Topic: On the Degeneration of Popular Culture.
+Dr. Phag !ElRXIQYqVM — 12.9 years ago #27,358
Over the 20th century, popular culture evolved through a myriad of forms. At the first, it involved books, newspapers, and public lectures, and at the end, it featured the internet, radio, and television. The fact is, we can see a clear degeneration of culture across this 100 year span, even as access to events became more widespread, the creation of culture became more and more monopolized. This in turn has radically transformed our society from creators into consumers of culture.
How does one define culture if not by its entertainment, and the entertainment is what we will focus on. There is a myriad of entertainment being produced today, but, it is no longer in the same fashion as what came before. 100 years ago, a dramatic storyteller would have his lines carefully rehearsed, while today, a youtube video of a prank circulates around the world in seconds. There is a significant gap between one and the other, that we will see has negatively impacted quality.
Back in the 1900s, entertainment was what you created. You either played an instrument, told a story, or practiced some craft that people enjoyed. Sure, there were the primitive gramophones, but, they were toys for the rich. The fact is, the majority of people produced and consumed their own culture and entertainment, and that was beneficial to the whole species. The individual quality might differ, but, there was an overall, organic feel to the whole entertainment process.
This has been stated before here, but, look at an average political speech or novel from the era. They are filled with rich innuendos, references to classical themes, and tug at the psyche far more than anything being produced today. The musical forms are so diverse as to be virtually alien to one another, from Tchaikovsky`s mighty works, to the ditties that people sang in the pub. Children were expected to make their own toys, and play outside unsupervised. Of course, this put them in danger, but, they were acceptable dangers, because generations before had managed to live through them. Trials of the spirit do tend to enrich the soul.
Consuming entertainment meant going out, and immersing yourself in a social situation. This is in complete contrast to today. 100 years ago, you would go to the opera, or a concert, to hear the most magnificent compositions. Today, you just turn on your computer, and need not bother getting dressed. Going out in public is an active experience, where you must use all your senses to draw in the crowd, the mood, and the nature of the gathering. This, was the essence of classical entertainment, the social aspect. Without the social aspect, entertainment becomes little more than passive time wasting mind neutral activity.
Slowly radio emerged, but, it was still an engaging medium. Because of the limitations of the technology, and its relative expense, local entertainment was encouraged, so people were still exercising creative control. The famous `War of the worlds` broadcast, no matter its actual veracity, was still causing people to engage their minds, imagining the characters and images behind Wells` words. If the ensuing panic actually did happen (despite evidence) it was precisely because people were engaged with the medium, and identifying with it. People would gather around the radio and partake in it together, meaning that radio was still a social element (a quality which it has long since lost)
As networks developed, and communications became more centralized, the local voice was lost. A newscaster might become notable in a given area, and a man with the right voice might become nationally famous. However, the talent of individuals was slowly left to rot. The average person playing an instrument like the Accordion became more of a parlor joke than an admired talent, and the idea of packaging entertainment was in its embryonic stage. Gone were the sing alongs at the pub, replaced by the record spinners at the dance clubs.
This progress towards technology was not all bad. Admittedly, for the right people at the right time, who were `discovered` it was indeed a miracle. It was a fast track to riches and fame. However, they were the producers of culture, which had previously been a widescale democratic movement, rather than the product of a few companies ideal of what would sell.
By the time of Glenn Miller, the amateur producer of entertainment was lost, aside from local variety shows, and instead was replaced by massive record pressing companies, and radio broadcasts. Entertainment was consumed by the masses, rather than produced by them. Gone were the days where a person would try to remember how their grandfather had played a particular tune, instead, amateur musicians were trying to duplicate the latest sensational brass band favorites. Mimicry became the call of the local entertainer, rather than innovation. The individual had lost their voice in the cultural creation process.
Certainly economic forces played a factor. Doubtless Johnny Carson selected Elvis Presley to appear on his show because of the musicians ability to draw viewers, rather than for any admiration for his gift (recall that at that point, Elvis was still highly controversial) By the time of the Beatles and the `British Invasion` people were in a state of near hysteria over celebrities that they would never meet in person, or come in contact with anywhere beyond a thousand yards. The modern age of entertainment had been born, and its direct affect on culture could be seen. No longer was any socialization required with the entertainer, no culture required to put on a record player. Just time to waste, and a passing fancy.
