Printable View
It just reminds us that people could think up kewl plots even then, feel free to marvel at that but I'm not that surprised they could do that. Had Harry Potter been written hundreds of years ago people would be equally awed by Rowlings clever observations of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I would rather be ruled by the nobility then by the people. Here, I said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh, and compare songs like 'La donna é mobile' and 'O sole mio' with today's songs, comparisations like these make me sad. And these two songs aren't even that old. And I do think some of today's singers can sing it good, but they don't produce good music today.
Your subjective opinion.
That's all there is. Personally, I find both of them to be crap. But that's my subjective opinon. Psonally, I consider The Song Remains The Same the greatest song ever produced. But that's my personal opinion.
What else than subjective opinion there is on this subject? Over smaak valt niet te twisten.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh, and anything containing electrical guitars doesn't qualify as music.But that's just my opinion.
Ya uh-huh, just disregard 99.99999% out of a hundredQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Are you saying 99.99999% of today's music is good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No 99.999999999999999999% isn't oldQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
What's the big difference other than that nobility happen to have certain parents and don't have as much job insecurity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Upbringing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
The Queen of England believes it is her God-ordained duty to rule, but not her right. At its best the nobility embodies an idea of service that modern career politicians do not even echo, though they increasingly indulge in all the nobility's vices.
How is serving the people because God told you to do so better than serving the people because the people said so? And wouldn't an upbringing among the people be of more help in serving them than an upbringing far removed from anything the common people experience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Many nobleman have a good education, the people usually don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
And the rest 99.9999% of the time when they aren't at their best?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I like Hispanic people alot, i just have an ingrown fear of black people due to life experiences. I don't value them any less than all people and I want to see them succeed, but seriously, what the hell is going on with black culture? Right?....Right?
I laughed.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Certainly, there are some spots where education for the masses can be improved but for the most part, the masses have a decent education. Plus, anyone clever enough to do well as a politician can probably become educated if necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
I have a better education then Prince Harry and Prince William. Should I take their place in line to the throne?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
I am Dutch, If one of us is to take the throne of England it should be me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
and you =/= the entire population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Maybe the muslims aren't the problem LOL.....Of course these prejudeces come from being told white people are the best from an early age, even if its just subtle. It's a problem that infects Western teaching on history and philosophie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Of course that top comment is just abhorrent, "nobles" should stay in middle earth where they belong
That depends on what you value, doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Take Prince Charles for example, he was behind organic farming and environmentalism decades before any major elected politician. Yet people deride him for being stupid because, like many middle aged men, he has largish ears.
Well, one is an obligation, a duty, and the other is a choice. Remember, politicians actively seek power, most (Western) monarchs don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
I deride him on the basis that uses population demographics. There's about 60 millions citizens in the UK. Unless the royal line is bred for this for generations, there's about 1/1.000.000 that he belongs to the 60 people in the UK that embodies the idea of service best. Sure, the extra education from birth gives a small bonus (that is probably lost on other matters due to the unusual and disconnected upbringing), but nobles aren't baseline better than the rest of the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Organic farming has the flaw that in brings smaller harvests. And what happened with food prices around 2008 before the crisis? Are smaller harvests a good idea when signs of food shortages are starting to be noted?
Environmentalism, while I do prefer it, has the problem that economics are involved. So it needs to be considered from that aspect as well, since we don't run SimWorld 1.0. Which makes it a very large and complicated issue.
See, that's something to know about. If you're famous, but not in political power you got it easy. You only need to say what you prefer and then do very little, perhaps some funding at most.
I wish for peace on earth. If you're in power you'll need to make it happen, since that's your job.
Monarchs are simply born with it and never been without it. Taking things for granted does gives some interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
lack ofperspectives.
