't see an opportunity to reform my corner of the world (public education) until the Silents and Boomers who control schools retire. My Silent profs' foremost critique of my proposals and research is that my tone is "too harsh", that I must "hedge" and "qualify" any reforms for K12 education. Yet the situation in schools is dire. The time for hedging and qualifying is over.

I can see myself, once I finish the PhD and get a policy job somewhere, along with other peers in the field quietly and pragmatically giving substance to Bennett and Gates' dreams of schools for the High, finally retiring as one of the Old Fogeys of the 2030s... with relish.

Best of all, my Millennial students will be parents by then and will support the vision all the way...

Originally Posted by XerTeacher

Erm, not if you're a Nomad, darlin'. :P

I vote for the High. The Awakening was my favorite as far as music and social activism goes, but the darker side of it is what has alienated me from a large swath of my gen, as a late Xer with preseasonal Boomer parents. The Unraveling has been pretty frustrating, as it began when I was barely seven years old and I'm looking at 30 now. And no need to vote for the coming Crisis, for it's near, even at the very doors.

Something about the 1950s and early 1960s appeals to me and a lot of my friends. For one thing, it was the last time that my community (African-American) was semi-functional and wanted to buy into integration and the American dream. For another, I like the way that social roles were defined in a way that they are not now. No one gave my gen a road map for anything. This is something that we will correct in the future.

Another reason why I feel this way is because I can't see an opportunity to reform my corner of the world (public education) until the Silents and Boomers who control schools retire. My Silent profs' foremost critique of my proposals and research is that my tone is "too harsh", that I must "hedge" and "qualify" any reforms for K12 education. Yet the situation in schools is dire. The time for hedging and qualifying is over.

I can see myself, once I finish the PhD and get a policy job somewhere, along with other peers in the field quietly and pragmatically giving substance to Bennett and Gates' dreams of schools for the High, finally retiring as one of the Old Fogeys of the 2030s... with relish.

Best of all, my Millennial students will be parents by then and will support the vision all the way...

Hey, when you're done you should check out Portland, Oregon. Their schools are in a shitload of trouble for (probably) just that reason, and could use a radical Xer like you to cut through the crap and straighten things out!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I was far, far happier from 1965 to 1977 or so than I have ever been since. I recognize now that older generations made the Awakening possible, but we made it happen. At the same time, it was much easier for me to function in a GI/Silent-run university than in a Boomer one. . .sigh.

I wonder how many will pick a turning in which they were NOT young adults. The world does seem fresher then.

David K '47

I was alternately the happiest, saddest/angriest during those years. Happy: Driving with my family down the shore on Rte.35, with Dan Ingram spinning tunes on the radio, in 1971-2... hiking and establishing "forts" with my friends in Weequahic and Brookdale Parks, 1969-75. I won't go into what made me angry, sad or afraid during the Awakening again... I've already done that here ad nauseam and it's gotten old. Suffice to say that I was able to do grown-up versions of the happy 1T/2T stuff throughout the Unravelling, without the bullshit that went along with it. Which is why I voted for 3T/young adulthood.

Originally Posted by XerTeacher

Erm, not if you're a Nomad, darlin'. :P

I vote for the High. The Awakening was my favorite as far as music and social activism goes, but the darker side of it is what has alienated me from a large swath of my gen, as a late Xer with preseasonal Boomer parents. The Unraveling has been pretty frustrating, as it began when I was barely seven years old and I'm looking at 30 now. And no need to vote for the coming Crisis, for it's near, even at the very doors.

Something about the 1950s and early 1960s appeals to me and a lot of my friends. For one thing, it was the last time that my community (African-American) was semi-functional and wanted to buy into integration and the American dream. For another, I like the way that social roles were defined in a way that they are not now. No one gave my gen a road map for anything. This is something that we will correct in the future.

Another reason why I feel this way is because I can't see an opportunity to reform my corner of the world (public education) until the Silents and Boomers who control schools retire. My Silent profs' foremost critique of my proposals and research is that my tone is "too harsh", that I must "hedge" and "qualify" any reforms for K12 education. Yet the situation in schools is dire. The time for hedging and qualifying is over.

I can see myself, once I finish the PhD and get a policy job somewhere, along with other peers in the field quietly and pragmatically giving substance to Bennett and Gates' dreams of schools for the High, finally retiring as one of the Old Fogeys of the 2030s... with relish.

Best of all, my Millennial students will be parents by then and will support the vision all the way...

I appreciate those comments very much. And it's rather tragic that black GIs like Thurgood Marshall and Roy Wilkins (not to mention Lost Walter White) aren't getting the credit they deserve for the lobbying/legalistic approach to civil rights, which brought us the great milestones of 1964-5. In fact, politically I would much rather be living in the High. But it wasn't nearly as much fun for me.

