Have cultural standards gotten lower?

[Locutus of Bored]

I think cultural standards have changed. I think for-profit entertainment with massive corporations running our mainstream entertainment have caused artists to become cowards. Before, if you risked offending someone with a song, or a joke, or a piece of well-written fiction, the audience wasn't so fragile. They wouldn't burn you at the stake over it, kill your career. Sometimes, you just became a niche market of ardent supporters.

Oh, please. The Blackist and HUAC, the Post Office banning distribution of materials they considered indecent, the Comics Code, the creation of the MPAA and the X-Rating (which hurt mainstream films but which was ironically a boon to porn), Jack Valenti's crusade against VCRs (a precursor of his support of the DMCA) Hoover's files on and blackmailing of Hollywood celebrities, an FCC that was even more restrictive than it was in the 90s and early 2000s, married couples that couldn't even be shown sleeping in the same bed, the obscenity trial and conviction of comedian Lenny Bruce, etc. etc. etc. None of this stuff is new, and it was much worse in the past. And none of it could have remained viable without widespread public support at the time.

You think corporate and for-profit entertainment is a new thing? Seriously?

Look at the controversy surrounding Kramer and Tracy Morgan. Look how fast they were dismissed from the party. Look at the problems the Rush Limbaugh show had, or even 12 years ago with Bill Maher.

What about the Michael Richards and Tracy Morgan incidents are anything new, other than the fact that their bigotry would have been rewarded rather than criticized in the past, and that Tracy Morgan wouldn't be able to do the kind of standup he does now if it weren't for black comedians like Richard Pryor breaking new ground earlier? Rush Limbaugh is still incredibly popular despite his numerous controversial comments, as is Bill Maher despite losing his ABC show after 9/11. But again, there's nothing new or unusual about any of that, and it didn't prevent him from moving on and continuing to do his act and a new TV show.

The celebrity culture around someone like Mel Gibson or Britney Spears means every word, every inch and pound, every movement is followed and it leads to the same scrutiny that kills any truth in politics.

Mel Gibson and Britney Spears? Welcome to ten years ago.

Every politician now lines up to say "This celebrity represents the worst in society." The country is also divided pretty evenly, so you can't get away with anything that might offend half of the country.

Really, there's nothing anyone is doing in entertainment that is geared to offend or challenge the status quo?

When was the last time we had a show like "All in the Family?" We don't need a lot, just one. We don't have any (and why I want a new Star Trek show).

You mean a sitcom or comedy series in recent years that tackled racial and other social issues, often by being intentionally offensive to make a point?

The Office
30 Rock
Everybody Hates Chris
Chapelle Show
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Family Guy
The Simpsons

Obviously it's not going to have the same impact as All in the Family did because of the time period it aired, but I would argue that since Ellen and Will and Grace sitcoms have done the same for LGBT issues as AitF and its spin-offs did for racial issues, by making it a mainstream topic.

Everyone multi-tasks and no one wants to sit through a sermon or a lecture, much less an intelligent piece of fiction. And who has the time anymore?

Speak for yourself. I know plenty of people who consume intelligent fiction.

Romanticize or not, we had indie artists in the 1990s. Someone at least was allowed to comment on how bad we had it. We had movies like the Blair Witch Project that came out of nowhere. We had something outside the mainstream.

We have tons of indie artists now. In fact, moreso than ever before thanks to the internet, the thing you just criticized for dividing everyone's attention.

We have kickstarter campaigns to fund low budget films. More films like Blair Witch are being made than ever before. We have people being given opportunities to work on or make professional productions because of YouTube videos they made.

When was the last time we had a blockbuster hit that didn't rely on a superhero premise?

From the distant past of 2013!!!

Oz Great and Powerful
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Croods
Fast and Furious 6
Identity Thief
The Great Gatsby
GI Joe Retaliation
Silver Linings Playbook
Django Unchained
etc.

This is worse that the Blacklist, in my opinion. That was just the government, not an entire country coming down on you.

What a load of nonsense. You really live in your own little world of grossly exaggerated events, don't you? If you had to actually go through being Blacklisted, you would not be spouting such naive rhetoric.

They burned Lebron James' jersey in the street and all he did was change teams. How is he supposed to stand out there and say anything deeper than "Schools good, violence bad?" he's not an artist, but he's hurting his brand, his money, his audience, by standing up and saying anything that someone might disagree with. He's no Muhammad Ali.

