|
Do let me know when, I may even make the effort to be there, it would be worth seeing you get in it's ear and then ejected, I'll bring a camera! The wife loves tennis so getting there would be encouraged.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Movie Quote Of The Day
"Ole Mary Todd's calling, so I guess it must be time for bed."
Which movie?
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Todd, stories from a travelling bed saleswoman.
|
|
|
|
|
Could not come up with a reply so I used DuckDuckGo to search the quote. Would you believe this CP thread comes up already?
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
|
|
|
|
|
The dirty dozen
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
"just eat it, eat it"."They're out to mold, better eat while you can" -- HobbyProggy
|
|
|
|
|
The unwashed eleven?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently they were thirteen[^].
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
"just eat it, eat it"."They're out to mold, better eat while you can" -- HobbyProggy
|
|
|
|
|
Mad Max : Road to Bed
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
I must admit I wasn't a real fan of his work while he was alive but I'm listening to a Best Of Bowie album now and enjoying it very much.
I wonder if his music will be remembered in 3-400 years time like some "classical" music is?
|
|
|
|
|
Only if someone champions it. Even some of the masters of classical were all but unknown 100 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know that, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Display Name Taken wrote: I wonder if his music will be remembered in 3-400 years time like some "classical" music is?
It won't be remembered in 3-4 years time. The "Bowie love" you're seeing today (David Bowie albums make up 25% of top 40 - BBC News[^]) is just the typical grief bandwagon jumping that is prevalenet in today's "Social Media" age. If these people really liked him and thought he was as good as they say they do now he'd have had far more success than he actually had.
He's just another musician who died early from a drug-fuelled life. No big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: He's just another musician who died early from a drug-fuelled life. No big deal.
That's a bit harsh but may well be true. I think we all all slowly killing ourselves with current lifestyles.
|
|
|
|
|
Display Name Taken wrote: That's a bit harsh
Harsh? That's a bit of an understatement for something which has no evidential standing whatsoever, isn't it?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: he'd have had far more success than he actually had.
Because 140 million records sold and 5 US platinum albums, a place in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, two Grammy awards, a Commander of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, and having a spider named after him, demonstrate what a minor figure he was, for sure. Plonker!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
I would answer your comments but I see you like to throw in personal insults so I know you'll simply outclass anything I have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: It won't be remembered in 3-4 years time.
Bullshit. I, for one, will still play his music in 3-4 years time. And I'm not a fan at all. The media hype will have passed, but his music will still be listened to.
We still listen to fairly recently deceased Michael Jackson and Amy Winehouse, but also to the not-so-recently deceased Kurt Cobain, Freddie Mercury, and Jim Morrison. Even less-mainstream musicians like 2Pac and Biggie (both rappers) are still remembered!
3-4 is laughable, 300-400 years I can't say, but the next 30-40? Yeah, no doubt about it!
F-ES Sitecore wrote: He's just another musician who died early from a drug-fuelled life. No big deal.
He also changed lives. I'm pretty sure people will remember exactly where they were when Bowie died 25 years from now. To them, and his loved ones, it is kind of a big deal.
And we also still have Labyrinth!
|
|
|
|
|
For sure he'll still have fans and they'll still listen to his music for the years to come, as will the fans of Winehouse etc. But will he have enduring success? Be considered a classic? I don't think so. Even as a fan you must surely admit that he is being hyped a little too much right now? You'd think he walked on water the way the media is talking about him, and that kind of interest will fade in time and the only people listening to him were people that were fans of him already. When that generation is gone he'll just be an also-ran, as will Jackson etc.
In 40 years time people will be having this very conversation about Harry Styles and those people will be like "Bowie who?" *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: When that generation is gone he'll just be an also-ran, as will Jackson etc.
Don't forget that David Bowie, Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain, Freddie Mercury, John Lennon, 2Pac, and who have you, are icons. They've helped in the development of pop music and as such they must be mentioned when talking about this history. They may not be known to the masses, but music fans will know them and their music cannot be forgotten.
And newer generations don't automatically dismiss old music. Bands such as The Rolling Stones and Iron Maiden have commented that they are surprised and happy to see people of all ages at their concerts, not just for their newer work, but also singing along to the classics. And as a music lover myself I can say I do enjoy music from the 60's and 70's as much as recent dubstep, trap, dance, and deep house.
Also don't forget that much of what we now accept as "higher (or highbrow) art" was once considered popular, sometimes even vulgar, amusement for the masses. I'm talking about operetta (von Suppé, Straus, Lehár, Millöcker...), waltz (most notably the Strauss family, also Lanner and others), and even Shakespeare. When Elvis first began shaking his hips he was considered vulgar, surely this was the end of the world. He is now considered to be in good taste. Same goes for The Beatles, and The Stones. Times change, as does the way we look at music, and art in general.
Again, I cannot say where Bowie will be in 400 years, or even 50. But don't be so quick to dismiss him as a trend. Surely he's a "trend" that has lasted for about a 40 years already, quite an unusual longevity for any trend!
