Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But then, I am idealistic.

I, too, am an idealist. In fact, I am an Idealist (http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/healer.asp).

Better still, according to your own interpretations of the Jung/MB personality types, I am a prophet type (due to the NF in my INFP). http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...-Types-of-MBTI

So, as a prophet, I am going to make a prediction that you and Brower will be wrong and that much of the music of the 3T will be fondly remembered for many years to come (hell it already is).

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

When I read something I disagree with, especially if I disagree strongly, I say something about it. You do too, all the time. Is that being intolerant of disagreement?

Saying what you think, is not necessarily intolerant.

I was wondering what you meant by "core punk." I thought maybe you meant early punk, but you mean hard core. TBH, I don't care for most hard core either, particularly from the mid-90s onward. I don't really like punk pop, either, though...IMO punk was pretty much dead as a movement by the mid 90s--grunge killed it, or rather the commercialization of grunge. Others here will probably disagree, and others still will say it died long before. That's just my opinion. But punk rock produced a lot of great music and was a very fascinating moment in the history of popular music, there's no denying that.

I'm not inclined to say it was particularly significant, and not that great. But I'm not much of an expert on it, compared to some younger folks. More-recent pop punk has some good artists. I'm a fan of Green Day, for example. And, All Time Low.

While I'm expressing my opinions plainly, I have to tell you that since I've joined this forum I have listened to Justin Bieber's "Pray" several times in an attempt to hear whatever it is you hear in it. But I end up being completely mystified.

I have to admit too, that I am mystified by this reaction to it. It's quality and greatness is obvious to me. But I'm glad you tried it.

It is nothing more than a rather mediocre pop song, neither offensive nor remarkable. I mean, as far as pop music goes, Michael Jackson had several songs that were much better, and he could dance too. I would put JB, as an artist, on around the same level as Debbie Gibson. Hell, DG's songs were certainly insipid and generally suck, but at least one or two of them managed to have a somewhat catchy tune https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IivGqwQvdCI. Justin Bieber's "Pray" has hardly any tune at all.

People here don't (or can't) hear what I hear in it. It's much better than any Jackson tune, as I hear it, and better than any pop or rock song since the mid-awakening years. It's tune is tremendous, the vocals are passionate perfection, and the instrumental arrangement is extraordinary, at least compared to most pop. 4-part counterpoint at the end. Nasri Atwah was one of the writers and arrangers on "Pray," besides Bieber and Messinger, and Atwah is also known as the leader of Magic who had another recent very-good pop hit entitled "Rude." (and he's a late Xer btw) I've never heard of Debbie Gibson; must be 3T. Not much chance I would like her music. But, as I said, Bieber was a surprise to me; I didn't think I would like his music either.

No, that must have been someone else. It is a good song, much better than JB though not better than the best of the 3T.

OK, thanks anyway. I thought you recommended something that I liked. Someone here also recommended "Good Time." (was that you?) Those are two of the best songs of the 4T, and better IMO than anything in the mainstream or alternative style pop or rock of the entire 3T.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

I, too, am an idealist. In fact, I am an Idealist (http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/healer.asp).

Better still, according to your own interpretations of the Jung/MB personality types, I am a prophet type (due to the NF in my INFP). http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...-Types-of-MBTI

So, as a prophet, I am going to make a prediction that you and Brower will be wrong and that much of the music of the 3T will be fondly remembered for many years to come (hell it already is).

Already is; humm; after only 7 years it would have to be.

OK, Prophet. Let's give it a whirl. I think you grew up with it and your perceptions developed within it. At best, some pop/rock mainstream music of the 3T is tolerable. It was an unfortunate era all the way around. I know, your mileage varies.

I have a pretty good record as a prophet being a prophet archetype and a published prophet to boot. I border on INFP too; it's supposed to be a fairly sensitive and even mystical type; comparable to Neptune in astrology and Type 4 Enneagram. I am officially INTP, like many others who post here. I guess we'll see. The 3T lasted a long time (too long). No doubt the Xer generation and some cuspal groups will remember 3T pop/rock their whole lives. The rest of us, maybe not.

So, I looked up what a materialist is and it says that...

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

I used to be a wiccan so i am laughing my arse off atm.

But I don't bow to your "greatness" and agree with you blindly so that makes me a materialist naturally...

Originally Posted by Taramarie

So, I looked up what a materialist is and it says that...

