I've heard of them! One was an overrated commedian, one was a politician I think?
Beastie Boys will be classical music in the 23rd century.
"So there's more than Voyager?"
- Thread starter JRoss
- Start date
- Status
I've heard of them! One was an overrated commedian, one was a politician I think?
Beastie Boys will be classical music in the 23rd century.
You got 1 out of 2,..not bad
Sure but popular classical music....how many composers of the 19th century do you now?
Apparently it was shortened to "Arrow " in order to avoid any perceived association with the (then-) recently-released Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern movie, which had tanked both critically and financially. The word "green" was considered pretty tainted at that point in time by the Hollywood studio execs.
Last edited:
I think in the case of music, fans of classical will always cling to the distinction between ‘complexly ornate instrumental music studied in my super intellectual academic circles’ and ‘Popular genres that happen to be old’.
They will never give up their forever impenetrable classical canon.
Ive always thought the majority of people were aware of Star Trek. Maybe not DS9 or Voyager but certainly TOS and TNG. Most people seem to be aware of captain kirk and "beam me up scotty"
It does amaze me that with instant access to pretty much all of human knowledge at our fingertips that people still don't know how to use it. I hear people at work for example asking things that they could have easily found if they took 2 seconds to google it.
It does amaze me that with instant access to pretty much all of human knowledge at our fingertips that people still don't know how to use it. I hear people at work for example asking things that they could have easily found if they took 2 seconds to google it.
It's more enjoyable to interact with other Human beings, than to do the same with a machine.
Personally I'd much rather to talk to someone about something I didn't know.
And I live just south of Boston.
Most people I know who are my age watched TNG. They've heard of TOS even if they haven't seen it. Kirk, Spock, "Beam me up Scotty!" and all that.
Plus, I think you're leaving out the Abrams films on purpose to make the point you're trying to make. Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness both made north of $200 million domestically. Star Trek Beyond made just short of it. That's not as much as Star Wars or Marvel by any means, but it isn't nothing. And, back then, you were jumping up and down about how successful Star Trek had become again. "No I wasn't!" Yes you were.
At the time the 2009 film came out, a ton of people I know were talking about it. Unless who we're talking about is extremely young, chances are most of them still remember it.
I know you hate Discovery but it seems to me like you're using that to retroactively revise your opinion of how Star Trek has done in the past decade otherwise.
Or maybe it's because Star Wars is making movies every year now, so you think Star Trek is yesterday's model, including the Abrams films, and because of that you must therefore trash it no matter what. Give it no credit for anything. Give no ground and say nothing positive at all. "Oh! Star Trek what? No one I know has ever heard of it! I live in this metropolitan area, so I know!"
Last edited:
Those are cross-cultural examples though. I honestly don't expect the same level of back-knowledge from someone who hadn't been from my culture. I'm speaking strictly of people who are from the same culture I am. Bob Newhart was as much an influence as Dick Van Dyke
Speaking of cross-cultural, I am familiar with John Cleese or Benny Hill. Bob Newhart is nearly as noted IMHO, & Milton Berle was one of the pioneers of TV comedy, but if someone who isn't from here doesn't know that, I'm not shocked, but someone who is disappoints me.
Never. Classical refers specifically to an era of concert music (Mozart's to be exact) & more colloquialy to all concert music
Now, Rock & Roll co-opted the term "Classic" Rock, & that didn't really take hold until about 25 years later, like "classic" cars. So, I could see something like "classic" pop becomining a term, for maybe Madonna or Michael Jackson, but pretty much any vintage jazz is long past that point. Jazz has its own subcategories, just like concert music. & those already reflect the era. Dixieland, swing, bebop etc..,
We're mainly talking about adults here, though. People who have grown up and gone to college. I already carved out an exception upthread for kids... because although they're definitely in the "everything is new to me" category, their tastes are also liable to be more influenced by current trends, peer pressure, and/or advertising.
(Although why anybody would "spend hours watching kids my age talk about video games on YouTube" I cannot fathom. I know people who develop video games for a living, and they don't like talking about them that much, much less watching other people do so.)
I'm about the same age as Mojochi, judging by his post a few spaces upthread. My family didn't have cable, and we didn't go to a lot of movies. So when it comes to older TV, a lot of it I didn't watch, because indeed it wasn't available. (I did see a fair amount of stuff older than I was, including Star Trek — mostly in the after-school syndication time slots — but just a small sample of what existed in the grand scheme of things.) But that doesn't mean I didn't know about it. Even as a kid, I haunted my school library and my local public library, and I read books and magazine articles about things. I've never seen Jack Benny or Milton Berle or The Honeymooners or the original Lost in Space, but I know they existed. If someone made a reference to "Rochester" or "to the moon, Alice," I knew what it meant. I've never watched an Abbot and Costello movie, but I know the "Who's On First" routine and actually performed it once in a summer camp talent show.
