When the Boomers are Dead?

[M.Dancer]

... not one single rap song... so like disco, it is only popular as a fad and will be gone soon. Rock and Roll will live on forever!

Rap is what? 35 years old now?

The first time I heard rap or hip hop was in the late seventies at a free concert in Montreal. At the time it was definately fringe, not so now.

I remember growing up listening to my parents 78s, Dorsey Brothers, The Royal Canadians and alike, all refugees from the 40s. I look at my tween age nephews who like deep purple, the who and such...I wouldn't have been caught dead listening to Lawrence Welk but my tween age relatives are listening to their parental equivilent.....

Rock has had it's day, it's just too stoned to know it's dead.

[Wilber]

Yep, that's why us boomers listen to "oldies" stations. The music from the 50's and 60's didn't die. I'd be very surprised if rap will travel as far as my music into the future.

Not all of it but a large portion was crap put out by one song wonders who were never heard of again.

[DogOnPorch]

Wilber: Me neither. 80% of popular music sucks regardless of the era. Whenever my kids used to say, isn't that a great tune I'd tell them if you are still playing it at least ten years from now, it's good. That never changes.

My wife and I now listen to the BBC when we want a taste of something different and new...that doesn't suck in the same way as North American radio. Literally something for everyone...no commercials...free, of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/

[marcinmoka]

Rap is what? 35 years old now?

I've got trouble imaging a young M.Dancer rock the Hip Hop fashions of the day while rockin the electric boogaloo.

http://www.geocities.com/lekdrol/gmf-blackandwhite.jpg

As per rock. What was once the domain of countless leather jacket clad men riding their 10-speed bikes to the Beerstore to return empty bottles is now being resurected, and in a glorious fashion by the painfully tight pant wearing EMO generation.

Rock on, Drea, rock on!

Edited February 12, 2008 by marcinmoka

[kimmy]

Me neither. 80% of popular music sucks regardless of the era. Whenever my kids used to say, isn't that a great tune I'd tell them if you are still playing it at least ten years from now, it's good. That never changes.

Yep, that's why us boomers listen to "oldies" stations. The music from the 50's and 60's didn't die. I'd be very surprised if rap will travel as far as my music into the future.

My son got his first IPod a few weeks back...

so far he has downloaded

Eye of the Tiger

The James Bond theme

Some Led Zepplin

Yellow Submarine

and a few more I can't remember at this time.

but... not one single rap song... so like disco, it is only popular as a fad and will be gone soon. Rock and Roll will live on forever!

Wilber got exactly what I was trying to say, and Drea and Jazzer missed the point completely.

First off, I find it hilarious that in discussing today's music, you two single out Rap as if it was the only music being made anymore. Way to look knowledgeable

Drea, Jazzer: how much of the music you listened to when you were young has actually survived?

Hint: it's not as much as you think.

If you don't agree, check out some old music charts (they're easy to find. Here's a handy site to get you started: http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=1968 )

Oh sure, it starts promisingly enough-- Hey Jude, right at the top of the list!

Then what? Paul Mariat? Bobby Goldsboro? The Rascals? Archie Bell and the Drells?

I have listened to a great deal of "classic rock" and "oldies" radio, but I am afraid "Archie Bell and the Drells" escape me.

Go over these charts for yourselves. Pick any year you like, it'll be the same: for every Beatles and Simon & Garfunkle, there's 2 or 3 or 4 Archie Bells or Fifth Dimensions. For every Hey Jude or Mrs Robinson, there's a dozen songs that haven't been heard of for years. The handful of great artists and classic songs has survived... but most of these artists and these songs have been long forgotten.

Or, as Wilber succinctly put it: 80% of it sucks.

-k

{And if you're still skeptical, I've just got this to say:

Sugar,

Oh, Honey Honey.

You are my candy girl,

and you got me wanting you.

Honey,

Oh, Sugar, Sugar.

You are my candy girl

and you got me wanting you.

