|
Post by rick on Jan 3, 2013 1:37:49 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 7:49:43 GMT -5
Most of these names fill me with indifference; as for Cher, I enjoy her acting far more than her singing...
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 3, 2013 9:50:08 GMT -5
All of this goes to show why a lot of the music of recent vintage that a lot of us seem to like the most is what we've sought out, without much in the way of media influence.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jan 3, 2013 13:49:36 GMT -5
yuck.
|
|
|
Post by musicaamator on Jan 3, 2013 14:48:15 GMT -5
Nope, not one listed on there am I eagerly awaiting. And the one I am anticipating, they do not list and that is for the band Tool.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jan 3, 2013 15:57:54 GMT -5
I wonder how music has come to this? MTV caused?
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 3, 2013 19:53:17 GMT -5
Quote by ronstadtfanaz: I think they bear at least some of the responsibility for turning the whole thing into it being largely about Image and a lot less about Substance. Of course, the ironic thing is that MTV now is not really about " Music Television", as it originally was. As to what I am looking forward to in terms of new music in 2013, there's this: The Stand-In, by Caitlin Rose, whose 2010 album Own Side Now impressed me from the get-go in the same way that Tift Merritt did in 2002 with her debut album Bramble Rose. The album is scheduled to be released on ATO Records on March 5. Like its predecessor, it is said to be in the Americana vein, with hints of the 70s singer/songwriter era and Linda herself (Caitlin, who is only 25, is a big fan of Linda's).
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jan 3, 2013 20:04:31 GMT -5
I think they bear at least some of the responsibility for turning the whole thing into it being largely about Image and a lot less about Substance. Of course, the ironic thing is that MTV now is not really about "Music Television", as it originally was.
Really? I haven't seen it since the early 80's. What is it now?
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 3, 2013 20:34:45 GMT -5
Quote by ronstadtfanaz re. MTV:
It's really more about so-called "reality shows" (Jersey Shore, etc.). It just went from bad to worse in recent years (IMHO).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 21:15:42 GMT -5
I am still in shock at how rapidly the History Channel went downhill... from a respectable documentary channel to the 'Hitler Channel' to an appalling reality based piece of garbage (Pawn Stars, Ice Truckers.. Really!!??)
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 4, 2013 0:37:38 GMT -5
The world is just so different. Happened to have on NBC's "Today" and the "news" happened to be about Kim Kardashian and Kanye West. This is news? And then i switched over to ABC's "Good Morning America" and it was about one of Taylor Swift's song being about Harry Styles (sp?). Why is this being reported on the news? I realize these are not hard news programs anyway, but, when did these people become newsworthy? I don't remember when I was growing up that Barbara Walters on "Today" speculated on who the Julie was that Bobby Sherman was singing about. I admit to a guilty pleasure like "Top Chef" because I enjoy seeing the food competition but when Bravo shows the promos for "The Real Housewives of....." it is cringe-inducing. And then someone like a Kim Kardashian will release a single as will a Paris Hilton -- another person with no talent who just is famous for being famous, not for having talent. Speaking of Taylor Swift, Kathy Griffin went off about Taylor Swift on CNN's Anderson Cooper New Year's Eve program -- talking about her use of auto-tuning, etc.
|
|
|
Post by musicaamator on Jan 4, 2013 7:33:27 GMT -5
Yes, things are definitely different these days. The specific topic channels (eg. MTV, Food Network, History, etc) have lost their original intent and instead have resorted to reality-type shows to increase rating, I believe. And as for the music/music artist these days, it is so image conscious, so on top of the beat drivel, that I honestly cannot see one artist from today being listened to with fond memories 50 years from now.
And as for why anybody gives a F about the Kardashians is beyond me. As I think Linda has stated in interviews about TV, it's a mindless wasteland.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 4, 2013 10:00:12 GMT -5
Quote by musicaamator:
I think Edward R. Murrow said it best about television:
"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."
We tend to blame inanimate things like televisions and computers for the deteriorating state of our society, when we ought to be looking in the mirror at ourselves. We are really the ones to blame.
In the meantime, when it comes to music, I won't rely too much on the corporate media for it, and neither should anyone else. Go on your own instincts.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 4, 2013 13:33:10 GMT -5
Quote by musicaamator: I think Edward R. Murrow said it best about television: " This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box." We tend to blame inanimate things like televisions and computers for the deteriorating state of our society, when we ought to be looking in the mirror at ourselves. We are really the ones to blame. In the meantime, when it comes to music, I won't rely too much on the corporate media for it, and neither should anyone else. Go on your own instincts. Erik -- I agree with much of what you said. I am sure that back when Edward R. Murrow was on TV in the 1950s, news was more serious. But he also did the "Person to Person" program for CBS and interviewed entertainers/artists and those were more fluff pieces. As far us looking in the mirror, I do not think I seek out information about Kim Kardashian or Lindsey Lohan or "The Real Housewives," etc. Or "Jersey Shore." If I want to watch my local news station and find out the weather or traffic and I am subjected to endless promotion for "Dancing With the Stars," I sort of have to wait it out to get to the weather, and they know that. I try to tune out. Erik, I also hope you realize when I started this thread, that I actually said, "WHO?" as if to dispute the veracity of "the most anticipated albums of 2013." I do not view this as the be-all and end-all of what music to look forward to in 2013. I purposely posted it to make the point about what passes as the most popular music. I think we are coming from the same place.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jan 4, 2013 15:36:56 GMT -5
We tend to blame inanimate things like televisions and computers for the deteriorating state of our society, when we ought to be looking in the mirror at ourselves. We are really the ones to blame.
I don't know about that. I think people that watch tv watch what is put in front of them. Might not like it but the other channels typically aren't any better. I stopped watching tv when Dan Rather was fired from CBS for telling the truth about GW Bush. The story was true but one piece of proof out of several was not verified.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 4, 2013 15:57:48 GMT -5
Quote by Rick: I'm glad that we are in agreement here. I just used Ed Murrow's famous quote because, while he did do the Person To Person programs, for which he was as well known as his commentaries, he certainly knew how frivolous television could become if we let it. The reason I feel we should shoulder some of the blame for the state of all things TV is that we don't scream enough for something better. And I also agree that there are a lot of artists mentioned in that Huffington Post article that gave me that same "WHO?" kind of reaction. I guess that I feel a lot older than 42, which is my actual age. In any case, I am still looking forward to Caitlin Rose's album in March. So if my opinion has any validity to it (admittedly, not likely [LOL]), that would be my look-out-for album right now for 2013.
|
|