David K '47

As a late Silent frog, I have to with the Dylan revolution (60's Awakening). I was 16 when rock 'n' roll drove up in Maybellene and we rocked around the clock all night. That was fun, all right, but I didn't tie-dye my pink shirt with the button-down collar right away. I believed what every other tadpole believed back then: "You gotta be a football hero to get along with the beautiful girls." Obviously a G,I. value. Then, after Woodstock and Watergate, everything went to pond scum with Disco and Donny Osmond. We've never recovered.

btw: This new poster, 1990, who claims to be 15 years old, must be the smartest dang tadpole I've ever read. When I was 15 I had not yet begun to withdraw my head from my cloaca maximus, and I'm still working on it.


Drrrreeeeeppp!

Overall, I think that I like awakenings the best. Its the only turning where you still have the material benefits inherent as the post crises progresses continues. Yet, at the same time you have the creative blooming of free thinking as the establishment has yet to turn retributive towards non conformity in the young. Adults were much more sanguine about the future in my childhood. If I could I would like to be a late silent like or an early boomer. You get a secure if somewhat boring childhood followed by a complete awakening young adulthood. And, if you don't screw up your life too much you get to mature into a trusted advisor of the young as you become old.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Overall, I think that I like awakenings the best. Its the only turning where you still have the material benefits inherent as the post crises progresses continues. Yet, at the same time you have the creative blooming of free thinking as the establishment has yet to turn retributive towards non conformity in the young. Adults were much more sanguine about the future in my childhood. If I could I would like to be a late silent like or an early boomer. You get a secure if somewhat boring childhood followed by a complete awakening young adulthood. And, if you don't screw up your life too much you get to mature into a trusted advisor of the young as you become old.

I agree. From a kid's perspective things were so flush in the 70s. Schools were well-funded. Parents never had to volunteer in the class room because we only had, like, 17 kids in a class. When fundraising happened it was because the orchestra wanted to go to Vienna or something. Everything seemed stable and under control in terms of institutions (which were run by GIs at the top levels), but subversive Silents throughout the ranks made sure that things weren't all buttoned down and staid. Everything was so safe and secure that you were free to experiment. And we did. Plus the toys were all trippy (Lite Brite, Spirograph, Sit 'n' Spin, Slinky . . .)



Now, Kevin, I feel compelled to call you on this again (the rest of you can ignore this). I know you love to trash Portland Public Schools, but keep this in mind, it's still one of the very few large urban public school districts in which over 85% of city residents -- and this is a heavily middle class and rapidly gentrifying city -- still send their kids to public school. A more valid comparison is not Portland vs. Vancouver, WA, but rather Portland vs. Seattle or San Francisco. Those other cities don't capture middle class kids the way that Portland continues to do. So, as a large, diverse, urban school district, we're doing very well. In addition, you're not talking to those of us with real kids in the public schools here in Portland. What you're doing is reading the Oregonian, which largely laments that PPS is going from an outstanding to average school system mainly due to a shift from a local property tax to a statewide income tax based funding system (i.e. we're subsidizing the rest of the state). And, frankly, you're also talking to disgruntled folks who moved to Vancouver, WA because they couldn't afford the astronomical housing prices in the Portland neighborhoods with the better schools (of which there are many in inner SE, NE, and the entire west side).

Here's some stuff from yesterday on PPS kicking butt compared to the rest of the state on statewide report cards (although the rest of the state got better too):

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...an?pdde&coll=7

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...?lcedfp&coll=7

http://159.191.14.139/.docs/pg/11073

OK, end rant. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

As a late Silent frog, I have to with the Dylan revolution (60's Awakening). I was 16 when rock 'n' roll drove up in Maybellene and we rocked around the clock all night. That was fun, all right, but I didn't tie-dye my pink shirt with the button-down collar right away. I believed what every other tadpole believed back then: "You gotta be a football hero to get along with the beautiful girls." Obviously a G,I. value. Then, after Woodstock and Watergate, everything went to pond scum with Disco and Donny Osmond. We've never recovered.

btw: This new poster, 1990, who claims to be 15 years old, must be the smartest dang tadpole I've ever read. When I was 15 I had not yet begun to withdraw my head from my cloaca maximus, and I'm still working on it.


Drrrreeeeeppp!

Donny Osmond did a DISCO song??? I never knew!