(the Number One Song of 1969!) }

[August1991]

Best Picture Nominees 1973:

Godfather, The (1972) - Albert S. Ruddy

Cabaret (1972) - Cy Feuer

Deliverance (1972) - John Boorman

Sounder (1972) - Robert B. Radnitz

Utvandrarna (1971) - Bengt Forslund

Best Picture Nominees 2006:

Crash (2004/I): Paul Haggis, Cathy Schulman

Brokeback Mountain (2005): Diana Ossana, James Schamus

Capote (2005): Caroline Baron, William Vince, Michael Ohoven

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005): Grant Heslov

Munich (2005): Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, Barry Mendel

Draw your own conclusions.

[jdobbin]

Best Picture Nominees 1973:

Godfather, The (1972) - Albert S. Ruddy

Cabaret (1972) - Cy Feuer

Deliverance (1972) - John Boorman

Sounder (1972) - Robert B. Radnitz

Utvandrarna (1971) - Bengt Forslund

Best Picture Nominees 2006:

Crash (2004/I): Paul Haggis, Cathy Schulman

Brokeback Mountain (2005): Diana Ossana, James Schamus

Capote (2005): Caroline Baron, William Vince, Michael Ohoven

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005): Grant Heslov

Munich (2005): Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, Barry Mendel

Draw your own conclusions.

The one big difference: Four of the five 2006 nominees were either produced by Canadians, written by Canadians or directed by Canadians.

[kimmy]

Best Picture Nominees 1973:

Godfather, The (1972) - Albert S. Ruddy

Cabaret (1972) - Cy Feuer

Deliverance (1972) - John Boorman

Sounder (1972) - Robert B. Radnitz

Utvandrarna (1971) - Bengt Forslund

Best Picture Nominees 2006:

Crash (2004/I): Paul Haggis, Cathy Schulman

Brokeback Mountain (2005): Diana Ossana, James Schamus

Capote (2005): Caroline Baron, William Vince, Michael Ohoven

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005): Grant Heslov

Munich (2005): Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, Barry Mendel

Draw your own conclusions.

Well, one list is headlined by an iconic film, while the other is headlined by arguably one of the weakest Best Picture winners ever. So I think I can see the conclusion you'd like me to draw. But I'm going to go off the board for this one, August.

The conclusions I'm drawing are:

1) I conclude that you know how to cherry-pick data. I mean, I provided 1968 as an example, but I invited Drea and Jazzer to pick any year they like and do the same analysis. I see no such invitation in your work. Does your point stand up as well if I pick the year before The Godfather ("The French Connection" was the best picture winner) or the year after ("The Sting")? What if I pick the year that Annie Hall won Best Picture as representative of 1970s cinema?

2) I conclude that like Drea and Jazzer, you've also missed the point. The point, once again, was that the bulk popular music (or, as you've sought to extend the scope of the discussion, movies, or TV for that matter...) does not stand the test of time. I suspect the same is true for the movie crop of 1972. If you want to prove me wrong, why not scoop up a list of the top 50 grossing movies of 1972, and we'll look through them and see which ones stand up well. I'll grant you The Godfather, and even Deliverance (though it's mostly just known for hillbillies, banjos, sodomy, and Burt Reynolds' buff pre-Cannonball physique.) How about the other 48, chief?

And by the way, citing the Motion Picture Academy's views on anything seems oddly incongruous with your usual views. You often like to argue along the lines that peoples' value of something is reflected in their willingness to pay for it-- you've suggested this as a reason why cable TV is better than free TV, why satellite radio will be better than broadcast radio if I recall correctly, why a tax on pollution is a necessary step in improving air quality, and so on. How, then, is the opinion of a small and insulated "elite" of value in determining the artistic merits of movies? The academy voters don't even have pay to see the films. They don't even need to have watched the nominees to vote, in fact.

-k

[kuzadd]

Agreed. I think a lot of the changes are positive however some are overkill bordering on hysteria. Sure lead paint on toys is not a great thing and can't be allowed but most boomers and their parents grew up surrounded by the stuff including spending their babyhood in cribs painted with it and survived.

On the other had I don't envy parents today. The days of unlocked doors and watching your kid dissapear out the door with nothing more than a "be home by dinner time" and not giving it a second thought are just fond memories, plus there are a host of drug and gang related issues and the like that were never even thought of back then.

