CalvinBall wrote:yeah well you have never seen a total eclipse unless you age very well

WheelsFellOff wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:yeah well you have never seen a total eclipse unless you age very well

He'll turn around

Barry Jive wrote:I think visually it's fine but theoretically the idea that there is an big motehrfucking object floating around us like that is pretty insane

Napalm wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:I think visually it's fine but theoretically the idea that there is an big motehrfucking object floating around us like that is pretty insane

right. you gotta be numb and or brain dead if you arent in awe of the moon in general. I was swimming in the sea staring up at it at NOON. wild af

Philly the Kid wrote:

Youseff wrote:Billy Joel is good

an inability to enjoy new music for 50 years isn't an indictment against everyone but you. tons of good music to be had, now as it's always been. Do you remember those days hanging out at the Village Green?

I think finding new music will always be something that makes me happy, and new meaning new to me.

What do you consider 'new music' ? Of course I've enjoyed new music, but you wouldn't know of half the sh** I've listened to, because it's not all pop/rock/commercial/radio.

I am deeply steeped in all kinds of experimental music. Jazz. Classical. Contemporary Classical. Improvised. And - Hip-Hop like BlackStar, Gangstarr, Roots, Anti-Con - innovative in sound or powerful message - yeah. Party Anthems - not my deal. Can I acknowledge a Pauls' Boutique in its historical context or Eminem's raw talent - of course. Do I care about seeing Marshal bare chested in some over-produced Vegas like moment on some TV awards show?

I can enjoy classic Motown with Jackson 5, and never want to hear Billy Jean again in my life.

I can understand the phenomena that was the Beatles and their influence, and still say that there isn't a single song of theirs I would seek out to listen to - and the 1-2-3 that I might like - were better done as covers by someone else.

EDM - I'm gonna listen to PlasticMan, Amon Tobin, or Seth Troxler before I'm listening to Cory Fairsten ...

Black Sabbath, AC/DC does not represent me on any level, nor interest me. (and i saw Ted Nugent open for Black Sabbath in the 70's at the Spectrum -- but I was 14 or 15, I'm not anymore and it's not the 70's anymore)

There are some nifty guitar players over the years - some of them white boys doing rock or metal or country rock - in certain context I might dig something for the skill of it. But the overall aesthetic or the brand they have created for their markets.

Bowie and Prince. Women luv them. Why? Because they did a lot of gender-fluid persona. They made themselves visually in to something. Bowie probably had a few tracks that I can respect or may have enjoyed - there's that clip of him doing "Fame" when it first came out on some TV show in the mid-70's and it was interesting especially in context for the time. But on the whole of it - these guys were magnified to legendary status by becoming compared to what?

There are people with amazing voices. Guitar players who are sublime and in full command of their instruments.

But they are not "popular" music.

Look, someone asked for 90's movie recommendations on a FB wall. I made a list - 5 of my 50 were Hollywood (Usual Suspects, Shawshank) I'm just not a commercial guy. Music movies food fashion. I literally have not eaten at McDonalds in 30 years.

listening to music to me - doesn't mean there will be guitar bass drums. Start there - if when you think of music, that's really a given - then you already stepped in to the quick-sand of my point. You have already pre-defined something very narrow.

JUburton wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:I think country music, at least good country music, is close to dead. Nashville has that stuff on lockdown and it's really hard to break into that scene without nashville being behind you. As the old timers die off, we're mostly stuck with the garth brooks of the music world.

But there are always new kinds of music popping up and I love just going link to link on youtube finding new stuff or old stuff that was buried until the internet opened things up. New music is not dead.

Try (though you've likely heard of some/all) Sturgill Simpson, Jason Isbell (less so the last album), Drive-by Truckers, Tyler Childers, Chris Stapleton, Kacey Musgraves.

A little poppier, Maren Morris,

Eem wrote:Based on a discussion in this thread:

REAL country music is the purest form of music being made in the world today

Youseff wrote:
well, if you start reading other people's posts you'll see that you're not as unique in your movie or music tastes as your ego leads you to believe. this is a board filled with nerds and not just baseball nerds. there's movie nerds & music nerds, and in few cases I think they're more qualified to pontificate about the value of certain movies & music than you, especially since they wouldn't be as arrogant or miserable as you've been in those last couple posts. I'd also venture to guess your knowledge of music isn't as deep as you think it is if you're referencing Gangstarr & The Roots as validation of how elite your tastes are.

I think your point about marketing is valid. it's similar to alcohol consumption. Diageo owns a few dozen different brands and each one is sold to a different demographic. Even though they all come from the same place more or less, there are people who consume different brands because it feeds their sense of self, sense of identity. There's a certain zen transcendence in understanding that you don't need consumption to define you. That said, if you don't enjoy anything that comes on the radio, anything that you hear, including The Beatles, Bowie and Prince, outside of really popular hip hop and really popular rock music from the 90s, it really just makes it seem like you're lacking in the ability to enjoy the moment, enjoy your life, enjoy yourself.

Philly the Kid wrote:So - non-responsive the few remarks.

Would you or would you not agree to a wealth cap. And with that a minimum.

So let's say everyone had 100K a year minimum - so that if a job didn't reach that, the govt, subsidized the rest. And everyone had cradle to grave health care. Everyone had access to community gardens, water filtration, free public transportation (light rail) - and organic food was the ONLY food available.

The wealthiest people in the world - whether celebrities or captains of industry could not earn more than 10mil a year.

So the lowliest in life, gets 100K, and the wealthiest get 10mil. That includes interest on investments. All excess revenue produced goes in to the kitty to pay for all the things the human race requires. R&D for solar. Roads n bridges. Education. Community centers. Libraries.

Don't tell me why this could never happen. Just tell me why you'd reject it personally if you do? And why you think anyone should get to be a Pharaoh and have that much more privilege and power than most others on the planet. AND - why giving everyone a bare minimum of sustainance to eat live and be would not be better for the world? The majority of the 7bil in the world won't see 100K. How much strife goes away if no one is starving and destitute? How much fairer and more eco-friendly and more achievements for mankind does the world become if unbridled wealth is no longer an objective?

TenuredVulture wrote:French fries are way overrated. They are barely edible unless you douse them with ketchup or some other condiment. They're probably the worst thing you can do to a potato.

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:French fries are way overrated. They are barely edible unless you douse them with ketchup or some other condiment. They're probably the worst thing you can do to a potato.

You may win the thread with this nonsense.

Bucky wrote:tv what's your take on Freedom Fries