You don't think the time Muhammad Ali was most prominent in might have played a part in that, with the civil rights movement and the Vietnam draft? You don't think anyone would step up and fulfill the same role if put into similar circumstances? You don't think there are any celebrity activists for gay rights and other causes right now?

Also, why are you waiting on Lebron James of all people to make a major social or political statement?

So money, our vehement, divided politics, celebrity gossip, divided attention, all threaten to make these people unemployed. That's not a strong environment for controversy or to say something meaningful. And this is true from artists and performers to journalists, musicians, etc.

And yet, somehow, people still manage to make controversial statements all the time, except in whatever magical reality deflecting enclave you've been hiding out in.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I think cultural standards have changed. I think for-profit entertainment with massive corporations running our mainstream entertainment have caused artists to become cowards. Before, if you risked offending someone with a song, or a joke, or a piece of well-written fiction, the audience wasn't so fragile. They wouldn't burn you at the stake over it, kill your career. Sometimes, you just became a niche market of ardent supporters.

Oh, please. The Blackist and HUAC, the Post Office banning distribution of materials they considered indecent, the Comics Code, the creation of the MPAA and the X-Rating (which hurt mainstream films but which was ironically a boon to porn), Jack Valenti's crusade against VCRs (a precursor of his support of the DMCA) Hoover's files on and blackmailing of Hollywood celebrities, an FCC that was even more restrictive than it was in the 90s and early 2000s, married couples that couldn't even be shown sleeping in the same bed, the obscenity trial and conviction of comedian Lenny Bruce, etc. etc. etc. None of this stuff is new, and it was much worse in the past. And none of it could have remained viable without widespread public support at the time.

You think corporate and for-profit entertainment is a new thing? Seriously?

You went back too far. I didn't put yearly parameters on it, but if you look, I talk about the good old 90s. I am not talking about 50 years ago. And even if I was, censorship was a known quantity. When you sat down to write something, you knew you had to do mental gymnastics to get around it, but you could get around it. This isn't for-profit. This is hyper-competitive for-profit where an entertainment company is responsible to shareholders to gain each quarter and to gobble up as much media as they can in order to increase their share of the market. It's not 1,000 cable stations (1,000 managers, etc), it's 3-4 companies and they even own the equipment you are using to get television service. This isn't new, but the divided attention is. This was taking it piece-by-piece to show the whole picture, my previous post, I mean.

Look at the controversy surrounding Kramer and Tracy Morgan. Look how fast they were dismissed from the party. Look at the problems the Rush Limbaugh show had, or even 12 years ago with Bill Maher.

What about the Michael Richards and Tracy Morgan incidents are anything new, other than the fact that their bigotry would have been rewarded rather than criticized in the past, and that Tracy Morgan wouldn't be able to do the kind of standup he does now if it weren't for black comedians like Richard Pryor breaking new ground earlier? Rush Limbaugh is still incredibly popular despite his numerous controversial comments, as is Bill Maher despite losing his ABC show after 9/11. But again, there's nothing new or unusual about any of that, and it didn't prevent him from moving on and continuing to do his act and a new TV show.

My point is that they were ostracized and dismissed easily. Maher has a much smaller audience than he did before, and it shows on the show that he does now. Rush Limbaugh continues to lose sponsors since Sandra Fluke. My point is that you cannot say anything anymore that is controversial and all of those people, whether you like what they said or not, were not censoring themselves. In the 1990s, it blows up in the press a little, and ratings spike. I point to Howard Stern as an example. Now, we are deeply offended and don't want anyone, even in character, to be offensive.

Mel Gibson and Britney Spears? Welcome to ten years ago.

It started ten years ago. There's been a noticeable change in press coverage of stars, and its role in society (they've almost replaced newspapers). It was a story every day for 6-12 months.

Really, there's nothing anyone is doing in entertainment that is geared to offend or challenge the status quo?

It's not the norm now.

You mean a sitcom or comedy series in recent years that tackled racial and other social issues, often by being intentionally offensive to make a point?

The Office
30 Rock
Everybody Hates Chris
Chapelle Show
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Family Guy
The Simpsons

No, I would consider those shows ripoffs of All In the Family. I mean a show that pushes the creative and social boundaries.

Obviously it's not going to have the same impact as All in the Family did because of the time period it aired, but I would argue that since Ellen and Will and Grace sitcoms have done the same for LGBT issues as AitF and its spin-offs did for racial issues, by making it a mainstream topic.

I agree. 1990s.

Speak for yourself. I know plenty of people who consume intelligent fiction.