In the 60s to mid 90s, this continued to develop. The corporations grip on broadcasting and networks only grew and tightened, to the point where `manufactured` entertainment became mainstream. Groups were thrown together just on the basis of packaging, rather than synergy or talent. Thus, we have some very forgettable decades where the music was electronic, the entertainers robotic, and the audience hypnotic.
There was no antidote to this. Gone were the gatherings celebrated in culture of guitar playing by the outdoor fire. Gone were sing alongs, aside from elementary school, and occasional community theater projects. The individual talent had wasted away to near zero levels. Our passion to perform had been subsumed by our passion to consume.
However, in the late 1990s to the present day, the internet opened up a new phenomenon. Personal entertainment was back again. One person with a camera, or with a story could sensationalize the world just by getting views. It is debatable whether this is social interaction, since the parties never see one another face to face, and the entertainment still caters to a passive audience. However, it has encouraged the democratization of entertainment again.
The problem is the lost generations of local entertainers. There were literally generations of people who grew up thinking what they saw on Television, or what they heard on the radio was representative of culture as a whole, instead of what they were being fed to believe. People were too intimidated to perform in public, rightfully fearing they would be compared with the mass marketed musicians who enjoyed fame, fortune and glory. What chance did the individual have against that. Thus, we lost billions of voices in the decades that could have provided culturally revolutionary music, just simply due to self doubt and the intimidation of the multinational corporate entertainment empires.
Though the re-democratization of culture and entertainment is still in its infancy, it is our duty as a species to demand it back. Yes, there will always be a great act that manages to draw in viewers, and upstage us all. However, we should not be afraid to let our voices be heard. Step out from the silence, and let people know what you feel. Have a rant, play a song, read your poems, whatever it takes. For if you do not do so, no one will ever know what, if any genius you possessed, and your talent will be lost to the world, just as we lost billions of talented people over decades who could have changed our culture, if only they were given a voice.
Now, to honour those countless lost performers, we will take our regularly scheduled weekend break. See you next week! Thanks for reading. Every click on these pages makes someone smile, and know that your time spent reading my muses has been appreciated, and brought enjoyment to me, much as I hope it has brought enjoyment to you!
How does one define culture if not by its entertainment, and the entertainment is what we will focus on. There is a myriad of entertainment being produced today, but, it is no longer in the same fashion as what came before. 100 years ago, a dramatic storyteller would have his lines carefully rehearsed, while today, a youtube video of a prank circulates around the world in seconds. There is a significant gap between one and the other, that we will see has negatively impacted quality.
Back in the 1900s, entertainment was what you created. You either played an instrument, told a story, or practiced some craft that people enjoyed. Sure, there were the primitive gramophones, but, they were toys for the rich. The fact is, the majority of people produced and consumed their own culture and entertainment, and that was beneficial to the whole species. The individual quality might differ, but, there was an overall, organic feel to the whole entertainment process.
This has been stated before here, but, look at an average political speech or novel from the era. They are filled with rich innuendos, references to classical themes, and tug at the psyche far more than anything being produced today. The musical forms are so diverse as to be virtually alien to one another, from Tchaikovsky`s mighty works, to the ditties that people sang in the pub. Children were expected to make their own toys, and play outside unsupervised. Of course, this put them in danger, but, they were acceptable dangers, because generations before had managed to live through them. Trials of the spirit do tend to enrich the soul.
Consuming entertainment meant going out, and immersing yourself in a social situation. This is in complete contrast to today. 100 years ago, you would go to the opera, or a concert, to hear the most magnificent compositions. Today, you just turn on your computer, and need not bother getting dressed. Going out in public is an active experience, where you must use all your senses to draw in the crowd, the mood, and the nature of the gathering. This, was the essence of classical entertainment, the social aspect. Without the social aspect, entertainment becomes little more than passive time wasting mind neutral activity.