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

I agree. From a kid's perspective things were so flush in the 70s. Schools were well-funded. Parents never had to volunteer in the class room because we only had, like, 17 kids in a class. When fundraising happened it was because the orchestra wanted to go to Vienna or something. Everything seemed stable and under control in terms of institutions (which were run by GIs at the top levels), but subversive Silents throughout the ranks made sure that things weren't all buttoned down and staid. Everything was so safe and secure that you were free to experiment. And we did. Plus the toys were all trippy (Lite Brite, Spirograph, Sit 'n' Spin, Slinky . . .)



Now, Kevin, I feel compelled to call you on this again (the rest of you can ignore this). I know you love to trash Portland Public Schools, but keep this in mind, it's still one of the very few large urban public school districts in which over 85% of city residents -- and this is a heavily middle class and rapidly gentrifying city -- still send their kids to public school. A more valid comparison is not Portland vs. Vancouver, WA, but rather Portland vs. Seattle or San Francisco. Those other cities don't capture middle class kids the way that Portland continues to do. So, as a large, diverse, urban school district, we're doing very well. In addition, you're not talking to those of us with real kids in the public schools here in Portland. What you're doing is reading the Oregonian, which largely laments that PPS is going from an outstanding to average school system mainly due to a shift from a local property tax to a statewide income tax based funding system (i.e. we're subsidizing the rest of the state). And, frankly, you're also talking to disgruntled folks who moved to Vancouver, WA because they couldn't afford the astronomical housing prices in the Portland neighborhoods with the better schools (of which there are many in inner SE, NE, and the entire west side).

Here's some stuff from yesterday on PPS kicking butt compared to the rest of the state on statewide report cards (although the rest of the state got better too):

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...an?pdde&coll=7

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...?lcedfp&coll=7

http://159.191.14.139/.docs/pg/11073

OK, end rant. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Interesting. I live in Portland, but I didn't go to school here. All we hear around here is how bad the schools are over and over. Well I'm glad there doesn't seem to be much truth to it. Not that I have any personal stake in it (hopefully kids are a loooong way off), but I don't want people getting down on Portland for things like that!

Originally Posted by albatross '82

Interesting. I live in Portland, but I didn't go to school here. All we hear around here is how bad the schools are over and over. Well I'm glad there doesn't seem to be much truth to it. Not that I have any personal stake in it (hopefully kids are a loooong way off), but I don't want people getting down on Portland for things like that!

I was being partly facetious, actually. My honest impression is that Portland schools are spotty... a few good schools here, a few bad ones there, which averages out to mediocre but not universally so. A lot like Seattle was when I lived there, and I'd have had no problem sending my never-born kids either to the local elementary school or West Seattle High.

On the other hand I suppose I'm also a bit ticked because I thought it would be fun to live in Portland, 10% income tax not withstanding. By the time my job here was secure, and I was sufficiently informed to buy, suddenly they all wanted my left you-know-what for a tiny bungalow that would have fetched a mere $175,000 in 2003. All I could afford in NE Portland was Concordia or worse... and I shuddered at the thought of Jenny and I sending her daughter to Jefferson Middle-and-High School. So I bought in the part of Vancouver that's most like NE... and have the third best commute-to-work I've ever had. Not bad at all, but still...

Double post deleted.

Sorry to keep this way off topic!

Here's what's really going on with PPS. We have four excellent high schools (Lincoln, Wilson, Grant and Cleveland). I live in the Grant cluster. Housing prices in these four clusters are *high,* with high concentrations of professionals. These are the neighborhoods closest to the center core of the city. (Luckily I bought into the neighborhood in 1995, before there was such a disparity. We were young and looking for nice housing stock and a short commute, not really thinking about schools in our 20s.) The elementary and middle schools in these four clusters are also considered strong.

We have four crappy high schools -- Jefferson, Roosevelt, Marshall and Madison -- which are now half full as a result of NCLB and our liberal transfer policy (on which they are starting to crack down because the four terrific high schools are now overcrowded). Jefferson and Roosevelt are in North Portland, which has historically large concentrations of African-Americans and is gentrifying rapidly, due to nice housing stock and close proximity to downtown. Marshall and Madison are in the outer edges of the city, and home to lots of young immigrants and folks who have been diplaced by gentrification. Our extremely action-oriented Boomer superintendent will close at least one of these four schools if she doesn't see results fast. When you hear about "bad" schools in Portland, this is what they are talking about. Although, "bad" in Portland is nothing comparent to "bad" in Chicago or Los Angeles. No-one is killing each other in these schools, they just have bad test scores. (Oooh. Scary.)

There are two fair-to-middlin' high schools (Franklin and Benson). One is a technology magnet, which takes a lot of the kids from the four "bad" high schools. The other is in a solidly working class neighborhood in SE (Franklin). Not surprisingly, the wealthier neighborhoods have the schools with the highest test scores, which is what marks a "good" school these days.