Cheap shot. As a matter of fact, you're post is full of them. I consume fiction and choose from there whether it's intelligent or not. I have to sift through the crap too much.

We have tons of indie artists now. In fact, moreso than ever before thanks to the internet, the thing you just criticized for dividing everyone's attention.

I think I addressed this above.

We have kickstarter campaigns to fund low budget films. More films like Blair Witch are being made than ever before. We have people being given opportunities to work on or make professional productions because of YouTube videos they made.

And yet most of the things you find on youtube is not original content. If it's a song, it's a cover.

From the distant past of 2013!!!

Oz Great and Powerful
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Croods
Fast and Furious 6
Identity Thief
The Great Gatsby
GI Joe Retaliation
Silver Linings Playbook
Django Unchained
etc.

I deserve this one. What I meant to say was nothing original. And look. The Wizard of Oz. Star Trek. GI Joe. Fast and the Furious. The Great Gatsby. The landscape is littered with characters that don't need to become part of our culture. They are already established and beloved.

They burned Lebron James' jersey in the street and all he did was change teams. How is he supposed to stand out there and say anything deeper than "Schools good, violence bad?" he's not an artist, but he's hurting his brand, his money, his audience, by standing up and saying anything that someone might disagree with. He's no Muhammad Ali.

You don't think the time Muhammad Ali was most prominent in might have played a part in that, with the civil rights movement and the Vietnam draft? You don't think anyone would step up and fulfill the same role if put into similar circumstances? You don't think there are any celebrity activists for gay rights and other causes right now?

No. There's something in the NBA called the "Malice at the Palace." Since then, a dress code, players talking about killing the golden calf (Kobe Bryant), and stereotyped answers to everything. There was a player, Roy Hibbert, that came out and said "no homo" at a press conference. No one stepped up and called him out. No one. Jason Collins is the first gay athlete in professional sports to come out. Why isn't the landscape littered with athletes coming out of the closet? Where's that leadership? Phil Jackson said there are no gay basketball players. One has proved him wrong.

Also, why are you waiting on Lebron James of all people to make a major social or political statement?

It gets to my belief that for that much fame, you should come with something that better society. Just my opinion.

So money, our vehement, divided politics, celebrity gossip, divided attention, all threaten to make these people unemployed. That's not a strong environment for controversy or to say something meaningful. And this is true from artists and performers to journalists, musicians, etc.

And yet, somehow, people still manage to make controversial statements all the time, except in whatever magical reality deflecting enclave you've been hiding out in.

And too many times they say nothing, and there's a hyper-sensitivity because it's a celebrity.

 

[Thestral]

And yet most of the things you find on youtube is not original content. If it's a song, it's a cover.

"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
(Koheleth, 4th/5th Century BC)

I deserve this one. What I meant to say was nothing original. And look. The Wizard of Oz. Star Trek. GI Joe. Fast and the Furious. The Great Gatsby. The landscape is littered with characters that don't need to become part of our culture. They are already established and beloved.

But again that's nothing new. Those characters are all less than 120 years old - how many time have we seen Scheherazade, Odysseus, or Robin Hood and Marian?

There was a player, Roy Hibbert, that came out and said "no homo" at a press conference. No one stepped up and called him out. No one. Jason Collins is the first gay athlete in professional sports to come out.

Um, did you miss where Hibbert was fined $75K and apologized profusely (and apparently sincerely) within 24 hours of those remarks? Also, Jason Collins is the first active athlete in the "Big Four" of American sports to come out - a huge step, but not actually the first pro sportsperson to come out.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

No, I would consider those shows ripoffs of All In the Family. I mean a show that pushes the creative and social boundaries.

I agree. 1990s.

I deserve this one. What I meant to say was nothing original. And look. The Wizard of Oz. Star Trek. GI Joe. Fast and the Furious. The Great Gatsby. The landscape is littered with characters that don't need to become part of our culture. They are already established and beloved.

So when presented with counter-examples that prove your rose-tinted view of the past vs. your hyperbolic view of the present is wrong, you simply shift the goalposts and say you meant something else or those don't count because it's a "ripoff" or it doesn't count because it was in the 90s (Will and Grace was mostly in the 2000s, and it's hardly the last sitcom that dealt with depicting gays, but hey, that would defeat your point, wouldn't it?).

Cheap shot. As a matter of fact, you're post is full of them. I consume fiction and choose from there whether it's intelligent or not. I have to sift through the crap too much.