Slowly radio emerged, but, it was still an engaging medium. Because of the limitations of the technology, and its relative expense, local entertainment was encouraged, so people were still exercising creative control. The famous `War of the worlds` broadcast, no matter its actual veracity, was still causing people to engage their minds, imagining the characters and images behind Wells` words. If the ensuing panic actually did happen (despite evidence) it was precisely because people were engaged with the medium, and identifying with it. People would gather around the radio and partake in it together, meaning that radio was still a social element (a quality which it has long since lost)
As networks developed, and communications became more centralized, the local voice was lost. A newscaster might become notable in a given area, and a man with the right voice might become nationally famous. However, the talent of individuals was slowly left to rot. The average person playing an instrument like the Accordion became more of a parlor joke than an admired talent, and the idea of packaging entertainment was in its embryonic stage. Gone were the sing alongs at the pub, replaced by the record spinners at the dance clubs.
This progress towards technology was not all bad. Admittedly, for the right people at the right time, who were `discovered` it was indeed a miracle. It was a fast track to riches and fame. However, they were the producers of culture, which had previously been a widescale democratic movement, rather than the product of a few companies ideal of what would sell.
By the time of Glenn Miller, the amateur producer of entertainment was lost, aside from local variety shows, and instead was replaced by massive record pressing companies, and radio broadcasts. Entertainment was consumed by the masses, rather than produced by them. Gone were the days where a person would try to remember how their grandfather had played a particular tune, instead, amateur musicians were trying to duplicate the latest sensational brass band favorites. Mimicry became the call of the local entertainer, rather than innovation. The individual had lost their voice in the cultural creation process.
Certainly economic forces played a factor. Doubtless Johnny Carson selected Elvis Presley to appear on his show because of the musicians ability to draw viewers, rather than for any admiration for his gift (recall that at that point, Elvis was still highly controversial) By the time of the Beatles and the `British Invasion` people were in a state of near hysteria over celebrities that they would never meet in person, or come in contact with anywhere beyond a thousand yards. The modern age of entertainment had been born, and its direct affect on culture could be seen. No longer was any socialization required with the entertainer, no culture required to put on a record player. Just time to waste, and a passing fancy.
In the 60s to mid 90s, this continued to develop. The corporations grip on broadcasting and networks only grew and tightened, to the point where `manufactured` entertainment became mainstream. Groups were thrown together just on the basis of packaging, rather than synergy or talent. Thus, we have some very forgettable decades where the music was electronic, the entertainers robotic, and the audience hypnotic.
There was no antidote to this. Gone were the gatherings celebrated in culture of guitar playing by the outdoor fire. Gone were sing alongs, aside from elementary school, and occasional community theater projects. The individual talent had wasted away to near zero levels. Our passion to perform had been subsumed by our passion to consume.
However, in the late 1990s to the present day, the internet opened up a new phenomenon. Personal entertainment was back again. One person with a camera, or with a story could sensationalize the world just by getting views. It is debatable whether this is social interaction, since the parties never see one another face to face, and the entertainment still caters to a passive audience. However, it has encouraged the democratization of entertainment again.
The problem is the lost generations of local entertainers. There were literally generations of people who grew up thinking what they saw on Television, or what they heard on the radio was representative of culture as a whole, instead of what they were being fed to believe. People were too intimidated to perform in public, rightfully fearing they would be compared with the mass marketed musicians who enjoyed fame, fortune and glory. What chance did the individual have against that. Thus, we lost billions of voices in the decades that could have provided culturally revolutionary music, just simply due to self doubt and the intimidation of the multinational corporate entertainment empires.
Though the re-democratization of culture and entertainment is still in its infancy, it is our duty as a species to demand it back. Yes, there will always be a great act that manages to draw in viewers, and upstage us all. However, we should not be afraid to let our voices be heard. Step out from the silence, and let people know what you feel. Have a rant, play a song, read your poems, whatever it takes. For if you do not do so, no one will ever know what, if any genius you possessed, and your talent will be lost to the world, just as we lost billions of talented people over decades who could have changed our culture, if only they were given a voice.
