I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount 
of music that is drastically superior to this century (which, 
admittedly, isn't over yet). Take a trip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAUINv61Jvc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3AVT5kBIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTy5iDYh9b8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKHoEZgAb_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEC-2_qCqeo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8C4vNjDaSo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3q3eKVBuoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD4C9B4zV9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LGFA3L61Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i15ALD6fsUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywsESPu7eGs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4G_Aa47vfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzpWJx3I2DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHCBv7qdYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k679WKSwRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMPi_iER9Qc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtINzvbYwY0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2_HpPut4gA

That's 18 tracks I found with a few trivial Google searches. I think it 
makes my point quite clearly. Though the sound quality (to say nothing 
of image quality!) varies wildly, the songs themselves are all 
premium-quality stuff.

Somehow, I doubt that in 30, 40 or 50 years time, anybody will give a 
**** about This Is Love, Payphone, Don't Wake Me Up, Whistle, or Call My 
Name. That's today's UK Chart Top 40. I just looked it up. I haven't 
heard of a single one of these [which is no surprise], but then neither 
have you [which is kind of my point].

Also: Hoo boy, this post is A LOT of copyright infringement! o_O 
Legally, I should probably be sued off the face of the planet...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:46:57 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Somehow, I doubt that in 30, 40 or 50 years time, anybody will give a
> ****
> about This Is Love, Payphone, Don't Wake Me Up, Whistle, or Call My
> Name. That's today's UK Chart Top 40.

A lot of classical music of the 20th century wasn't popular until after 
the composers were dead as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/3/2012 1:46 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Somehow, I doubt that in 30, 40 or 50 years time, anybody will give a
> **** about This Is Love, Payphone, Don't Wake Me Up, Whistle, or Call My
> Name. That's today's UK Chart Top 40. I just looked it up. I haven't
> heard of a single one of these [which is no surprise], but then neither
> have you [which is kind of my point].
>
> Also: Hoo boy, this post is A LOT of copyright infringement! o_O
> Legally, I should probably be sued off the face of the planet...

Someone once put it like this - This is the first time in history where, 
in principle, 100% of all the crap, and 100% of all the truly great 
works, could potentially continue to exist into the next generation. 
Previously, about 50% of the great works survived, but so did roughly 
50% of the complete crap.

So, yeah, I am sure you can find "last century" music, if you only look 
at sources that have already filtered out the tone deaf, unpopular, and 
just plain bad, music, that is, apparently, better than an average 
sampling of today's. Its just a false comparison, unless you either 
"unfilter" the prior centuries music, or you add filters to the current 
music, to put them in parity. Odds are, most people haven't even "heard 
of" the truly horrible music from the last century, because no one 
listens to it, even though a few people have "saved it", instead of some 
better work, which they had no interest in keeping.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/07/2012 04:23 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Someone once put it like this - This is the first time in history where,
> in principle, 100% of all the crap, and 100% of all the truly great
> works, could potentially continue to exist into the next generation.
> Previously, about 50% of the great works survived, but so did roughly
> 50% of the complete crap.
>
> So, yeah, I am sure you can find "last century" music, if you only look
> at sources that have already filtered out the tone deaf, unpopular, and
> just plain bad, music, that is, apparently, better than an average
> sampling of today's. Its just a false comparison, unless you either
> "unfilter" the prior centuries music, or you add filters to the current
> music, to put them in parity. Odds are, most people haven't even "heard
> of" the truly horrible music from the last century, because no one
> listens to it, even though a few people have "saved it", instead of some
> better work, which they had no interest in keeping.

Heh. Sampling bias.

So I guess the thing to do is to try to track down 18 truly great tracks 
from this century.

