The middle class is corrupted in a very different way: boredom. I wont bring up my ideas about it since it would be off topic. I'm unsubscribing to my own thread because it's a waste of time worrying about what others think. The ones who know got it, the ones who don't know didn't get it.
Somehow I believe you will be back to read it; whether you reply to it, I do not know. No, rather I believe you are the one falling prey-- to misinformation. 2Pac went through what I would charcterize as four musical phases. 1. As the hopeless youth involved in gang violence voicing his take on gang violence, women, police, the misdirected Black youthl, etc. i.e. "2Pacalypse Now" and his early music. 2. As the hard-nosed revolutionary vying and prying for a change in a culture he saw as self-defeating. This was a short time before his lengthy incarceration and during. i.e. "Me Against the World"-- an album which in my opinion is genius. 3. As a capitalist, image-conscious, gun-toting, rich, etc black man in an era where commercial survivability implied "thugness". i.e. "All eyez on me. " 4. As Michiavele. Again revolutionary, clairvoyant, introspective, paranoid, etc. Misinformation on your part gendy. Content exists but you are unaware of it. And again content is not all. I also cringe when I hear of the pleasures of a needle drippling with heroin--I look beyong it when there is something beyond; and a lot of times, there is. "Incorrect" as in your take on the value of "content". No. But that is irrelevant. I despise this for many reasons, not the least being the indirect compare. Read again, I did not.
People are stupid, that's what happened. When they go to a store to buy a Cd, they don't buy music, but the image that the 'artist' represents . Like Chris Rock said: 'Who producet the record?' 'He got shot 9 times!!!' 'is it any good?' 'He got shot 9 times!!!' Beethoven rocks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Fountainboy: But no misininformation on yours? I only wonder how you come out calling it the pleasures of singing about needles dripping with heroine. Cringe all you want but I doubt that Slayle, were he still alive, and Weiland would not be shuddering with you. And don't think its just a rap thing. Think Prodigy's "Smack my Bitch Up". Brilliant but crass. The relevancy of Shiniqua's black ass in my face is the whole point of this thread. and........ ...keep despising, my dear. Your Tupacs and Ja rules are soiled rich, ghettho-fabulous hoodrats. Content or no. Straw: I highly doubt you even know who Beethoven is from the sounds of you.
Andy: You've misplaced 'bore'. Not boredom. They're boring. And you should have fucking left long ago. ~ flush~
No. You know why. revise What the hell does crass have to with it? Myself, I prefer the elegance of Bach and find the sometimes chaotic Beethoven slightly annoying. But see that is besides the point. I'd be surprised if the thread starter would not instead be talking about the "degeneration" of names were he/it/she to think of Shiniqua. Oh and yea the order of the pronouns has meaning. The thread has no point for it is flawed. Diversity in music exists; 'classical' musicians still exist; Beethoven, even in his prime was still the choice of an particluar type-- Joe Blow in Wolfsburg was listening to 'Folk'.
Fountain: Considering I've already degenerated the pasty little white boy down to pulp with my own analysis on 'crackers'..........I doubt he'll be coming back here to give us his opinion on Shiniqua. Pity. AHH. In that case, you're a keeper. Case closed.
My time is limited, so I'll be brief. Marquis, What exactly is an insult, now? It's a personal attack. AkA ad hominem. It's still a possibility -- regardless of how many warped, incomprable parallels you'd want to draw to other 'possiblities.' Personally I don't give a damn who wrote Shakespeares play. They're there. That's all that matters. If you give damn than I'd suspect that you care more about shakespeare than his plays. In which case your not feeding off the aesthic qualities of his writings but the image you project from liking it. (BTW, I do like some of shakespeares work.) Of course not. But there are enough people out there, and enough music theory to suggest that even if a lower frequency of great artists exists, there should still exist extroardinary musicians of this generation. Thats a strong assumption. Again, I say that even though Bethoveen was pleasing (and still is to some extent,) he has been immortalized as the father of modern music theory. That doesn't mean music of the time was superior. It doesn't mean it is equal or less. Only that. You call it quality because the 'crux,' so to speak, is music theory. And few understand it better than the people that fathered it. Now follow my logic.. slowly now... What you consider quality is 100% subjective opinion. Same as mine. It will never be true no matter how much you wish it to be. Everything is false. Everything. There is no insurmountable standard. Period. (In fact I'd argue that Bethoveens standards have already been surpassed, but that's another thread.) Do I have to write five pages about why quality has so little to do with the reason bethoveen has been immortalized?! Argue on that point if you will. But support the statement that: Bethoveen has and will be listened to for so long as an explicit cause of quality. Before you flogg it any more... You're actually clever in saying this. Not because it's true, but because you leave little room for argument by comparison. By your logic, the only way Beethoven will ever be surmounted is if his revolutionary music theory (not necessarily music!) is ever toppled. IF-- IF Beethovens music theory is agreed on soley by us as being the basis for all modern music, then it will NEVER be surmountable. Such makes the assumption that Beethoven was all knowing. Since we know him to be human, this cannot be true. ...Therefore it can be beaten by your standards. It Will. Even by todays standards. Everything else is a matter of opinion so it doesn't matter. 100% subjective. Anyways the math is WRONG. It's not as simple as saying 1/10. I've already said that. Musicians are not remembered for their music they are remembered for what they contribute to music theory! For example, beatles music is becoming..old. But it's has contributed significantly. And even if people don't have all of their songs memorized, they WILL remember how the bunch manufactured sounds and rythm. Again..what about the Beatles?? This is the softest part of your argument. Bethoveens music was targetted at the snobs..Beatles targetted teeny boppers. Both are widly listened to today. See what I'm getting at? And BTW, Bethoveens music is not complex at all. If you get down to the tiniest bits, you'll find that it's incredibly simple. And that's what made it so brilliant for the time. Again, a completely false assumption. I love Weezer. I LOVE the Pixies. I LOVE the Beatles. Influences on eachother. All different Generations. I don't confine myself to the popular music of a specific era. Even the modern. But if you have can't find anything these days that you like, than I see why the modern world might appear so bleak to you. *...Now back to what I was doing...*
No moron, it's not. An ad hominem attack is when you attack an argument by attacking the person making the argument. Snarling at the person making it is not ad hominem unless you imply that this invalidates the argument Now go play with razor blades or something.
1 - State why you have a claim to decide who should or should not be "dabbling in obviouslies". 2 - Sometimes, that mood is appropriate to life. I share the belief that Judeo-Christian religions are insane however. 3 - Maybe because their culture is suppressed as part of the degeneration that led us from Bach -> 50 Cent. Egalitarianism = Judeo-Christianity = populism
Xev, This is ad hominem. He attacked my argument by using sarcasm to attack the person making the argument. You could argue for ages on how the two devices are seperated by a question mark, but I could care less what you think of this (unless your willing to jump into the cage with us!). and2000X has left the argument? I've missed quite a bit then. Are you saying that to get your point across, or increase your post count? Your last three posts could have been summed up in a simple wallop. State why. I have studied Judaism. And lately, I've also read into post-modernist thought. Now what's strange is how everybody thinks the two are so incompatible while, in the over all message, I've found them to be so alike! (christianity is a different story though...) So tell me - what do you know about Judaism?