Now, to honour those countless lost performers, we will take our regularly scheduled weekend break. See you next week! Thanks for reading. Every click on these pages makes someone smile, and know that your time spent reading my muses has been appreciated, and brought enjoyment to me, much as I hope it has brought enjoyment to you!
+Anonymous B — 12.9 years ago, 3 minutes later[T] [B] #321,175
@OP
> Over the 20th century, popular culture evolved through a myriad of forms. At the first, it involved books, newspapers, and public lectures, and at the end, it featured the internet, radio, and television. The fact is, we can see a clear degeneration of culture across this 100 year span, even as access to events became more widespread, the creation of culture became more and more monopolized. This in turn has radically transformed our society from creators into consumers of culture.
>
> How does one define culture if not by its entertainment, and the entertainment is what we will focus on. There is a myriad of entertainment being produced today, but, it is no longer in the same fashion as what came before. 100 years ago, a dramatic storyteller would have his lines carefully rehearsed, while today, a youtube video of a prank circulates around the world in seconds. There is a significant gap between one and the other, that we will see has negatively impacted quality.
>
> Back in the 1900s, entertainment was what you created. You either played an instrument, told a story, or practiced some craft that people enjoyed. Sure, there were the primitive gramophones, but, they were toys for the rich. The fact is, the majority of people produced and consumed their own culture and entertainment, and that was beneficial to the whole species. The individual quality might differ, but, there was an overall, organic feel to the whole entertainment process.
>
> This has been stated before here, but, look at an average political speech or novel from the era. They are filled with rich innuendos, references to classical themes, and tug at the psyche far more than anything being produced today. The musical forms are so diverse as to be virtually alien to one another, from Tchaikovsky`s mighty works, to the ditties that people sang in the pub. Children were expected to make their own toys, and play outside unsupervised. Of course, this put them in danger, but, they were acceptable dangers, because generations before had managed to live through them. Trials of the spirit do tend to enrich the soul.
>
> Consuming entertainment meant going out, and immersing yourself in a social situation. This is in complete contrast to today. 100 years ago, you would go to the opera, or a concert, to hear the most magnificent compositions. Today, you just turn on your computer, and need not bother getting dressed. Going out in public is an active experience, where you must use all your senses to draw in the crowd, the mood, and the nature of the gathering. This, was the essence of classical entertainment, the social aspect. Without the social aspect, entertainment becomes little more than passive time wasting mind neutral activity.
>
> Slowly radio emerged, but, it was still an engaging medium. Because of the limitations of the technology, and its relative expense, local entertainment was encouraged, so people were still exercising creative control. The famous `War of the worlds` broadcast, no matter its actual veracity, was still causing people to engage their minds, imagining the characters and images behind Wells` words. If the ensuing panic actually did happen (despite evidence) it was precisely because people were engaged with the medium, and identifying with it. People would gather around the radio and partake in it together, meaning that radio was still a social element (a quality which it has long since lost)
>
> As networks developed, and communications became more centralized, the local voice was lost. A newscaster might become notable in a given area, and a man with the right voice might become nationally famous. However, the talent of individuals was slowly left to rot. The average person playing an instrument like the Accordion became more of a parlor joke than an admired talent, and the idea of packaging entertainment was in its embryonic stage. Gone were the sing alongs at the pub, replaced by the record spinners at the dance clubs.
>
> This progress towards technology was not all bad. Admittedly, for the right people at the right time, who were `discovered` it was indeed a miracle. It was a fast track to riches and fame. However, they were the producers of culture, which had previously been a widescale democratic movement, rather than the product of a few companies ideal of what would sell.
>
> By the time of Glenn Miller, the amateur producer of entertainment was lost, aside from local variety shows, and instead was replaced by massive record pressing companies, and radio broadcasts. Entertainment was consumed by the masses, rather than produced by them. Gone were the days where a person would try to remember how their grandfather had played a particular tune, instead, amateur musicians were trying to duplicate the latest sensational brass band favorites. Mimicry became the call of the local entertainer, rather than innovation. The individual had lost their voice in the cultural creation process.