(I'm tempted to say "the debut album from The Baseballs" and call it a 
day... but that's a tad lazy.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.07.2012 10:10, schrieb Invisible:
> On 04/07/2012 04:23 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Someone once put it like this - This is the first time in history where,
>> in principle, 100% of all the crap, and 100% of all the truly great
>> works, could potentially continue to exist into the next generation.
>> Previously, about 50% of the great works survived, but so did roughly
>> 50% of the complete crap.
>>
>> So, yeah, I am sure you can find "last century" music, if you only look
>> at sources that have already filtered out the tone deaf, unpopular, and
>> just plain bad, music, that is, apparently, better than an average
>> sampling of today's. Its just a false comparison, unless you either
>> "unfilter" the prior centuries music, or you add filters to the current
>> music, to put them in parity. Odds are, most people haven't even "heard
>> of" the truly horrible music from the last century, because no one
>> listens to it, even though a few people have "saved it", instead of some
>> better work, which they had no interest in keeping.
>
> Heh. Sampling bias.
>
> So I guess the thing to do is to try to track down 18 truly great tracks
> from this century.
>
> (I'm tempted to say "the debut album from The Baseballs" and call it a
> day... but that's a tad lazy.)

There /is/ plenty of good stuff out there. Don't expect it to be all 
Rock & Roll though :-P

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount 
> of music that is drastically superior to this century (which, 
> admittedly, isn't over yet).

  A certain genre not being popular today doesn't mean that nobody creates
that kind of music anymore.

  Also, you are comparing like the top 0.1% of the music of 100 years to
the average music of the past 10 years. Hardly a fair comparison.

> Take a trip:

  It looks to me like what you miss is rockabilly.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 04/07/2012 02:34 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount
>> of music that is drastically superior to this century (which,
>> admittedly, isn't over yet).
>
>    A certain genre not being popular today doesn't mean that nobody creates
> that kind of music anymore.

No. It just means that a lower quantity (and possibly quality) of it is 
produced, that's all.

>    Also, you are comparing like the top 0.1% of the music of 100 years to
> the average music of the past 10 years. Hardly a fair comparison.

Well, the previous century is /finished/, for one thing. The current one 
still has a long way to go. There's some hope it might improve in that time.

And also, yeah. My list demonstrates that the last century had some 
great music. The quest now is to compile a similar list for the current 
century...

>> Take a trip:
>
>    It looks to me like what you miss is rockabilly.

I miss melodic music, yes. I'm not a big fan of aimless wailing vocals 
and grungy percussion.

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. Sampling bias.
>>
>> So I guess the thing to do is to try to track down 18 truly great tracks
>> from this century.
>>
>> (I'm tempted to say "the debut album from The Baseballs" and call it a
>> day... but that's a tad lazy.)
>
> There /is/ plenty of good stuff out there. Don't expect it to be all
> Rock & Roll though :-P

Well, like I said, The Baseballs. But music doesn't have to be R&R to be 
great. That's just the most obvious example. If I get a minute, I'll try 
compiling a list for this century...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount
> of music that is drastically superior to this century

same is truer for the previous 2 centuries.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/07/2012 08:12 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount
>> of music that is drastically superior to this century
>
> same is truer for the previous 2 centuries.

Well, now you're getting into more vague territory. The greatest piece 
of music can sound awful if performed badly, and even bad music can 
sound surprisingly good if played really well. So it's less clear-cut now.

But essentially, I have no idea what was actually written in those 
centuries, so I'm not qualified to comment further.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> But essentially, I have no idea what was actually written in those
> centuries, so I'm not qualified to comment further.

fair enough.  You are not aware of so much stuff in your own time, knowing stuff
from just a few centuries ago is too much.  I can say, though, that Bach is from
that time frame.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/07/2012 09:33 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> But essentially, I have no idea what was actually written in those
>> centuries, so I'm not qualified to comment further.
>
> fair enough.  You are not aware of so much stuff in your own time, knowing stuff
> from just a few centuries ago is too much.  I can say, though, that Bach is from
> that time frame.

Interesting. I thought that Bach was far, far older than just a few 
centuries...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 04/07/2012 09:33 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> But essentially, I have no idea what was actually written in those
> >> centuries, so I'm not qualified to comment further.
> >
> > fair enough.  You are not aware of so much stuff in your own time, knowing stuff
> > from just a few centuries ago is too much.  I can say, though, that Bach is from
> > that time frame.
>
> Interesting. I thought that Bach was far, far older than just a few
> centuries...