And when I got to college, I did a lot of catching up. I stopped watching most current TV, as did most of my classmates (because it's college! ... although we made an exception for TNG), but I was a regular at both of the on-campus film societies, seeing all kinds of awesome movies old and new. My friends and I also traded our music collections with reckless abandon (and our favorite music was certainly not the new stuff). And just in general, I absorbed what there was to learn from a diverse social circle with diverse backgrounds and interests.
Again, I think a lot of it comes down to intellectual curiosity. I've always wanted to understand how the culture around me came to be, and to sample a wide range of it... not just to accept the status quo as a given, and be a passive receptacle for whatever is marketed in my direction. It's basic cultural literacy. (Just the same as I want to be informed about other aspects of the world I live in... from food to politics to science to what-have-you.)
Hell, even a lot of the new stuff can't be appreciated without awareness of what came before, of what shoulders it's standing on. It's got to be hard to enjoy the movie The Artist if you're unaware of the silent film era, for instance. And hard to enjoy something like Voyager if you're unaware of the larger universe of Star Trek.
Well, no, of course not. As I've said, I find differences an opportunity to indulge my curiosity and broaden my horizons.
But the OP was expressing incredulity at a specific kind of difference, and I think it was warranted. The difference we're talking about here is that of people who are incurious, who are apparently content to experience only a tiny subset of the cultural experiences available to them, and to remain ignorant of the rest. Yes, people like that exist... but I maintain that they're outliers, and it's perfectly reasonable to be surprised by them.
Last edited:
One of the now-defunct local college/public radio stations in my area played older rock music, but mostly tired, worn-out, unexciting stuff that you already heard a million times before. They referred to their genre as "Classical Rock."
Kor
Lol. One of our oldies stations here is called "The Dinosaur" hahahaOne of the now-defunct local college/public radio stations in my area played older rock music, but mostly tired, worn-out, unexciting stuff that you already heard a million times before. They referred to their genre as "Classical Rock."
Kor
"Oldies" is other generic term. Over the years, I've watched it expand to include decade after decade. Even some 80's songs get played on that format now. They usually go for things 30 years old or older
Except jazz lol. Again, got its own subgroups
I've given this much thought recently. I simply concluded the overabundance of media today has prevented today's youth from connecting with past productions the way my generation (mid 40s) did.
I never considered some of the points mentioned here. Like how Nirvana today is as old (or older) as the Beatles were in my youth. Perhaps kids today do know and connect with 90s grunge the way I do 60s rock. Of course this reminds me of a scene from Cobra Kai
Maybe it's just that 50s and 60s (and older) media is just that much further away in time from the current generation.
I do think it's more than that, though, and it goes to the points mentioned above. In my day we had 4 channels that came in clear; the 3 major networks and an independent station. Since there wasn't that much media at that time (Mainstream/consumer television was about 30 some years old when I was born), programming had to be filled with movies and television shows my parents grew up watching. So I ended up watching the same shows my parents and grandparents watched. For me, though, to expect my 25 year old son's generation to connect with those same black and white productions, that would mean they would be going back to their grandparents and great grandparents generation of programming. That's a long, long reach. That would be like me reaching back to the music of Hank Williams Sr, Bill Monroe, Billie Holiday, etc... It's possible, but definitely would require effort.
I guess it's far easier for me to recognize Redd Skeleton, Groucho Marx, Ma and Pa Kettle than it is for kids today to recognize Bob Newhart, Marilyn Monroe, or John Amos. Heck, I am watching Dancing with the Stars and I'm floored at how old Kareem Abdul-Jabbar looks/is. There's another one that kids today won't recognize except in some history or stat book.
I still think it's got something to do with the glut of media today. In my day there were 4 channels and 3 of them stopped broadcasting at 11pm or midnight. There was simply less to choose from, therefore what i saw was a larger percentage of the whole. Today has hundreds of channels, 40 more years worth of media than when I was born (so, nearly double the media available to my youth) plush streaming and other Internet based programming. Anything someone watches today is a much smaller percentage of the entire media available than 40 years ago.
I'm just old.