>
> Certainly economic forces played a factor. Doubtless Johnny Carson selected Elvis Presley to appear on his show because of the musicians ability to draw viewers, rather than for any admiration for his gift (recall that at that point, Elvis was still highly controversial) By the time of the Beatles and the `British Invasion` people were in a state of near hysteria over celebrities that they would never meet in person, or come in contact with anywhere beyond a thousand yards. The modern age of entertainment had been born, and its direct affect on culture could be seen. No longer was any socialization required with the entertainer, no culture required to put on a record player. Just time to waste, and a passing fancy.
>
> In the 60s to mid 90s, this continued to develop. The corporations grip on broadcasting and networks only grew and tightened, to the point where `manufactured` entertainment became mainstream. Groups were thrown together just on the basis of packaging, rather than synergy or talent. Thus, we have some very forgettable decades where the music was electronic, the entertainers robotic, and the audience hypnotic.
>
> There was no antidote to this. Gone were the gatherings celebrated in culture of guitar playing by the outdoor fire. Gone were sing alongs, aside from elementary school, and occasional community theater projects. The individual talent had wasted away to near zero levels. Our passion to perform had been subsumed by our passion to consume.
>
> However, in the late 1990s to the present day, the internet opened up a new phenomenon. Personal entertainment was back again. One person with a camera, or with a story could sensationalize the world just by getting views. It is debatable whether this is social interaction, since the parties never see one another face to face, and the entertainment still caters to a passive audience. However, it has encouraged the democratization of entertainment again.
>
> The problem is the lost generations of local entertainers. There were literally generations of people who grew up thinking what they saw on Television, or what they heard on the radio was representative of culture as a whole, instead of what they were being fed to believe. People were too intimidated to perform in public, rightfully fearing they would be compared with the mass marketed musicians who enjoyed fame, fortune and glory. What chance did the individual have against that. Thus, we lost billions of voices in the decades that could have provided culturally revolutionary music, just simply due to self doubt and the intimidation of the multinational corporate entertainment empires.
>
> Though the re-democratization of culture and entertainment is still in its infancy, it is our duty as a species to demand it back. Yes, there will always be a great act that manages to draw in viewers, and upstage us all. However, we should not be afraid to let our voices be heard. Step out from the silence, and let people know what you feel. Have a rant, play a song, read your poems, whatever it takes. For if you do not do so, no one will ever know what, if any genius you possessed, and your talent will be lost to the world, just as we lost billions of talented people over decades who could have changed our culture, if only they were given a voice.
>
> Now, to honour those countless lost performers, we will take our regularly scheduled weekend break. See you next week! Thanks for reading. Every click on these pages makes someone smile, and know that your time spent reading my muses has been appreciated, and brought enjoyment to me, much as I hope it has brought enjoyment to you!
I'm not reading that faggot manifesto and nobody else is either.
> Over the 20th century, popular culture evolved through a myriad of forms. At the first, it involved books, newspapers, and public lectures, and at the end, it featured the internet, radio, and television. The fact is, we can see a clear degeneration of culture across this 100 year span, even as access to events became more widespread, the creation of culture became more and more monopolized. This in turn has radically transformed our society from creators into consumers of culture.
>
> How does one define culture if not by its entertainment, and the entertainment is what we will focus on. There is a myriad of entertainment being produced today, but, it is no longer in the same fashion as what came before. 100 years ago, a dramatic storyteller would have his lines carefully rehearsed, while today, a youtube video of a prank circulates around the world in seconds. There is a significant gap between one and the other, that we will see has negatively impacted quality.
>
> Back in the 1900s, entertainment was what you created. You either played an instrument, told a story, or practiced some craft that people enjoyed. Sure, there were the primitive gramophones, but, they were toys for the rich. The fact is, the majority of people produced and consumed their own culture and entertainment, and that was beneficial to the whole species. The individual quality might differ, but, there was an overall, organic feel to the whole entertainment process.
>
> This has been stated before here, but, look at an average political speech or novel from the era. They are filled with rich innuendos, references to classical themes, and tug at the psyche far more than anything being produced today. The musical forms are so diverse as to be virtually alien to one another, from Tchaikovsky`s mighty works, to the ditties that people sang in the pub. Children were expected to make their own toys, and play outside unsupervised. Of course, this put them in danger, but, they were acceptable dangers, because generations before had managed to live through them. Trials of the spirit do tend to enrich the soul.