Me neither. 80% of popular music sucks regardless of the era. Whenever my kids used to say, isn't that a great tune I'd tell them if you are still playing it at least ten years from now, it's good. That never changes.

Some changes are positive, but I think of the cigarette sales in particular.

Now I don't even smoke, 'cept for a rebellious teen phase.

But look at the fine stores incur for selling cigs to minors?

A store clerk at one chain of stores that I know of has to incur the cost if the mistake is made of selling a cigarette to a minor.

The fine is huge!

So some minimum wage earning working person is now responsible for what your kid may try to get away with. Fake and borrowed Id's.

What about the kid? What is the kids responsibility for buying cigs?

Nothing.

Will the parent's ever even find out?

But hey the store will pay a fine and the employee will also, for your kids rebellious behaviour and experimentation.

That's progress?

[M.Dancer]

Then what? Paul Mariat? Bobby Goldsboro? The Rascals? Archie Bell and the Drells?

Bobby Goldsboro had soul....he felt the pain, man...

One day while I was not at home

While she was there and all alone

The angels came

Now all I have is memories of Honey

And I wake up nights and call her name

Now my life's an empty stage

Where Honey lived and Honey played

And love grew up

And a small cloud passes overhead

And cries down on the flower bed

That Honey loved

Edited February 12, 2008 by M.Dancer

[kimmy]

Some changes are positive, but I think of the cigarette sales in particular.

Now I don't even smoke, 'cept for a rebellious teen phase.

But look at the fine stores incur for selling cigs to minors?

A store clerk at one chain of stores that I know of has to incur the cost if the mistake is made of selling a cigarette to a minor.

The fine is huge!

So some minimum wage earning working person is now responsible for what your kid may try to get away with. Fake and borrowed Id's.

What about the kid? What is the kids responsibility for buying cigs?

Nothing.

Will the parent's ever even find out?

But hey the store will pay a fine and the employee will also, for your kids rebellious behaviour and experimentation.

That's progress?

So what's your solution? Just allow stores to sell cigarettes to minors?

-k

[kimmy]

these things were long known. when cigarettes were being marketed as good, cigarette companies already had the research to demonstrate otherwise.

Whether cigarette companies knew the truth wasn't the question.

During the 1950s and 1960s, was it common knowledge that cigarettes caused cancer?

We now know about things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and that moms who smoke while pregnant give birth to dumber kids on average.

another long known

I've just read that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome was not specifically identified until 1973.

I'm skeptical that the general populace even knew that cigarettes were bad for their own health during the time the "boomers" started smoking, so I'm especially skeptical that they knew that smoking was bad for fetuses.

We now know that there are deadly sexually transmitted diseases.

another long known

The clap? Herpes? A nasty case of crabs?

All tremendously irritating I'm sure, but not exactly deadly.

Between the time a cure for syphilis was discovered early in the 20th century and the time AIDS arrived in North America in the 1980s, what was this deadly sexual transmitted disease? (Pregnancy?)

they have parents who will make these decisions for them, parents who are responsible for their minors, health and well-being. No government required.

the more things are alleged to change the more they are actually the same.

No government action would be required if every parent had common sense and responsibility.

Sadly, many don't.

I am all in favor of adults being free to make their own choices in just about every matter. But I do not wish to see children hurt or killed or inflicted with lifelong disability because the people responsible for their care were too dumb or irresponsible to do a proper job of it.

If some yokel is driving down the highway with unrestrained children in the back of his pickup... should that be his choice?

Should we go back and review that and say "you know what, this is an unwarranted infringement on personal freedom"?

-k

[kuzadd]

So what's your solution? Just allow stores to sell cigarettes to minors?

-k

Well it was done when I was a kid.

I would say, yup.

It's not up to the minimum wage employee's to police other people's kids.

That's up to parent's

btw: there was one store when I was a kid, who would not sell to kids without a letter from the parent, neighbourhood store, they knew all the kids, not foolproof, but at least it was the store owners choice.

[kuzadd]

Sadly, many don't.

Should we go back and review that and say "you know what, this is an unwarranted infringement on personal freedom"?

-k

But I do not wish to see children hurt or killed or inflicted with lifelong disability because the people responsible for their care were too dumb or irresponsible to do a proper job of it.