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

I used to be a wiccan so i am laughing my arse off atm.

But I don't bow to your "greatness" and agree with you blindly so that makes me a materialist naturally...

Your materialism comes out in your apparent agreement that someone in the circumstances that punk musicians were in, had to write what they did. They had no choice, according to you. That's determinism ("material interactions"), which is an essential aspect of materialism. I do know philosophy.

All I said was they could have created something different.

There was no way I could have told them what to do. I'm only saying my opinion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your materialism comes out in your apparent agreement that someone in the circumstances that punk musicians were in, had to write what they did. They had no choice, according to you. That's determinism ("material interactions"), which is an essential aspect of materialism. I do know philosophy.

All I said was they could have created something different.

There was no way I could have told them what to do. I'm only saying my opinion.

and where did i ever say that?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your materialism comes out in your apparent agreement that someone in the circumstances that punk musicians were in, had to write what they did. They had no choice, according to you. That's determinism ("material interactions"), which is an essential aspect of materialism. I do know philosophy.

All I said was they could have created something different.

There was no way I could have told them what to do. I'm only saying my opinion.

I never said they HAD to create what they created. But no one should say they should change their style. That is their choice alone. There are other people on the planet who appreciate what they create. The different styles make us the opposite of the borg. They can create something different but it is not your place to say they "could." As I have said over and over we can have interesting conversations about art/music etc but saying a style is so bad it should be changed when others love it for what it is, well that is just ego talking. You see what you like and what you do not like. I see what others like or do not like. I have my own opinions on what i like or don't but seeing as others appreciate what i do not like i mind my biz. People on here have said what they do not like and i leave them be because that is their opinion. What crosses lines is when others go on about it and say they could create something not of their style which is ignoring and dismissing others who do appreciate the work. You will not understand this though. Opinions, great but not at the ignorance of others tastes.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I never said they HAD to create what they created. But no one should say they should change their style. That is their choice alone. There are other people on the planet who appreciate what they create. The different styles make us the opposite of the borg. They can create something different but it is not your place to say they "could." As I have said over and over we can have interesting conversations about art/music etc but saying a style is so bad it should be changed when others love it for what it is, well that is just ego talking. You see what you like and what you do not like. I see what others like or do not like. I have my own opinions on what i like or don't but seeing as others appreciate what i do not like i mind my biz. People on here have said what they do not like and i leave them be because that is their opinion. What crosses lines is when others go on about it and say they could create something not of their style which is ignoring and dismissing others who do appreciate the work. You will not understand this though. Opinions, great but not at the ignorance of others tastes.

Mockingbird said this in response to you and brower:

Punk rock was certainly discordant and often ugly, but it was not mindless--not exactly. Punk was about working class issues, it was anti-authority, anti-commercialism, delivered with a crass belligerence that couldn't be ignored. Especially in the UK (where the true heart and soul of punk in its early days resided), it was often political and expressed frustration with the class system. Working class issues, also feminism, anti-racism and even environmental issues.

You said brower was responding to the sound of it, not the words:

He is most likely going by his reaction to it or the sound of it. My mother is the same with my heavy metal and cannot hear the intelligence/message.

Yes, of course, I responded. That's right. To me, the sound of it is what matters to me (among other musical qualities, of course). I can't even listen to the noisy hard core punk and metal stuff, generally speaking. I can read the lyrics; but no matter how good they are, that does not make me like the song.

Again, I said they could have created different music in response to their "issues." They had the choice; it was not determined. That's not saying they don't have the right to create what they created; what they chose to create.

I don't like those styles; I prefer what is beautiful, not ugly. Yes, according to my awareness of what those terms mean to me. I don't approve of that "music." Although I like some of that sort of music that might be lumped by others into those categories (especially punk). I don't listen or not listen just according to category, is what I'm saying. I appreciate what I do, and you can't tell me to appreciate what I don't like, and you can't tell me not to say my opinions.

Rags said "pop = bad music." I'd say that's more dogmatic than me. He disses a whole category of music; I don't. I just, like the typical boomer I am, try to explain things in long paragraphs, trying to get something across. I guess that's gets me in trouble with you. I'm sorry you felt you had to be so rude to me. I hope this clarifies this a little.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Mockingbird said this in response to you and brower:



You said brower was responding to the sound of it, not the words:



Yes, of course, I responded. That's right. To me, the sound of it is what matters to me (among other musical qualities, of course). I can't even listen to the noisy hard core punk and metal stuff, generally speaking. I can read the lyrics; but no matter how good they are, that does not make me like the song.