>
> Consuming entertainment meant going out, and immersing yourself in a social situation. This is in complete contrast to today. 100 years ago, you would go to the opera, or a concert, to hear the most magnificent compositions. Today, you just turn on your computer, and need not bother getting dressed. Going out in public is an active experience, where you must use all your senses to draw in the crowd, the mood, and the nature of the gathering. This, was the essence of classical entertainment, the social aspect. Without the social aspect, entertainment becomes little more than passive time wasting mind neutral activity.
>
> Slowly radio emerged, but, it was still an engaging medium. Because of the limitations of the technology, and its relative expense, local entertainment was encouraged, so people were still exercising creative control. The famous `War of the worlds` broadcast, no matter its actual veracity, was still causing people to engage their minds, imagining the characters and images behind Wells` words. If the ensuing panic actually did happen (despite evidence) it was precisely because people were engaged with the medium, and identifying with it. People would gather around the radio and partake in it together, meaning that radio was still a social element (a quality which it has long since lost)
>
> As networks developed, and communications became more centralized, the local voice was lost. A newscaster might become notable in a given area, and a man with the right voice might become nationally famous. However, the talent of individuals was slowly left to rot. The average person playing an instrument like the Accordion became more of a parlor joke than an admired talent, and the idea of packaging entertainment was in its embryonic stage. Gone were the sing alongs at the pub, replaced by the record spinners at the dance clubs.
>
> This progress towards technology was not all bad. Admittedly, for the right people at the right time, who were `discovered` it was indeed a miracle. It was a fast track to riches and fame. However, they were the producers of culture, which had previously been a widescale democratic movement, rather than the product of a few companies ideal of what would sell.
>
> By the time of Glenn Miller, the amateur producer of entertainment was lost, aside from local variety shows, and instead was replaced by massive record pressing companies, and radio broadcasts. Entertainment was consumed by the masses, rather than produced by them. Gone were the days where a person would try to remember how their grandfather had played a particular tune, instead, amateur musicians were trying to duplicate the latest sensational brass band favorites. Mimicry became the call of the local entertainer, rather than innovation. The individual had lost their voice in the cultural creation process.
>
> Certainly economic forces played a factor. Doubtless Johnny Carson selected Elvis Presley to appear on his show because of the musicians ability to draw viewers, rather than for any admiration for his gift (recall that at that point, Elvis was still highly controversial) By the time of the Beatles and the `British Invasion` people were in a state of near hysteria over celebrities that they would never meet in person, or come in contact with anywhere beyond a thousand yards. The modern age of entertainment had been born, and its direct affect on culture could be seen. No longer was any socialization required with the entertainer, no culture required to put on a record player. Just time to waste, and a passing fancy.
>
> In the 60s to mid 90s, this continued to develop. The corporations grip on broadcasting and networks only grew and tightened, to the point where `manufactured` entertainment became mainstream. Groups were thrown together just on the basis of packaging, rather than synergy or talent. Thus, we have some very forgettable decades where the music was electronic, the entertainers robotic, and the audience hypnotic.
>
> There was no antidote to this. Gone were the gatherings celebrated in culture of guitar playing by the outdoor fire. Gone were sing alongs, aside from elementary school, and occasional community theater projects. The individual talent had wasted away to near zero levels. Our passion to perform had been subsumed by our passion to consume.
>
> However, in the late 1990s to the present day, the internet opened up a new phenomenon. Personal entertainment was back again. One person with a camera, or with a story could sensationalize the world just by getting views. It is debatable whether this is social interaction, since the parties never see one another face to face, and the entertainment still caters to a passive audience. However, it has encouraged the democratization of entertainment again.