The elementary schools are almostly uniformly good, citywide, in large part due to the hyper-involvement of crazed Xer parents. There are no more middle schools in the Jefferson or Madison clusters, and only one left in the Grant cluster (and that might convert too), as a result of a massive district-wide reconfiguration last spring that turned many, many schools into K-8s -- inlcuding schools in other clusters as well. Like I said, this superintendent is action-oriented, and it took quite a lot of Xer parents to keep her from shoving even more change down our throats. The Grant cluster was a fully functioning cluster with uniformly high test scores and she reconfigured it anyway. Go figure.

Here's a link to info on reconfiguration (which will probably be more of interest to Xer Teacher and other education wonks, than anyone else):

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/depts/commu...fig/index.html


As for whether we could use more Xer involvment, we're already there! There are few, if any, Silents involved in the local schools. Staff and the school board are equal parts Boomer and Xer, and the volunteers are mainly Xer.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Sorry to keep this way off topic!

Here's what's really going on with PPS. We have four excellent high schools (Lincoln, Wilson, Grant and Cleveland). I live in the Grant cluster. Housing prices in these four clusters are *high,* with high concentrations of professionals. These are the neighborhoods closest to the center core of the city. (Luckily I bought into the neighborhood in 1995, before there was such a disparity. We were young and looking for nice housing stock and a short commute, not really thinking about schools in our 20s.) The elementary and middle schools in these four clusters are also considered strong.

We have four crappy high schools -- Jefferson, Roosevelt, Marshall and Madison -- which are now half full as a result of NCLB and our liberal transfer policy (on which they are starting to crack down because the four terrific high schools are now overcrowded). Jefferson and Roosevelt are in North Portland, which has historically large concentrations of African-Americans and is gentrifying rapidly, due to nice housing stock and close proximity to downtown. Marshall and Madison are in the outer edges of the city, and home to lots of young immigrants and folks who have been diplaced by gentrification. Our extremely action-oriented Boomer superintendent will close at least one of these four schools if she doesn't see results fast. When you hear about "bad" schools in Portland, this is what they are talking about. Although, "bad" in Portland is nothing comparent to "bad" in Chicago or Los Angeles. No-one is killing each other in these schools, they just have bad test scores. (Oooh. Scary.)

There are two fair-to-middlin' high schools (Franklin and Benson). One is a technology magnet, which takes a lot of the kids from the four "bad" high schools. The other is in a solidly working class neighborhood in SE (Franklin). Not surprisingly, the wealthier neighborhoods have the schools with the highest test scores, which is what marks a "good" school these days.

The elementary schools are almostly uniformly good, citywide, in large part due to the hyper-involvement of crazed Xer parents. There are no more middle schools in the Jefferson or Madison clusters, and only one left in the Grant cluster (and that might convert too), as a result of a massive district-wide reconfiguration last spring that turned many, many schools into K-8s -- inlcuding schools in other clusters as well. Like I said, this superintendent is action-oriented, and it took quite a lot of Xer parents to keep her from shoving even more change down our throats. The Grant cluster was a fully functioning cluster with uniformly high test scores and she reconfigured it anyway. Go figure.

Here's a link to info on reconfiguration (which will probably be more of interest to Xer Teacher and other education wonks, than anyone else):

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/depts/commu...fig/index.html


As for whether we could use more Xer involvment, we're already there! There are few, if any, Silents involved in the local schools. Staff and the school board are equal parts Boomer and Xer, and the volunteers are mainly Xer.

So it sounds like the four crappy High Schools may see major improvement, and rather suddenly, once the Homies and remaining Millies graduate from elementary schools and their Xer parents get involved there. That will be good news.

Well, it's not so simple (this is waaay off topic, so sorry). Part of the reason involvement drops off in middle school is that kids don't *want* their parents hanging out in the hallway or in their classrooms. Homelanders may be different in this regard, especially if there's a crisis on . . . Silents? But, I don't know if 13-year-olds of any gen are wired to want hovering mama around.

This is part of the push to K-8. It's easier for kids to accept their parents still hanging around when: 1) there are also 5-year-olds and crazed kindergarten parents in the same school; 2) younger siblings are also in the same school, so mom and dad will be around anyway; and 3) they have known their fellow eighth graders since they were five (and just barely making it to the bathroom in time, or not), so no need to impress a bunch of new kids with one's lack of embarrassing parents.

Awakening. I was just thinking yesterday at the String Cheese Incident concert, which is very much like the Grateful Dead (and people dressed and acted accordingly), how my generation has nothing like this. No kind of cultural movement, not even anything the Xers had, like punk. Take me back to the days when music was real.