I have NO wish to see any kids hurt,I highly doubt anyone does, so let's not personalize this issue, to play the moral superiority card.

If some yokel is driving down the highway with unrestrained children in the back of his pickup... should that be his choice?

Unfortunately kimmy, it is and that's the way it is.

That's humanity for you, it comes in all shapes and sizes and all good and bad.

By far and large the vast majority of parents care a great deal for the kids, I know I did, I put a bike helmet on my kid when she was 4 yrs old, cause it was the law? No!

because i didn't want my precious child hurt? YES!

one can always cite the extreme rare situation to justify constraining everyone, but is that legitimate?

to do that? cite the 1% to control the 99%?????

Edited February 12, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

one more thing!

how is a law necessarily going to stop an action.?

If we make a law saying " yokel's can't drive down the highway with unrestrained children in the back of his pickup..."

what is actually going to physically stop the yokel?

from putting the child in the back of the truck?

the law written on a piece of paper?

Or the choice the yokel makes?

The yokel may or may not be aware of the existence of said law?

So it still boils down to the choice the yokel makes.

In other words kimmy, the law written on a piece of paper may or may not constrain the 'yokel' from making a bad or good choice.

Though you appear to think it will, this is most certainly not the case.

Edited February 12, 2008 by kuzadd

[Wilber]

Some changes are positive, but I think of the cigarette sales in particular.

Now I don't even smoke, 'cept for a rebellious teen phase.

But look at the fine stores incur for selling cigs to minors?

A store clerk at one chain of stores that I know of has to incur the cost if the mistake is made of selling a cigarette to a minor.

The fine is huge!

So some minimum wage earning working person is now responsible for what your kid may try to get away with. Fake and borrowed Id's.

What about the kid? What is the kids responsibility for buying cigs?

Nothing.

Will the parent's ever even find out?

But hey the store will pay a fine and the employee will also, for your kids rebellious behaviour and experimentation.

That's progress?

I smoked off and on for too many years and so did many of my friends and acquaintances. Neither of my kids or their spouses have ever been smokers and I don't remember seeing any of their friends smoke. Yes, that's progress.

If we make a law saying " yokel's can't drive down the highway with unrestrained children in the back of his pickup..."

what is actually going to physically stop the yokel?

from putting the child in the back of the truck?

the law written on a piece of paper?

Or the choice the yokel makes?

Fine his ass off and if he continues to persist, seize his pickup, the same goes for yokels who drive around with unrestrained dogs in the back of their pickups IMO. I'm not a big believer in legislating everything but when it comes to the people who have control over their lives, kids are entitled to a minimum amount of consideration when it comes to their safety.

[kuzadd]

I smoked off and on for too many years and so did many of my friends and acquaintances. Neither of my kids or their spouses have ever been smokers and I don't remember seeing any of their friends smoke. Yes, that's progress.

Fine his ass off and if he continues to persist, seize his pickup, the same goes for yokels who drive around with unrestrained dogs in the back of their pickups IMO. I'm not a big believer in legislating everything but when it comes to the people who have control over their lives, kids are entitled to a minimum amount of consideration when it comes to their safety.

Yes, that's progress.

I think you misunderstand, is it progress that a minimum wage employee , now get's to be repsonsible for the choices of other's??

Or did progress on reduced smoking actually come from increased awareness via education and PERSONAL CHOICE?

I would say it was the latter.

wrt the yokel, to fine the yokel someone has to actually catch him doing that?

Then the fine hopefully willl act as a deterrent. I say hopefully. for the next time.

BUT, even the fine is meted out after the fact. After the deed is done.

So you can pass a law, but it will NOT physically deter the yokel.

The fine may or may not act as a deterrent, for a next offence?

In the end it will still come down to the choice /responsibility of the yokel, to ensure his/her own child's safety. Which is the very point I was making to begin with. That a minor's well being is firmly in the hands of the parent, regardless of the laws on a piece of paper.

Edited February 12, 2008 by kuzadd

[Wilber]

Or did progress on reduced smoking actually come from increased awareness via education and PERSONAL CHOICE?

I would say it was the latter.