There have also been some monarchs with profoundly awful ideas as well. Just think of all the terrible ideas carried out in the 20th century that would have been stopped if the people actually had a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Then why should we force it upon them? Shouldn't power be for those who are willing to make sacrifices to gain the mandate of the people rather than those who were set up to inherit it whether they want it or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You've backtracked somewhat from MY CULTURE IS DEAAAAAAAAAAAADQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Unfortunately, I can't bang my head against the wall and post this response at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Actually, I was trying to say that classical music is better quality than pop music. If you listen closely to a good classical piece, you'll hear many different tones, melodies and rhythms and it's amazing to me how they work together to form a song. You don't really get that with pop music. The composition in a lot of pop music is really pretty bland because the the songs are lyric oriented, so the instrumentation is just mean to stay in the background. I've always felt that pop music is more for casual listening, because it seems to me like people who are more interested in music seek out other genres like rock, classical, jazz, alternative, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Not that classical music should be put on a pedestal and be considered "high art" or whatever, because there are some pretty boring classical pieces out there.
As someone who likes to listen to obscure punk rock bands I disagree that popularity should be one of the main measures of quality, there are hundreds of unknown musicians out there with more talent than today's top artists who just lack the finances, social network, luck, or even desire to become famous. Plus your statement "Lady GaGa has to beat millions to get to the top." implies that making music is some sort of competition, which is false.
Of course the quality of music is completely up to the listener and this is just my opinion.
que wut? Examples pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The problem with "classical" and "popular" music being compared at all is that we do not have access to the entire classical oeuvre - only those works that were popular enough to survive (and some snippets of dross). Add to this that the "classical" era actually spans a thousand years - from plainsong to movies, and we can see that we are comparing apples and oranges. For example, I am greatly fond of early Renaissance church music but less keen on the Romantic composers of the 19th century (what my father used to dismiss as "blowing, banging and scraping music").Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuchip
And of course, I am being sadly euro-centric there. The classical music of Japan is either inspiring or excruciatingly dull depending on one's taste. We are discovering more and more wonderful music from mediaeval Africa. The list goes on.
Classical music is not more complex than popular music. True, one finds much of modern music execrable and repetitive, but this is usually the stuff turned out factory-style from the big studios (and, as you note just my opinion). But even Mozart had to turn out low-grade stuff to make a living - The Magic Flute was a bit of pop theatre, which was wildly successful compared with his true masterpiece opera of Don Giovanni. But there are plenty of pop music works that are astonishing in their complexity - perhaps the best known is Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody' - many here will be better placed to name others.
And (in my opinion) almost all modern pop music is several orders of magnitude better than almost all of modern classical composition. The latter is atonal garbage in virtually every case as composers try to be "innovative". But then my distant ancestor probably said much the same thing about that Handel fellow with his harpsichords, trumpets and fireworks. What's wrong with a nice tune on the good old hurdy-gurdy?
Like demagogues....Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
HERESY! HERESY!Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb6o1uRdewo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUj7NgFHYB0
double post, please ignore or delete
And yet, I raise you with the very voice of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZL3POaATn8
No blowing, banging or scraping. Tell me that isn't the epitome of purity.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Nothing can compare with modern classical and jazz fusion for musical complexity.
Neither are worth listening too.
Musical taste is about something else. Part personal, part cultural. I find mediaevil Japanese music excruciatingly dull because I do not understand the culture it belongs to. In order to appreciate 16th century Japanese drum, one must read 19th century Japanese poetry. In this same realisation lies an appreciation of modern pop music. Lady Gaga is a genius. As Édith Piaf is considered now. It takes some time for a cultural expression to ripen, to become classic itself, symbols of an age, a bygone era. The thirties have now become classic, now that the last are dying. The fifties are on their way to become classic. It's architecture, art, literature. Soon thereafter, the Beatles and brutalist architecture and lava lamps will become a symbol of the cultural refinement of a more elegant age. That is, if the tendency to think of culture as regressing from a previous golden age will continue, as it will might, in light of its wide appeal throughout the ages and across cultures.
I love it, Latin is a great language. Makes me feel sad about modern songs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Perhaps the fact that English replaced Latin is the reason why modern songs are worthless? Interesting idea to think about.