Again, I said they could have created different music in response to their "issues." That's not saying they don't have the right to create what they created.

I don't like those styles; I prefer what is beautiful, not ugly. Yes, according to my awareness of what those terms mean to me. I don't approve of that "music." Although I like some of that sort of music that might be lumped by others into those categories (especially punk). I don't listen or not listen just according to category, is what I'm saying. I appreciate what I do, and you can't tell me to appreciate what I don't like, and you can't tell me not to say my opinions.

Rags said "pop = bad music." I'd say that's more dogmatic than me. He disses a whole category of music; I don't. I just, like the typical boomer I am, try to explain things in long paragraphs, trying to get something across. I guess that's gets me in trouble with you. I'm sorry you felt you had to be so rude to me. I hope this clarifies this a little.

Generally, older people do not understand why the sound and the lyrics of say, metal or punk sound "angry." They were raised in a different time and the music really is targeted at a younger audience who does understand why the sound and message go well together. It is a feeling. One you do not agree with and that is ok! You can say you do not like it. I wont bite your head off for that. I do not like rap for instance. But i wont tell them they should change their style because that is something others do appreciate. I would be pretty upset if the style I like disappeared, wouldn't you? Ok now to read the rest of your message...

No I did not say you should appreciate what you do not like. More like i would say, please notice that others do like what you do not. Yes, he did say pop = bad music. Yeah, dogmatic but it his opinion. I would say the same of rap, although there have been a few rap artists who I thought did it quite well. Yes, sorry I was rude. I just thought you were pushing for people to change styles which is not necessarily a bad thing, but to say it is so bad it "could." Ok, fair enough. If it is just suggestion and no further, ok. Yes, typical boomer. I was just thinking that nowhere else shows a full blown boomer and full blown millennial interaction/conversation than this.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Generally, older people do not understand why the sound and the lyrics of say, metal or punk sound "angry." They were raised in a different time and the music really is targeted at a younger audience who does understand why the sound and message go well together. It is a feeling. One you do not agree with and that is ok! You can say you do not like it. I wont bite your head off for that. I do not like rap for instance. But i wont tell them they should change their style because that is something others do appreciate. I would be pretty upset if the style I like disappeared, wouldn't you? Ok now to read the rest of your message...

Yes, but I would not say I don't agree with someone's feeling. I would say I like a different expression of it, musically. My choice, and their choice. Of course I am well aware of the different styles and that others have different opinions and tastes than me! Everyone likes <<you know who>>, right? What, No???

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, but I would not say I don't agree with someone's feeling. I would say I like a different expression of it, musically. My choice, and their choice. Of course I am well aware of the different styles and that others have different opinions and tastes than me! Everyone likes <<you know who>>, right? What, No???

Yes, it is everyone's freedom to like what they like and do not like. That was why i took issue with the suggestion of a change of style, partly anyway. I would hope you are aware others appreciate what you do not. Btw don't worry about saying his name. If people do not like you saying JUSTIN BIEBER that is their issue. It only hurts those who seem to be bothered by it. I am not one of them.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The 'fault' with Thomas Kinkade is that he marketed his art to people generally not known as devotees of art -- like fundamentalist Christians, to whom he sold his work in astronomical quantities as prints.

So your argumentation in other threads that Kinkade is kitsch is based solely on who his target audience was/is? Not on the artistic merit (or lack of merit if we're talking about someone like Piccasso or Pollock). Remember it is nearly impossible to differentiate between a Jackson Pollock painting and a paint smeared apron.

So he was excessive with lighting... I consider it a tolerable distortion. Want photographic realism? Get your camera, and not paintbrushes.

If the goal is photographic realism, one is better served by photography. That being said, almost all art has to have at least some elements of realism.

Arthur Schnabel, Artur Rubinstein, Wilhelm Kempff, Rudolf Serkin, and Vladimir Horowitz were much more satisfying, thank you.

I don't disagree. What I contest is your contention that Liberace's music was trashy. His music itself was not trashy, what was trashy was his "showmanship" which was tacky, cheap looking, and appealed to a demographic that no longer exists.