So would I but our laws are part of that awareness and education. They send a message as to what kind of behavior society considers acceptable.

wrt the yokel, to fine the yokel someone has to actually catch him doing that?

Then the fine hopefully willl act as a deterrent. I say hopefully. for the next time.

BUT, even the fine is meted out after the fact. After the deed is done.

So you can pass a law, but it will NOT physically deter the yokel.

The fine may or may not act as a deterrent, for a next offence?

Certainly a childs life is not risk free nor should it be but short of taking the child away or imprisoning the parent, society's options are limited when it comes to making sure a child is treated the way it is entitled when it comes the their personal safety. What else would you suggest?

[Wilber]

I have listened to a great deal of "classic rock" and "oldies" radio, but I am afraid "Archie Bell and the Drells" escape me.

"classic" like "hero" is a word that is way over used. IMO something doesn't become a Classic until it is still popular well after all the people who were around when it was written are dead. It has made the leap between generations and can sustain its popularity on its own.

Aside from real Classical music, the "classics" we refer to today are those which have a nostalgic value to us. That will be different for every generation. While I like big band music and some of it may come to be regarded as Classic, it has a meaning for my parents that it can never have for me.

[kuzadd]

So would I but our laws are part of that awareness and education. They send a message as to what kind of behavior society considers acceptable.

Certainly a childs life is not risk free nor should it be but short of taking the child away or imprisoning the parent, society's options are limited when it comes to making sure a child is treated the way it is entitled when it comes the their personal safety. What else would you suggest?

Our laws therefore cause an undue hardship to what end , really.?

when education and awareness is the way to go

Not penalizing everyone else for the person who is choosing to act in a reckless manner.

I would suggest leaving a child to the care and well being of their parents, who have the best interests of their own children at heart.

The best thing we can do for our kids in society, is to be a decent society as a whole and ensure parent's have the resources to provide the best they can for their kids. educational abilities, employment , suitable housing etc.,

There are no amount of laws, that can be passed that can save a child from the recklessness of there parents if the parent is choosing to be reckless. It is sad, but unfortunately true.

Laws always come into play after an alleged crime is perpetrated. using the yokel as an example.

My problem with the excessive passing of laws is that eventually far to many things become criminal and with that, far too many people become criminals.

Edited February 12, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

let;s set aside the yokel in the pick-up truck.

I personally think it is reprehensible that parents feed fast food to their kids, also excessive junk food (pre-packaged crap).

Shall we pass laws for that? To criminalize parent's?

For their lack of nutritional knowledge?

I knew a kid, who ate so much junk food from his parents in his lunch, chips, pop, white bread, chocolate bars.

no fruit, no milk,

by time this kid hit Gr. 9, Gr 9!, his cholesterol level was through the roof.

and he was about 60 lbs overweight , maybe more!

His parents obviously choose to be reckless with their child's health and well being.

choose with intention? Or from lack of nutritional knowledge?

dunno which?

shall we pass laws and criminalize that behaviour?

Edited February 13, 2008 by kuzadd

[Wilber]

Our laws therefore cause an undue hardship to what end , really.?

when education and awareness is the way to go

Not penalizing everyone else for the person who is choosing to act in a reckless manner.

'

How does refusing to allow someone to put his kids in the back of a pickup penalize those who act in a responsible manner?

I hear what you are saying but I think you picked a poor example. That one is a no brainer for me.

There are no amount of laws, that can be passed that can save a child from the recklessness of there parents if the parent is choosing to be reckless. It is sad, but unfortunately true.

Laws always come into play after an alleged crime is perpetrated. using the yokel as an example.

As an example, are you saying we should allow people to drive drunk until they kill someone?

[guyser]

'

How does refusing to allow someone to put his kids in the back of a pickup penalize those who act in a responsible manner?

If I may...?...putting people in the back of pick ups is the same as cramming as many people in a boat...no law against either.

[Wilber]

If I may...?...putting people in the back of pick ups is the same as cramming as many people in a boat...no law against either.

Hum. I may be a bit slow today but you aren't serious are you?

[guyser]

Hum. I may be a bit slow today but you aren't serious are you?

You arent slow, and Iam serious