ಠ_ಠ

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.07.2012 00:59, schrieb nemesis:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> On 04/07/2012 09:33 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>   wrote:
>>>> But essentially, I have no idea what was actually written in those
>>>> centuries, so I'm not qualified to comment further.
>>>
>>> fair enough.  You are not aware of so much stuff in your own time, knowing stuff
>>> from just a few centuries ago is too much.  I can say, though, that Bach is from
>>> that time frame.
>>
>> Interesting. I thought that Bach was far, far older than just a few
>> centuries...
>
> ಠ_ಠ

Unicode character insertion fail.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 05.07.2012 00:59, schrieb nemesis:
> > Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> On 04/07/2012 09:33 PM, nemesis wrote:
> >>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>   wrote:
> >>>> But essentially, I have no idea what was actually written in those
> >>>> centuries, so I'm not qualified to comment further.
> >>>
> >>> fair enough.  You are not aware of so much stuff in your own time, knowing stuff
> >>> from just a few centuries ago is too much.  I can say, though, that Bach is from
> >>> that time frame.
> >>
> >> Interesting. I thought that Bach was far, far older than just a few
> >> centuries...
> >
> > ಠ_ಠ
>
> Unicode character insertion fail.

yeah, blame the povray web access to newsgroups.

In any case, here's the char:

http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0ca0/index.htm

it's from reddit :)

Post a reply to this message

On 7/3/2012 3:46 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Somehow, I doubt that in 30, 40 or 50 years time, anybody will give a
> **** about This Is Love, Payphone, Don't Wake Me Up, Whistle, or Call My
> Name. That's today's UK Chart Top 40. I just looked it up. I haven't
> heard of a single one of these [which is no surprise], but then neither
> have you [which is kind of my point].

Every YouTube video for a song over 20 years old has at least one 
comment along the lines of, "We had such awesome music back then, now 
all we've got is Justin Bieber."

Every era has had its share of excellent acts that were remembered in 
later generations, and also its share (much larger) of briefly popular 
but ultimately forgettable stuff.

Past times have better reputations because the trash has been taken out.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> Every YouTube video for a song over 20 years old has at least one 
> comment along the lines of, "We had such awesome music back then, now 
> all we've got is Justin Bieber."

  Why do people hate him?

  Perhaps the best related comment I have seen was: "Freddie Mercury dressed
as a housewife is manlier than JB."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/07/2012 07:14 AM, Warp wrote:

>    Why do people hate him?
>
>    Perhaps the best related comment I have seen was: "Freddie Mercury dressed
> as a housewife is manlier than JB."

Then again, Freddie Mercury was one /hell/ of a man! That guy could pull 
anything off...

Post a reply to this message

On 12/07/2012 9:10 AM, Invisible wrote:
> That guy could pull anything off...


Maybe that was the problem :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/07/2012 09:46 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Take a trip:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAUINv61Jvc

I have personally seen these guys live. They don't look like this any 
more. (It was a long time ago!) They still sound pretty good though. 
There aren't many local bands who would have the nerve to put down their 
instruments and stand on stage singing big harmonies a cappella.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3AVT5kBIo

Same guys, singing Long Tall Girl. When I was at the Twinwood Glen 
Miller Festival a few years back, I heard not one but two different 
bands play this song - and I liked it both times.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTy5iDYh9b8

1. I can't do that with my legs.

2. How the hell do you play bass so fast? It's a fretless instrument, 
and thus requires sub-millimetre finger precision.

3. People doing bizarre things with a double bass is a surprisingly 
common spectacle. They "ride" them, they climb on top of them, they play 
them upside down, and so forth. Not to mention twirling them during 
breaks...

4. PHIL Haley and his COMMENTS? Please...

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKHoEZgAb_k

I really like Matchbox. How many confederate flags can you see in this 
video? These guys sure know how to dress up - I'm not sure as WHAT though...

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEC-2_qCqeo

Possibly my favourite Matchbox song. But my, don't they look old all of 
a sudden? I also love how the entire audience are TOTALLY NOT INTO IT.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8C4vNjDaSo

1. How have I never heard of these guys before this year? They're bloody 
FANTASTIC!

2. This is the first time I've seen what they look like. And they do 
look pretty terrifying, actually. The lead singer looks like a demented 
school headmaster. And the other guy appears to be having some kind of 
psychotic episode! o_O

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3q3eKVBuoo

Quoting one of the comments, "I loved these when I was 8. They scare 
the shit out of me now!"