>
> The problem is the lost generations of local entertainers. There were literally generations of people who grew up thinking what they saw on Television, or what they heard on the radio was representative of culture as a whole, instead of what they were being fed to believe. People were too intimidated to perform in public, rightfully fearing they would be compared with the mass marketed musicians who enjoyed fame, fortune and glory. What chance did the individual have against that. Thus, we lost billions of voices in the decades that could have provided culturally revolutionary music, just simply due to self doubt and the intimidation of the multinational corporate entertainment empires.
>
> Though the re-democratization of culture and entertainment is still in its infancy, it is our duty as a species to demand it back. Yes, there will always be a great act that manages to draw in viewers, and upstage us all. However, we should not be afraid to let our voices be heard. Step out from the silence, and let people know what you feel. Have a rant, play a song, read your poems, whatever it takes. For if you do not do so, no one will ever know what, if any genius you possessed, and your talent will be lost to the world, just as we lost billions of talented people over decades who could have changed our culture, if only they were given a voice.
>
> Now, to honour those countless lost performers, we will take our regularly scheduled weekend break. See you next week! Thanks for reading. Every click on these pages makes someone smile, and know that your time spent reading my muses has been appreciated, and brought enjoyment to me, much as I hope it has brought enjoyment to you!
I'm not reading that faggot manifesto and nobody else is either.
+Anonymous C — 12.9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #321,177
The sad thing is OP would ace the new SAT essay portion with this crap.
·HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) — 12.9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #321,178
·Anonymous B — 12.9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #321,183
@321,177 (C)
They would return that portion with the same comments I made previously in this thread.
They would return that portion with the same comments I made previously in this thread.
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 12.9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #321,187
@OP> Over the 20th century, popular culture evolved through a myriad of forms. At the first, it involved books, newspapers, and public lectures, and at the end, it featured the internet, radio, and television. The fact is, we can see a clear degeneration of culture across this 100 year span, even as access to events became more widespread, the creation of culture became more and more monopolized. This in turn has radically transformed our society from creators into consumers of culture.
>
> How does one define culture if not by its entertainment, and the entertainment is what we will focus on. There is a myriad of entertainment being produced today, but, it is no longer in the same fashion as what came before. 100 years ago, a dramatic storyteller would have his lines carefully rehearsed, while today, a youtube video of a prank circulates around the world in seconds. There is a significant gap between one and the other, that we will see has negatively impacted quality.
>
> Back in the 1900s, entertainment was what you created. You either played an instrument, told a story, or practiced some craft that people enjoyed. Sure, there were the primitive gramophones, but, they were toys for the rich. The fact is, the majority of people produced and consumed their own culture and entertainment, and that was beneficial to the whole species. The individual quality might differ, but, there was an overall, organic feel to the whole entertainment process.
>
> This has been stated before here, but, look at an average political speech or novel from the era. They are filled with rich innuendos, references to classical themes, and tug at the psyche far more than anything being produced today. The musical forms are so diverse as to be virtually alien to one another, from Tchaikovsky`s mighty works, to the ditties that people sang in the pub. Children were expected to make their own toys, and play outside unsupervised. Of course, this put them in danger, but, they were acceptable dangers, because generations before had managed to live through them. Trials of the spirit do tend to enrich the soul.
>
> Consuming entertainment meant going out, and immersing yourself in a social situation. This is in complete contrast to today. 100 years ago, you would go to the opera, or a concert, to hear the most magnificent compositions. Today, you just turn on your computer, and need not bother getting dressed. Going out in public is an active experience, where you must use all your senses to draw in the crowd, the mood, and the nature of the gathering. This, was the essence of classical entertainment, the social aspect. Without the social aspect, entertainment becomes little more than passive time wasting mind neutral activity.
>
> Slowly radio emerged, but, it was still an engaging medium. Because of the limitations of the technology, and its relative expense, local entertainment was encouraged, so people were still exercising creative control. The famous `War of the worlds` broadcast, no matter its actual veracity, was still causing people to engage their minds, imagining the characters and images behind Wells` words. If the ensuing panic actually did happen (despite evidence) it was precisely because people were engaged with the medium, and identifying with it. People would gather around the radio and partake in it together, meaning that radio was still a social element (a quality which it has long since lost)
>
> As networks developed, and communications became more centralized, the local voice was lost. A newscaster might become notable in a given area, and a man with the right voice might become nationally famous. However, the talent of individuals was slowly left to rot. The average person playing an instrument like the Accordion became more of a parlor joke than an admired talent, and the idea of packaging entertainment was in its embryonic stage. Gone were the sing alongs at the pub, replaced by the record spinners at the dance clubs.