Benny Goodman was classically-trained and had great musical talent -- so much that he made a recording with the composer-pianist Bela Bartok. The best of the Big Band figures exuded wit and musical competence, and offered their music without pandering to mass taste. Lawrence Welk continued the tradition of Your Hit Parade, and kept adding some standards as time passed. But on the other side was pandering to what he saw as mass tastes. Eventually those tastes changed, and shrinking audiences of desirable viewers* in a time of three commercial networks got him off the air.

Actually TLWS was eventually moved to PBS. I remember being subjected to it. I largely agree, but the point is that by the time Lawrence Welk and company were doing their thing the Big Band era had come, and had gone and it was the music of a generation either in Mid-Life or Entering Elderhood. It would be akin to having someone play Nirvana Covers on TV.

I would probably like that, but I doubt it would make for good tv to sell Tide Detergent.

I recognized the metaphor. It was just too obvious.

If you recognized it, and understood it, because it was obvious then why make an issue of it?

I could have as easily discussed the Martian sky, which is pink.

That would make sense if humans lived on Mars, but they don't.

*Ages 18-49, people who are seen as likely to respond to advertising. Under 18 they have too little disposable income to be attractive to prime-time network advertising. 50 or over they generally have their spending patterns set or are so capricious that advertising doesn't influence their spending habits. Now that Boomers are completely out of the desirable age groups for mass advertising, broadcast TV no longer cares about them.

I know what the main target demographic is for broadcast television is.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That wouldn't get the bombs dropping either.

Since I am not fully convinced myself that dropping bombs is a good idea, it might not be a very compelling song anyway. A good song comes about through real conviction.

The definitive solution is to have the surviving leaders and enforcers of the Infernal State... dropping, ropes attached to their necks, through the platforms of gallows.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The definitive solution is to have the surviving leaders and enforcers of the Infernal State... dropping, ropes attached to their necks, through the platforms of gallows.

That's the spirit!
Combine those spiritual, uplifting lyrics with folk guitar music and you've got a hit.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

So your argumentation in other threads that Kinkade is kitsch is based solely on who his target audience was/is? Not on the artistic merit (or lack of merit if we're talking about someone like Picasso or Pollock). Remember it is nearly impossible to differentiate between a Jackson Pollock painting and a paint smeared apron.

There is a huge difference between seeing a Pollock painting close up and seeing it on a video screen. Painting, unless you are discussing Seurat (whose works come up well on a video screen if the screen is large enough because his pointillism suggests a dot-based video display or photographic reproduction) is more subtly 3D due to brushstrokes that create texture. The paint-smeared apron looks good until one sees it up close and sees that it has no artistic merit.

If the goal is photographic realism, one is better served by photography. That being said, almost all art has to have at least some elements of realism.

Selective realism. I prefer to banish banality in such photos as I have taken by composing them to exclude parked cars.

I don't disagree. What I contest is your contention that Liberace's music was trashy. His music itself was not trashy, what was trashy was his "showmanship" which was tacky, cheap looking, and appealed to a demographic that no longer exists.

A Chopin Ballade is not trashy; it is a masterpiece. But it is possible to play a Chopin Ballade in a trashy manner or in a questionable context.

Actually TLWS was eventually moved to PBS. I remember being subjected to it. I largely agree, but the point is that by the time Lawrence Welk and company were doing their thing the Big Band era had come, and had gone and it was the music of a generation either in Mid-Life or Entering Elderhood. It would be akin to having someone play Nirvana Covers on TV.

I would probably like that, but I doubt it would make for good tv to sell Tide Detergent.

PBS found that the Lawrence Welk Show was good for drawing an audience that then watched very little other PBS programming, and that it was great for pledge drives.

All in all, Big Band music may be the greatest pop music ever written and performed. There are groups reviving it on tour, which would be impossible if the generation which first performed and enjoyed it were the only generation capable of enjoying it. I have introduced Big Band music to Millennial youth... who liked it. They did not have to live exactly as did the now-largely-extinct GI generation to appreciate it.

Aesthetic quality crosses barriers of time and nation. As I heard on an NPR program, Beethoven doesn't have to be Japanese to be beloved in Japan. Japanese woodblock prints are very successful in Peru.

If you recognized that (the sky is blue and not red), and understood it, because it was obvious then why make an issue of it? That (the sky could be pink) would make sense if humans lived on Mars, but they don't.