I really love big vocal harmonies. And these guys play everything with 
such ENERGY...

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD4C9B4zV9Y

Apparently there once was a band called Rocky Sharpe & The Razors. Then 
they split up. Most of the band later became The Darts. The rest of them 
became Rocky Sharpe & The Replays.

I actually asked for this album as a filler, because I liked this one 
track. It turns out this isn't the best track by far (actually one of 
the less interesting ones), and the disk contains some real gems.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LGFA3L61Lg

We sometimes dance to this in class, when Debbie wants something really 
fast. (It's way faster than you think it is!) I hated this track until I 
got to hear it properly - i.e., when I got the CD. Now I really like it. 
Especially the ending, which I'd never heard before...

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i15ALD6fsUU

Never heard this before until I started dancing. We often dance to this.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywsESPu7eGs

This is also great to dance to. (Starting to see where I get all my 
music tips from?)

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4G_Aa47vfk

If this song doesn't get your party started, your guests are already 
dead. :-P

There's a dance we do to this song. It's very simple, but very 
energetic. And this track is actually, like, nearly 4 minutes long. It's 
become something of a ritual to see how many people can actually dance 
all the way to the end. It's not easy!

Mud also did several other wonderful songs, which I only discovered when 
I bought the album.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzpWJx3I2DY

I heard this on the radio and just had to find out what the hell it was...

Just look at that photo. WTF do these humans look like?! O_O

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHCBv7qdYE

I got the CD for Ballroom Blitz. (And Blockbuster.) But IMHO, *this* is 
the best track on the entire disk, by a mile.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k679WKSwRE

Gotta love Dion. Shame all the recordings sound so old and grainy, 
because the dude can SING!

This song is one of our standard warmup tracks.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMPi_iER9Qc

I've heard several versions of this song. The canonical version is Marty 
Wilde:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9AgioGirsM

There's also a really delicious version by Rocky Sharpe & The Replays:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMS8w-br_oI

On the final chorus, Mr Sharpe shuts up and the audience sing the chorus 
line. Each individual person probably sings slightly out of tune, but in 
average the probability distribution converges to perfect harmony. On 
top of that, half of them sing the line one way, and half sing the other 
way, generating a beautiful set of harmonies.

Even having said all that, nobody I've heard sings this song with quite 
such a mournful tone as Dion. It is, after all, a lament; why MUST I be 
a teenager in love?

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtINzvbYwY0

BEST. STROLLER. EVER.

End of discussion.

(In other news... One time I tried making two copies of this song, 
increasing the tempo 20%, and raising the pitch of one copy by an 
octave, and then playing to two together in unholy unison. I am I sick, 
sick individual.)

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2_HpPut4gA

This song is great to listen to, and ****ing impossible to sing! >_<

(It probably doesn't help that my voice doesn't go that high. But even 
so, some of those harmonies are really awkward to follow.)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Also: Hoo boy, this post is A LOT of copyright infringement! o_O
> Legally, I should probably be sued off the face of the planet...

And had the SOPA bill passed in the USA, you could have gotten povray.org shut
down as well.  Have THAT on your conscience!

Luckily, YouTube would have been just as vulnerable as POV-Ray, so The Google,
among others, expressed their deep displeasure with Congress over this.

Post a reply to this message

On 15/07/2012 03:12 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Also: Hoo boy, this post is A LOT of copyright infringement! o_O
>> Legally, I should probably be sued off the face of the planet...
>
> And had the SOPA bill passed in the USA, you could have gotten povray.org shut
> down as well.  Have THAT on your conscience!
>
> Luckily, YouTube would have been just as vulnerable as POV-Ray, so The Google,
> among others, expressed their deep displeasure with Congress over this.

Yeah... Really, it ought to be the people who uploaded this who get 
sued. Except that you could employ entire teams of people just to spend 
their days going through the mass of illegal stuff and taking it down. 
Users can post this stuff far faster than any court can deal with it.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/3/2012 13:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> That's 18 tracks I found with a few trivial Google searches.

Yes. Out of the tens of thousands of songs written, several hundred are good 
enough people are still listening to them. You think people won't be 
listening to, say, the Beatles in 100 years?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 7/4/2012 9:49, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Well, like I said, The Baseballs. But music doesn't have to be R&R to be
> great. That's just the most obvious example. If I get a minute, I'll try
> compiling a list for this century...