>
> This progress towards technology was not all bad. Admittedly, for the right people at the right time, who were `discovered` it was indeed a miracle. It was a fast track to riches and fame. However, they were the producers of culture, which had previously been a widescale democratic movement, rather than the product of a few companies ideal of what would sell.
>
> By the time of Glenn Miller, the amateur producer of entertainment was lost, aside from local variety shows, and instead was replaced by massive record pressing companies, and radio broadcasts. Entertainment was consumed by the masses, rather than produced by them. Gone were the days where a person would try to remember how their grandfather had played a particular tune, instead, amateur musicians were trying to duplicate the latest sensational brass band favorites. Mimicry became the call of the local entertainer, rather than innovation. The individual had lost their voice in the cultural creation process.
>
> Certainly economic forces played a factor. Doubtless Johnny Carson selected Elvis Presley to appear on his show because of the musicians ability to draw viewers, rather than for any admiration for his gift (recall that at that point, Elvis was still highly controversial) By the time of the Beatles and the `British Invasion` people were in a state of near hysteria over celebrities that they would never meet in person, or come in contact with anywhere beyond a thousand yards. The modern age of entertainment had been born, and its direct affect on culture could be seen. No longer was any socialization required with the entertainer, no culture required to put on a record player. Just time to waste, and a passing fancy.
>
> In the 60s to mid 90s, this continued to develop. The corporations grip on broadcasting and networks only grew and tightened, to the point where `manufactured` entertainment became mainstream. Groups were thrown together just on the basis of packaging, rather than synergy or talent. Thus, we have some very forgettable decades where the music was electronic, the entertainers robotic, and the audience hypnotic.
>
> There was no antidote to this. Gone were the gatherings celebrated in culture of guitar playing by the outdoor fire. Gone were sing alongs, aside from elementary school, and occasional community theater projects. The individual talent had wasted away to near zero levels. Our passion to perform had been subsumed by our passion to consume.
>
> However, in the late 1990s to the present day, the internet opened up a new phenomenon. Personal entertainment was back again. One person with a camera, or with a story could sensationalize the world just by getting views. It is debatable whether this is social interaction, since the parties never see one another face to face, and the entertainment still caters to a passive audience. However, it has encouraged the democratization of entertainment again.
>
> The problem is the lost generations of local entertainers. There were literally generations of people who grew up thinking what they saw on Television, or what they heard on the radio was representative of culture as a whole, instead of what they were being fed to believe. People were too intimidated to perform in public, rightfully fearing they would be compared with the mass marketed musicians who enjoyed fame, fortune and glory. What chance did the individual have against that. Thus, we lost billions of voices in the decades that could have provided culturally revolutionary music, just simply due to self doubt and the intimidation of the multinational corporate entertainment empires.
>
> Though the re-democratization of culture and entertainment is still in its infancy, it is our duty as a species to demand it back. Yes, there will always be a great act that manages to draw in viewers, and upstage us all. However, we should not be afraid to let our voices be heard. Step out from the silence, and let people know what you feel. Have a rant, play a song, read your poems, whatever it takes. For if you do not do so, no one will ever know what, if any genius you possessed, and your talent will be lost to the world, just as we lost billions of talented people over decades who could have changed our culture, if only they were given a voice.
>
> Now, to honour those countless lost performers, we will take our regularly scheduled weekend break. See you next week! Thanks for reading. Every click on these pages makes someone smile, and know that your time spent reading my muses has been appreciated, and brought enjoyment to me, much as I hope it has brought enjoyment to you!
Didn't read a single word of that autistic textwall.
+Dr. Autphag !MLHqI35Srs — 12.9 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #321,237
> Mentions Tsaikovsky as though he weren't a Jew
Gets grade 0 at Phag-level.
Gets grade 0 at Phag-level.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.