F-ES Sitecore wrote: In 40 years time people will be having this very conversation about Harry Styles and those people will be like "Bowie who?" *shrug*
Kanye West did a song with Paul McCartney and the Kanye fans praised Kanye for doing a song with, and helping, an unknown artist.
People are idiots, and yes, they say things 
|
|
|
|
|
TBH it's too early to say who is going to be remembered for what, but you need to bear in mind that we are still in an age of nostalgia for some bands and music, which is common when the band has passed but the generation that liked them is current or a single iteration away. Let's be honest...Elvis was rubbish. The Beatles were rubbish. Rolling Stones, rubbish, Queen, rubbish. When looked at analytically these were not good artists, and while you might spit your cereal out at the thought today, I think that in a few generations time those bands will not be looked on particularly fondly.
Maybe you'll be proven right, maybe I'll be proven right, but I don't think either of us will be alive long enough to truly find out.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Let's be honest...Elvis was rubbish. The Beatles were rubbish. Rolling Stones, rubbish, Queen, rubbish. When looked at analytically these were not good artists
Because it is totally possible to analyze art and label it "good" or "bad". Beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
Many people would consider Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach rubbish. And let's be honest, they couldn't even write a simple Beatles song!
Did you know Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake was deemed a failure in its own time? Tchaikovsky then wrote the Nutcracker instead, but hated it. The people loved the Nutcracker. Now both are considered among his best works!
Many old paintings that are still considered classic masterpieces today totally suck because they couldn't even get the perspective right!
An actual urinal was hung in a museum hall and they called it art.
Etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Because it is totally possible to analyze art and label it "good" or "bad".
To an extent, it is. I don't like Mozart but I appreciate it for the skill and talent it took. "Yellow Submarine" by the Beatles? Um...no. I don't like fine art but I can look at a painting by Constable and appreciate the skill and talent. "My Bed" by Tracry Emin? Um...no.
I think a reasonable person can look at contemporary art and have a fair idea what is going to be a future classic ("good") and what is just a case of the Emperor's New Clothes ("bad").
|
|
|
|
|
That's a weird thing you say there.
You don't like Mozart, but recognize it as being "good" music.
How many people like Mozart, and how many people like The Beatles?
I think The Beatles win by a few miles.
So you're saying our collective taste is just really bad, because clearly Mozart writes the better music?
Or are you confusing "better" with "complicated"?
Because, to me, the sheer brilliance of The Beatles is exactly their simplicity. To top it off they did something no one else ever did before. What they did was literally and metaphorically unheard of!
Compare that to Mozart who wrote complex music that adheres to strict rules and theory.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, because clearly they are completely different things.
The Beatles couldn't write Mozart, but Mozart couldn't write The Beatles either.
As for "My Bed", it raised great media attention. Clearly the work moved people and as such it's a successful piece of art worth over £2.000.000,-!
That's a whole lot of money for a work of art that, according to you (and according to any "reasonable person" according to you), is just Emperor's New Clothes, or "bad".
Somehow very rich (and possibly smart) people see something in the work that you, as reasonable person, fail to see.
And yet again, I say to you, beauty is in the eye of the beholder 
P.S. I have a Bachelors degree in Common Art- and Cultural Sciences. I've had this discussion a million times over 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: That's a weird thing you say there.
You don't like Mozart, but recognize it as being "good" music.
How many people like Mozart, and how many people like The Beatles?
I think The Beatles win by a few miles.
So you're saying our collective taste is just really bad, because clearly Mozart writes the better music?
Or are you confusing "better" with "complicated"?
It's seems you're confusing "good" with "popular". People's taste *is* bad - 98% of everything is rubbish. 98% of music, films, books...you name it, it's rubbish. The population tends toward the 98% and tends toward more simplistic, faddish tastes that change sharply over time to reflect whatever is "popular now". That's why the big interest in Bowie right now...he's "in". Never had a US #1 Album in his whole career, he had to die to get that so how popular was he really?
Sander Rossel wrote: Because, to me, the sheer brilliance of The Beatles is exactly their simplicity
Do you hold the same opinions of The Spice Girls? One Direction? Justin Bieber? Cos their music is rubbish too....massively popular, very simplistic...but rubbish.
Sander Rossel wrote: As for "My Bed", it raised great media attention. Clearly the work moved people and as such it's a successful piece of art worth over £2.000.000,-!
Now you're confusing "good" with "financially successful". The Spice Girls, One Direction...all very successful financially. It is no reflection on the quality or durability of their work.
Sander Rossel wrote: P.S. I have a Bachelors degree in Common Art- and Cultural Sciences
That's nice, I have a PhD in Always Being Right
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: It's seems you're confusing "good" with "popular". People's taste *is* bad - 98% of everything is rubbish. 98% of music, films, books...you name it, it's rubbish. The population tends toward the 98% and tends toward more simplistic, faddish tastes that change sharply over time to reflect whatever is "popular now".
If rubbish is the new norm then nothing is rubbish
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Do you hold the same opinions of The Spice Girls? One Direction? Justin Bieber?
They didn't do anything new. Their music is written by people who somehow know how to write a hit. They're machines. Yet I won't say they're not good, but I'll tell you... WHAT I WANT WHAT I REALLY REALLY WANT! 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