Don't forget music from movies and video games. Imperial March can certainly 
live on, as might the Wicked Witch theme, for example.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 7/19/2012 1:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> You think people won't
> be listening to, say, the Beatles in 100 years?
>

Well, I know I won't be!

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-07-19 16:19, Darren New a écrit :
> On 7/3/2012 13:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> That's 18 tracks I found with a few trivial Google searches.
>
> Yes. Out of the tens of thousands of songs written, several hundred are
> good enough people are still listening to them. You think people won't
> be listening to, say, the Beatles in 100 years?
>

Will you still love me when I'm 164?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-07-19 17:19, Kevin Wampler a écrit :
> On 7/19/2012 1:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> You think people won't
>> be listening to, say, the Beatles in 100 years?
>>
>
> Well, I know I won't be!
>
Quitter!

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 7/12/2012 1:14 AM, Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle<evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom>  wrote:
>> Every YouTube video for a song over 20 years old has at least one
>> comment along the lines of, "We had such awesome music back then, now
>> all we've got is Justin Bieber."
>
>    Why do people hate him?
>
>    Perhaps the best related comment I have seen was: "Freddie Mercury dressed
> as a housewife is manlier than JB."

For the same reason that lots of people have hated every over-promoted 
mediocrity.  Many people perceive it as an attempt to mold their 
thinking, which people resent when it takes an apparently overt form, 
and for some it has grown into a simmering resentment, which results in 
a knee-jerk display of hostility at any evidence that he ever existed.

The phenomenon is not limited to Justin Bieber or to popular 
entertainment.  There are a lot of things whose mere mention (even here) 
will provoke a rant of multiple paragraphs.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Le 21/07/2012 18:26, John VanSickle nous fit lire :
> On 7/12/2012 1:14 AM, Warp wrote:
>> John VanSickle<evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom>  wrote:
>>> Every YouTube video for a song over 20 years old has at least one
>>> comment along the lines of, "We had such awesome music back then, now
>>> all we've got is Justin Bieber."
>>
>>    Why do people hate him?
>>
>>    Perhaps the best related comment I have seen was: "Freddie Mercury
>> dressed
>> as a housewife is manlier than JB."
> 

Freddie Mercury had a real show with the Queen group, with a bit of
emotions and messages to share with the listener/viewer/...

And talent.

> For the same reason that lots of people have hated every over-promoted
> mediocrity.  Many people perceive it as an attempt to mold their
> thinking, which people resent when it takes an apparently overt form,
> and for some it has grown into a simmering resentment, which results in
> a knee-jerk display of hostility at any evidence that he ever existed.

What has JB ? short of a youth and some mega-corporations trying to push
him ?

Anyone remember the young kid Macaulay Culkin ? He was wise enough to
make a pause.

> 
> The phenomenon is not limited to Justin Bieber or to popular
> entertainment.  There are a lot of things whose mere mention (even here)
> will provoke a rant of multiple paragraphs.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> For the same reason that lots of people have hated every over-promoted 
> mediocrity.

As for that, how exactly do you define mediocrity (when talking about a
singer/musician)? How do you measure mediocrity?

If such an artist is very popular and sells well, how can you say he/she is
mediocre? What's the justification?

Or is it just a question of "he/she is mediocre because I personally don't
like his/her music"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-07-21 13:42, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
>
> What has JB ? short of a youth and some mega-corporations trying to push
> him ?
>
> Anyone remember the young kid Macaulay Culkin ? He was wise enough to
> make a pause.
>

Actually he grew up and lost his "cute kid" looks, so he stopped getting 
movie deals.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 7/21/2012 11:36, Warp wrote:
> If such an artist is very popular and sells well, how can you say he/she is
> mediocre? What's the justification?

If even the people who like him agree he's mediocre, doesn't that mean he's 
mediocre? If the people who are experts in such things say he's mediocre, 
but the financial end of the business pushes the advertising, can't he still 
be mediocre but popular?