I have a problem with AbramsTrek calling Beastie Boys classical, but I have no problem with referring to The Beatles or The Rolling Stones as such.
I never considered some of the points mentioned here. Like how Nirvana today is as old (or older) as the Beatles were in my youth. Perhaps kids today do know and connect with 90s grunge the way I do 60s rock. Of course this reminds me of a scene from Cobra Kai
Johnny tells Miguel to put a Guns N Roses ringtone on his phone and Miguel googles or youtubes 80s heavy metal. Miguel acts like he discovered a gold mine of unknown music.
Maybe it's just that 50s and 60s (and older) media is just that much further away in time from the current generation.
I do think it's more than that, though, and it goes to the points mentioned above. In my day we had 4 channels that came in clear; the 3 major networks and an independent station. Since there wasn't that much media at that time (Mainstream/consumer television was about 30 some years old when I was born), programming had to be filled with movies and television shows my parents grew up watching. So I ended up watching the same shows my parents and grandparents watched. For me, though, to expect my 25 year old son's generation to connect with those same black and white productions, that would mean they would be going back to their grandparents and great grandparents generation of programming. That's a long, long reach. That would be like me reaching back to the music of Hank Williams Sr, Bill Monroe, Billie Holiday, etc... It's possible, but definitely would require effort.
I guess it's far easier for me to recognize Redd Skeleton, Groucho Marx, Ma and Pa Kettle than it is for kids today to recognize Bob Newhart, Marilyn Monroe, or John Amos. Heck, I am watching Dancing with the Stars and I'm floored at how old Kareem Abdul-Jabbar looks/is. There's another one that kids today won't recognize except in some history or stat book.
I still think it's got something to do with the glut of media today. In my day there were 4 channels and 3 of them stopped broadcasting at 11pm or midnight. There was simply less to choose from, therefore what i saw was a larger percentage of the whole. Today has hundreds of channels, 40 more years worth of media than when I was born (so, nearly double the media available to my youth) plush streaming and other Internet based programming. Anything someone watches today is a much smaller percentage of the entire media available than 40 years ago.
I'm just old.
I have a problem with AbramsTrek calling Beastie Boys classical, but I have no problem with referring to The Beatles or The Rolling Stones as such.
Last edited:
The Beastie Boys have been around for over 30 years. My rule of thumb is, "Does the generation after yours still like the music?" If the answer's yes, then chances are more likely it'll endure. Does a song at your High School Reunion make you cringe or think back to the good times?
Last edited:
One other factor here: to what degree are people today learning about vintage stuff from their parents and older relations? I grew up in the sixties, but I learned about earlier movies and comic books and stuff from my dad, who introduced me to The Shadow, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, the Marx Bros., Abbott & Costello, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Captain Marvel, and, yes, Jack Benny and Bob Newhart. I inherited less from my grandfather, although he did pass on a couple of old TARZAN hardcover novels to me, which I devoured as a kid.
So it it just that today's parents are simply sharing their childhood love of STAR WARS and TRANSFORMERS with their kids, instead of FANTASTIC VOYAGE or FORBIDDEN PLANET, or is it that in these days of multiple screens, young people are less likely to sit around watching television and old movies with their folks? Or maybe a bit of both?
In an ideal world, I would pass my dad's love of classic 50s sci-fi flicks onto my nieces and nephews, who would pass it on to their kids and so on, but maybe that sort of transfer only lasts for a generation or so . . .?
(Note: my littlest brother is 17 years younger than me. I'm proud to report that I first exposed him to Boris Karloff when he was only eight days old--never leave the newborn alone with teenage Greg--and today his kids are as monster-obsessed as I was at their age.)
So it it just that today's parents are simply sharing their childhood love of STAR WARS and TRANSFORMERS with their kids, instead of FANTASTIC VOYAGE or FORBIDDEN PLANET, or is it that in these days of multiple screens, young people are less likely to sit around watching television and old movies with their folks? Or maybe a bit of both?
In an ideal world, I would pass my dad's love of classic 50s sci-fi flicks onto my nieces and nephews, who would pass it on to their kids and so on, but maybe that sort of transfer only lasts for a generation or so . . .?
(Note: my littlest brother is 17 years younger than me. I'm proud to report that I first exposed him to Boris Karloff when he was only eight days old--never leave the newborn alone with teenage Greg--and today his kids are as monster-obsessed as I was at their age.)
Last edited:
My parents (mainly my mother) accumulated a fantastic collection of children's books for me, and introduced me to the local library. When I asked about old TV shows that were running in syndication, I remember that Mom also had good words about Star Trek and The Twilight Zone. Really, though, they didn't have any media-related or other fannish inclinations. Beyond that basic foundation, I discovered this stuff on my own.
