On Jul 6, 2:22 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:11 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:47 am, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:44 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I'm watching a Beverly Sills retrospective on PBS. I first saw it a few
months ago, and they are replaying it, no doubt, due to her death.
I'm reminded of a time when music mattered more than it seems to now.
She was all over the media in the 60s-90s: Johnny Carson as guest,
Johnny Carson as guest host, Dick Cavett, Merv Griffin, 60 Minutes
profiles, covers of Time and Newsweek, game shows, etc. She was part of
popular culture.
Now it seems like it's about scandal, "sexiness", the seven deadly sins.
That's what sells. You don't have to sing anywhere near in tune to be a
hit (listen to American Idol).
Don't get fooled by the early competition segments which are
supposed to be comedy segments.
Do you think the American Idol winners have no talent?
I think they have oodles of talent compared to the Ashley Simpson
and Britney Spears of the pop world.
Most every household knew her name. Now
most every household knows Michael Jackson's name.
She was a lovely lady; a devoted wife and daughter, doting mother to two
handicapped children. Later in life she raised millions for the New
York City Opera, then Lincoln Center, then The Met. And she was perhaps
the greatest singing actress we've yet seen.
OK, enough of my descent into "oldfartdom".
In any society, there are at least two cultures: the culture of the elite,
and the culture of the masses. It existed in the Penny Dreadfuls of the 19th
century. Shakespeare contains elements of both cultures. Yet it appears
that, in the U.S., the elite culture is in eclipse.
Eclipsed by the disgusting $$ rained on no-talent
produucer created pop stars of today. A practice in play
since the Monkees 
.
While failing to note that the songwriting for The Monkees was
exceptional (Boyce-Hart, Neil Diamond, Carole King),
The songwriters may have been exceptional.
The songwriting was not.
This proves you wouldn't know a good song if it bit you in the ass.
that there were
many firsts, including the first use of the synthsizer, and that at
least two of the "talentless" Monkees had enjoyed success prior to
joining that band.
Success defines talent? ....Not according to Jenn.
Why do you insist on using others (particularly, it seems, Jenn) to
base your arguments on? Is an original 'thought' that difficult for
you? Or are you simply a brainless troll?
What a small-'mind'ed little thing you are.
There are in actuality very few successful people who have no talent.
Generally, the public is smarter than you give them credit for.
Consider Kevin Federline, for example.
That's ironic, though: you want the general public to have no rules or
regulations concerning many things related to business and so on, yet
you consider them too stupid to figure out what they like musically.
This is just one more line of 'logic' that makes you what you a
RAO's Premier Imbecile.
As an aside, Mike Nesmith was an early pioneer of music video.
Oh boy...so he's kind of responsible for MTV.
How wonderful!
Yes, I like it too. Videos add another dimension to many pop songs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Nesmith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Jones_%28actor%29
As usual, you get your "facts" wrong.
As usual, none of the above is relevant to your cause,
but hey....just hitting send is victory enough for you.
Ah, you're (LOL!) new battle cry. Saying it over and over doesn't make
it true, though, 2pid. You get your're (LOL!) ass handed to you based
on the logic and merits of you're (LOL!) 'arguments' (or, more
accurately, the lack thereof).
So 2pid, who do you consider you'reself to be smarter than on RAO? Who
on RAO is smarter than you?
(Hint: 1. Nobody. 2. Everybody.)