 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 90% of everything is crap.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
Take YouTube. 99.9998% of YouTube is crap, presumably because *anybody*
can post *anything*. You don't get to release a recording with a major
record label unless you're minimally competant.
> That said, if you keep only 1%, you're doing well.
Indeed. I would imagine all the music ever recorded in the 1950s numbers
in the hundred billions, and I've got, like, 30 tracks here.
> Ever listen to a classical music radio station? Most of it is boring and
> lame. It's only the good music that lasts 100s' of years.
Most classical music sounds dull and boring to me. Only a select few
pieces are worth hearing. Every year my mum forces me to listen to the
New Year's Day concert in Vienna. *yawn*
It's the same with organ music. Once you get over the initial "this is a
pipe organ", most of it is unspeakably dull. But every now and then, the
occasional piece comes along which sounds awesome all the way through.
> I'm wondering what the golden age of rap is going to sound like.
Bahahaha!
I'm wondering what 21st century music will still be popular in 50 years'
time. I honestly can't think of any good music I've heard recently
that's new.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Although some genres produce nothing but junk, or have produced nothing
> new since the first couple of albums by the first couple of artists.
Perhaps. Of course, one person's generic clones are another person's
distinctive sounds. It's all pretty subjective.
For example, there are people who claim that all trance music sounds
identical, or those who complain that every Enya song ever recorded
sounds identical. (I saw a comment on Bash where somebody claimed that
Enya sounds the same played backwards...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2010 10:25, Invisible wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> Although some genres produce nothing but junk, or have produced
>> nothing new since the first couple of albums by the first couple of
>> artists.
>
> Perhaps. Of course, one person's generic clones are another person's
> distinctive sounds. It's all pretty subjective.
An important thing is whether you have heard enough of it to notice the
differences. For many young persons used to listening to pop/rock or
worse all violin concertos will sound the same.
Also reminds me of the story of a friend who lived some time in a
japanese village. There was another european woman there. Most japanese
could not keep them apart, eventhough one was long and blond and the
other short and redhaired. As we all know, all chinese look the same
(though not to Darren, who has only trouble with Aboriginals and Koreans).
I can't find the source but once I read a comment about two loreena
mckennitt albums that it was the same music because on both albums she
played piano and harp; on both albums there were instrumentals, ones
with own lyrics and an old poem set to music. See: they are the same.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> 1% of 1950`s best still sounds awful when compared to 1% of 1790`s
>> best. ;)
>
> I remember reading a book wherein the protagonist was chatting and said
> something along the lines of "I never bother to read a book that isn't
> at least 100 years old and still popular." The person he's talking to
> says "doesn't that rather limit your options?" The protagonist says
> "Not really."
Consider that since the American Civil War something like 60,000 books
about the war have been published. Even if you cull the bottom 99%, you
still have lots to read.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I remember reading a book wherein the protagonist was chatting and said
> something along the lines of "I never bother to read a book that isn't
> at least 100 years old and still popular."
Popularity doesn't necessarily mean that something is good.
For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I
read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2010 15:08, Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> I remember reading a book wherein the protagonist was chatting and
>> said something along the lines of "I never bother to read a book that
>> isn't at least 100 years old and still popular."
>
> Popularity doesn't necessarily mean that something is good.
>
> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I
> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I
>> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
>
> That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)
It does rather suggest that it's not for everybody though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4bb1ff06$1@news.povray.org...
>>> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I
>>> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
>>
>> That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)
>
> It does rather suggest that it's not for everybody though.
You mean it is not so popular or not so good?
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2010 15:39, Invisible wrote:
>>> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I
>>> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
>>
>> That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)
>
> It does rather suggest that it's not for everybody though.
yes, greatness of books, music and other arts is like the spin of an
electron. You can not know what value it has without observing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I
>>>> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
>>> That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)
>> It does rather suggest that it's not for everybody though.
>
> You mean it is not so popular or not so good?
Everybody seems to think that GEB is this wonderful book that's really
interesting to read. I did not find it so.
My point being that "greatness" or even "goodness" is not so easy to
define. It's subjective.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