I'll admit the stench of old guy bitching here, but the point is, my peers & I didn't just absorb what was spoon fed to us over media channels. We took a deliberately active role in finding old things, each of us discovering ourselves by how we lean. I recall the glee of finding an old Sergio Leone spaghetti western, we hadn't seen before, like Duck You Sucker
I had a whole period of my young adulthood where I sought out everything George Clinton & the P-Funk gang had recorded. I knew their names, & I NEVER saw them on tv. I did the same with obscure prog rock, like Mahavishnu Orchestra, or Return To Forever. I still do it. I'm digging into bluegrass history right now
It wasn't a passive role. The art & culture I've been exposed to in my life weren't all by accident, or inundation. Most were a deliberate journey, of finding myself through knowing our collective history, especially the parts I'd been wholly unfamiliar with
I read 50 year old comic books, listened to 70 year old music, read century old books, & through the influence of my parents, knew about vintage country music, & through one grandparent, about symphonic music, to the point where I pursued more on my own. I did all this with a tenth the access this generation has, mostly by libraries, or from friends & family, word of mouth etc...
To say this modern age has more to absorb is imho a cop out, especially when it is so much more readily available now. To this day, I constantly use internet to find old things I hadn't seen before, Faust the silent movie, the earliest recordings of Enrico Caruso, the Buster Keaton catalog, the Robert Johnson blues recordings.
I don't see that anymore. I see what people mostly use internet for, crap viral videos, of dimwits eating Tide pods, & doing stupid nonsense to become youtube famous, reality tv, meme generators, snapchat filters of pics of themselves with dog ears. It is some of the most culturally bereft stuff I think has ever existed.
It goes back to my point of ultimate access. When people are given anything they want, like the endless choices of foods in a supermarket, they cease seeking out what is best & seek out only what they know they like, which is usually not as good for you, hence why there's an obesity epidemic
My generation was one of the first to suffer that epidemic, from the luxury of access to anything we wanted. This generation has that in common with us, except instead of food, their fast food is knowledge, information, culture & history. They are only exposed to what they already know they want, & are led to believe that's the way it should be. We're more like sheep than ever before
So while I don't harp on it much for Star Trek's sake, because tv sci-fi is a strange niche. I do think we're drifting away from ourselves.
I had a whole period of my young adulthood where I sought out everything George Clinton & the P-Funk gang had recorded. I knew their names, & I NEVER saw them on tv. I did the same with obscure prog rock, like Mahavishnu Orchestra, or Return To Forever. I still do it. I'm digging into bluegrass history right now
It wasn't a passive role. The art & culture I've been exposed to in my life weren't all by accident, or inundation. Most were a deliberate journey, of finding myself through knowing our collective history, especially the parts I'd been wholly unfamiliar with
I read 50 year old comic books, listened to 70 year old music, read century old books, & through the influence of my parents, knew about vintage country music, & through one grandparent, about symphonic music, to the point where I pursued more on my own. I did all this with a tenth the access this generation has, mostly by libraries, or from friends & family, word of mouth etc...
To say this modern age has more to absorb is imho a cop out, especially when it is so much more readily available now. To this day, I constantly use internet to find old things I hadn't seen before, Faust the silent movie, the earliest recordings of Enrico Caruso, the Buster Keaton catalog, the Robert Johnson blues recordings.
I don't see that anymore. I see what people mostly use internet for, crap viral videos, of dimwits eating Tide pods, & doing stupid nonsense to become youtube famous, reality tv, meme generators, snapchat filters of pics of themselves with dog ears. It is some of the most culturally bereft stuff I think has ever existed.
It goes back to my point of ultimate access. When people are given anything they want, like the endless choices of foods in a supermarket, they cease seeking out what is best & seek out only what they know they like, which is usually not as good for you, hence why there's an obesity epidemic
My generation was one of the first to suffer that epidemic, from the luxury of access to anything we wanted. This generation has that in common with us, except instead of food, their fast food is knowledge, information, culture & history. They are only exposed to what they already know they want, & are led to believe that's the way it should be. We're more like sheep than ever before
So while I don't harp on it much for Star Trek's sake, because tv sci-fi is a strange niche. I do think we're drifting away from ourselves.
You're a connoisseur, not just a consumer. Today's media and culture train the masses to be mere passive consumers.
Kor
- Status
Similar threads