Cheap shot? It was YOUR comment. I simply said speak for yourself and that I know plenty of people who consume intelligent fiction. It's continued widespread production and distribution proves there must be a market for it. Did it only begin being a cheap shot after you said it the first time? If you feel it's a cheap shot, maybe you shouldn't have said it yourself.

 

[Avon]

Every politician now lines up to say "This celebrity represents the worst in society."

which politicians? name some.

When was the last time we had a show like "All in the Family?" We don't need a lot, just one.

why? it's been done. go watch it on dvd or something but don't presume that 'we' want to watch it along with you.

Our attention is divided by the internet, netflix, cable channels galore, having to work all the time to make ends meet, etc. This means that shows getting 2-3 million viewers can stay on the CW. 10 million is a lot. Everyone multi-tasks and no one wants to sit through a sermon or a lecture, much less an intelligent piece of fiction. And who has the time anymore?

this is a good thing. i don't want to sit through adverts or watch shows i have no interest in. the internet has solved those problems.

failing to pull in the viewers are tv channels problem for not moving with the times, not ours. go tell them.

Romanticize or not, we had indie artists in the 1990s. Someone at least was allowed to comment on how bad we had it.

Not. indie is mainstream now and there's fucking thousands of bands.

and that second sentence: at least there were indie bands but they were all bad? eh?

We had movies like the Blair Witch Project that came out of nowhere. We had something outside the mainstream. We had innovative movies that changed the way stories were told.

we also had shit like Stop! Or my mom will shoot! mmm innovative.

This is worse that the Blacklist, in my opinion. That was just the government, not an entire country coming down on you.

because being disliked by a bunch of random people is totally worse than being targetted by a government witchhunt!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This is worse that [sic] the Blacklist, in my opinion.

Well, that tells me all I need to know, then. Only to one ignorant of history could that statement make sense.

I suppose going for the Godwin, and saying it's worse than Hitler, would have been too obviously hyperbolic. As written, therefore, it has a greater aura of truthiness, doesn't it.

Edit: Zing! I get the Godwin!

 

[Gov Kodos]

This is worse that [sic] the Blacklist, in my opinion.

Well, that tells me all I need to know, then. Only to one ignorant of history could that statement make sense.

I suppose going for the Godwin, and saying it's worse than Hitler, would have been too obviously hyperbolic. As written, therefore, it has a greater aura of truthiness, doesn't it.

Someone start that Niemöller poem and get it over with.

 

[Pingfah]

Really, there's nothing anyone is doing in entertainment that is geared to offend or challenge the status quo?

It's not the norm now.

Challenging the status quo has never been the norm. The status quo IS the norm, that's what it means.

Very nice. I don't see why that can't be released on CD or as a digital download.

Tremendously kind of you RJ My own standards would prevent that though, the vocal distortion has bugged me since day one. I actually purposefully added more distortion to make it seem like it was deliberate

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

This is worse that [sic] the Blacklist, in my opinion.

Well, that tells me all I need to know, then. Only to one ignorant of history could that statement make sense.

I suppose going for the Godwin, and saying it's worse than Hitler, would have been too obviously hyperbolic. As written, therefore, it has a greater aura of truthiness, doesn't it.

Someone start that Niemöller poem and get it over with.

When they came for Britney I wasn't Britney so I left her alone!

 

[Opus]

They said, "Can't Touch This!", but I could touch it, so I did nothing...

Hammertime!

 

[thestrangequark]

Well, that tells me all I need to know, then. Only to one ignorant of history could that statement make sense.

I suppose going for the Godwin, and saying it's worse than Hitler, would have been too obviously hyperbolic. As written, therefore, it has a greater aura of truthiness, doesn't it.

Someone start that Niemöller poem and get it over with.

When they came for Britney I wasn't Britney so I left her alone!

To be fair, when they came for Britney, it was because she really did need help.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Romanticize or not, we had indie artists in the 1990s.

And we still do. In fact, I'd say that culture is even friendlier to Indie artists now more than it was in the 90's. You could in fact say that the indie artist was the underground, and now indie labels have popped up everywhere, and it's generally more accepted than it's ever been. With these labels, it's often indie artists helping indie artists, often producing music and expressing themselves musically in ways that don't generally appear in the mainstream. There's a lot to like out there if you look for it. In general, mainstream will only ever scrape the surface of what's out there.

 

[thestrangequark]

Sorry to bump, but XKCD is just so appropriate:

http://xkcd.com/1227/

And this is also hilariously apt!
http://www.stephenhicks.org/2012/01/27/constant-decline-of-civilization/