It's like saying "why is this cabbage-patch doll (or pet rock) worth 50x the 
amount of money very similar dolls are? Doesn't that mean it's a superior doll?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> > For the same reason that lots of people have hated every over-promoted
> > mediocrity.
>
> As for that, how exactly do you define mediocrity (when talking about a
> singer/musician)? How do you measure mediocrity?
>
> If such an artist is very popular and sells well, how can you say he/she is
> mediocre? What's the justification?

Is popularity a measure of quality? or sales?  In that case, games like
Assassin's Creed or Skyrim are really mediocre when compared to something like
Wii Fit, the interactive Jane Fonda fitness video which went on to sell 30+
million to people who don't dig traditional videogames.

The definition of mediocre is something ordinary, of medium value: it doesn't
kinda sucks, but isn't outstanding in any way.  We do tend to actually employ
mediocre to convey the idea of something that is beyond awful, which would be
the correct measure for something like JB, or Wii Fit to that matter. :)

Oustanding is something that is, simply put, awe-inspiring.  I can't imagine
anyone being awe-inspired by JB save for hormone-crazed girls.  And it sure is
not for his work, but for him.

So, you can say a mediocre artist is one which sells himself well enough not to
depend on his shitty work.  A great artist is one that disappears when his art
is shown:  like a musician doing a great solo.  Did JB ever did a great solo?
Nope, he's just a souless fabricated puppet...

Post a reply to this message

>> Anyone remember the young kid Macaulay Culkin ? He was wise enough to
>> make a pause.
>
> Actually he grew up and lost his "cute kid" looks, so he stopped getting
> movie deals.

Bad guy #1: GOT YA!
Macaulay: What! What are you doing?!
Bad guy #2: This is for My Girl!
Bad guy #1: And this is for My Girl Two!
Bad guy #2: And this is for My Girl Three!
Macaulay: But I wasn't even *in* My Girl Three!
Both: WE DON'T CARE!!

Post a reply to this message

On 21/07/2012 07:36 PM, Warp wrote:

> If such an artist is very popular and sells well, how can you say he/she is
> mediocre? What's the justification?

Billions of people went to see Star Wars Episode 1. So, in terms of 
sales, it was phenomenal.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people apparently came away unhappy 
because the film was "mediocre"...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Anyone remember the young kid Macaulay Culkin ? He was wise enough to
> >> make a pause.
> >
> > Actually he grew up and lost his "cute kid" looks, so he stopped getting
> > movie deals.
>
> Bad guy #1: GOT YA!
> Macaulay: What! What are you doing?!
> Bad guy #2: This is for My Girl!
> Bad guy #1: And this is for My Girl Two!
> Bad guy #2: And this is for My Girl Three!
> Macaulay: But I wasn't even *in* My Girl Three!
> Both: WE DON'T CARE!!

Was he in _My Girl 2_?  I thought he got killed off in _My Girl_ 1.

Does anyone remember that movie where he played a teenage delinquent?  I suppose
that one won't be remembered in 100 years; I can't even remember the name of it!
 I just remember--from the trailer--that he grew his hair out for the part
because, as we all know, one's hair length is such a reliable predictor of
character. Only problem is, his mane was so pretty and well-trimmed that it
didn't give the impression of "bad guy rebel punk." That's just what I got from
the trailer, anyway.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> > Every YouTube video for a song over 20 years old has at least one
> > comment along the lines of, "We had such awesome music back then, now
> > all we've got is Justin Bieber."
>
>   Why do people hate him?

Because he's so much fun to hate! :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxvrZwpW_-M

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The definition of mediocre is something ordinary, of medium value: it doesn't
> kinda sucks, but isn't outstanding in any way.

I still don't fully get it, but whatever.

As for "outstanding", JB certainly stands out in being one of the most hated
musicians alive today. If that's not outstanding, I don't know what is... :P

Why JB? There's probably not a single music video (with more than 10 views)
on youtube that doesn't have a reference to JB. (If it's a piece of music
considered good, someone will inevitably complain that why is JB so popular
and this isn't. If it's a really bad piece of music, someone will inevitably
use the old tired joke of "still better than JB" which has been seen about
a million times.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>    Why do people hate him?
>
> Because he's so much fun to hate! :-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxvrZwpW_-M

GAAAAAAH!! O_O

Holy cow, I should not have watched that...

Post a reply to this message