I'm prone to playing games with trite statements. Of course, a red sky might add some expression to a painting. A green or lavender sky would simply be absurd. As for the polluted sky around Greater Los Angeles... the reddish-brown effect of a nasty pollutant is ugly in itself. Were I to paint a scene out of Greater Los Angeles I would excise the reddish-brown color that nitrogen dioxide imparts upon an image just as I would excise telephone wires,

.


I know what the main target demographic is for broadcast television is.[/QUOTE]

Very basic information. Application of such information isn't so obvious.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

That's the spirit!
Combine those spiritual, uplifting lyrics with folk guitar music and you've got a hit.

No music fits the eventual judgment of the Infernal State, its leaders, and its enforcers.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

No music fits the eventual judgment of the Infernal State, its leaders, and its enforcers.

Oh, but there is...

Rupert Sheldrake with more on the 10 dogmas of science, mechanistic materialism, consciousness, pan-psychism, etc.

The "normal" is what happens. Life after life, and telepathy, are normal because people experience them. It's called "paranormal" from the point of view of a theory-- materialist ideology. But science is a method of investigation, not a dogma. Establishment scientists and big business decide what research is conducted, so there's not much investigation of fields like telepathy and life after death, because there's a taboo against it. But if research reflected what people want to know, then there'd be a lot more research. The way to find out if psychic phenomena exists, is to investigate it, not to assume it doesn't exist.



But Sheldrake still has some skepticism about purely after-life explanations, preferring psychic and morophic resonance theories, although he remains open. This psychologist is more willing to go farther:
https://youtu.be/TGV8aQxCsCI

All in all, there's no more fascinating area to investigate. The truth about it remains open.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Rupert Sheldrake with more on the 10 dogmas of science, mechanistic materialism, consciousness, pan-psychism, etc.

1. I see a molecule with sulfur,oxygen,carbon,nitrogen, and hydrogen. What's that doing there?
2. "Conservation of energy/matter". Yeah, I can go with Sheldrake here.
Rag's law: The presence of Idealist generations creates an exception. A subset of Idealists will have egos such that they self accrete more ego such that the ego gets so big that it collapses on itself and generates black holes which are exactly like black holes created by large amounts of mass located in imploding super giant stars.
3. Nextly, the Idealist black holes generate extra mass via Hawking radiation, ensuring a fresh supply of mass/energy for the universe.
4. The corollary to item#3 is that the Idealists' ultimate mission is to fertilize the universe with cosmic manure.

As Mr. Spock said, "fascinating." Nice try Rags but I don't believe! I think Justin Bieber created it all, and he's not an Idealist generation member.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

As Mr. Spock said, "fascinating." Nice try Rags but I don't believe! I think Justin Bieber created it all, and he's not an Idealist generation member.

OK, I'll agree with you here, you can thank me on the backside.

2. "Conservation of energy/matter". Yeah, I can go with Sheldrake here.
Rag's law: The presence of Bieber along with a subset of Idealists creates an exception. Bieber along with a subset of Idealists have egos such that they self accrete more ego such that the ego gets so big that it collapses on itself and generates black holes which are exactly like black holes created by large amounts of mass located in imploding super giant stars.
3. Nextly, the Idealist + Bieber black holes generate extra mass via Hawking radiation, ensuring a fresh supply of mass/energy for the universe.
4. The corollary to item#3 is that the Idealists' + Bieber's ultimate mission is to fertilize the universe with cosmic manure.

There you go, I expanded the theory, just for Eric. I did it just for you because you're so special.

omg this is hilarious

Originally Posted by Taramarie

omg this is hilarious

Sheldrake is an infamous crackpot who probably isn't all right in the head. A book I have called The Imprinted Brain uses him as a good example of mild Schizotypy (having Schizophrenic tendencies without hallucinations or full-blown delusions). Many of his claims are very similar to those of Schizophrenics having delusions of others reading their thoughts and thought control.

Originally Posted by Odin

Sheldrake is an infamous crackpot who probably isn't all right in the head. A book I have called The Imprinted Brain uses him as a good example of mild Schizotypy (having Schizophrenic tendencies without hallucinations or full-blown delusions). Many of his claims are very similar to those of Schizophrenics having delusions of others reading their thoughts and thought control.

LMAO that makes it even funnier!