PDA

View Full Version : Football 5 Complaints About Modern Life That Are Statistically BS


Pages : [1] 2

Count Zarth
02-03-2011, 09:55 AM
Fascinating article.
(http://www.cracked.com/article_18983_5-complaints-about-modern-life-that-are-statistically-b.s..html)


In general, it's easier to be negative. It's easier for us at Cracked, because it's easier to write jokes about terrible things than nice things. It's easier for us as a generation, because to admit that the world isn't that bad right now would be to admit that we have it easier than our grandparents did and that the world thus has the right to expect more from us.

But as much as we like to joke about the sorry state of the world, the facts really don't back us up.

EVERYTHING IS SO EXPENSIVE!

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/9/0/1/41901.jpg?v=1

The Complaint:

"The corporations and the government have us all living like slaves. I can back it up with numbers, too -- in 1950 you could buy a brand new nine-room brick home in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, for the whopping sum of $11,500. A decent family car was about $500, and the gas for it was about 25 cents a gallon. A large loaf of bread cost under 15 cents. A large coffee was a nickel, with a free refill. I could go on and on. But now between greedy corporations and the government confiscating our income with sky-high taxes, you have to work two jobs just to survive."


The Reality:

Let's start with the obvious: A low-end job in the service industry paid a dollar an hour in 1950. A fancy job in insurance or real estate? A buck-fifty an hour. You'd take home $50 a week after taxes. So please don't talk about the good old days of 50-cent steaks when people were getting paid what would now be Tooth Fairy money.

So how does this all average out, once you account for income? We don't have to guess. Punch anything into the cost of living calculator -- the one that uses the exact same formula that the government uses to decide things like tax rates -- and you'll see that the prices of most things have stayed pretty constant over the years. High-end manufactured goods have gotten cheaper. Much cheaper, as manufacturing costs drop.

In 1954, the cost of a high-end Westinghouse color TV, with a massive 15-inch screen, was $1,295. No, not adjusted for inflation. That was the actual price at the time -- half of the yearly income for some families. Everybody writes this off as if it's a constant of the universe ("of course new technology gets exponentially better and cheaper with time!") instead counting it among the benefits of the modern system. Why? This economic system has resulted in handheld devices that can access all of the porn ever created, at a price affordable to the working man, and all we can do is complain about the cost of unlimited data plans?

And the golden age of the $500 car... how many of you come from families with two cars? Statistically it's most of you, and far more than what it would have been in 1960, when there were half as many cars on a per-capita basis in the U.S. (it averaged about one car per household -- so if you had two, someone else had none).

And taxes? Again, the numbers don't lie -- in the U.S. taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, and now that the Bush-era tax cuts have been temporarily extended, they will continue to be until 2012 at the soonest. The government even threw you an extra two percent reduction in payroll tax as a cherry on top. The U.S. has the second-lowest taxes among developed countries.


PEOPLE ARE GETTING STUPIDER!


http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/9/0/0/41900.jpg?v=1

The Complaint:

"Two words: 'Jersey Shore.' People are getting stupider by the minute, and the stupid people are breeding faster than the smart people. They watch mindless reality shows, and all anybody cares about is celebrity gossip and bullshit. Teenagers are obsessed with Twitter and video games and have probably never read a book. Hell, Sarah Palin will probably be our next president."

The Reality:

IQ scores have risen 24 points since 1914. And on top of that, you have to account for the Flynn effect, discovered by James R. Flynn, which is a way of compensating for increased education (but more on that in a moment). The intelligence quotient is set up in such a way that an average score is 100. So, what do you do if people keep getting higher and higher scores, to the point where 100 is no longer the average? You rejigger the way scores are calculated so that it goes back down to 100.

So, while IQ scores may appear to be similar from one generation to the next, the scores have to be constantly adjusted back down to 100 because children are doing better and better on the test. If you scored 100 on a test back in the day, you might actually be considered slightly mentally challenged now.


Meanwhile, the quality of education has been going up for the past 40 years, with children scoring higher in reading and mathematics. That's not just in the U.S. -- it's worldwide. Graduation rates, too, are on an upward trend. So by the sheer numbers, we are actively creating useful members of society at an increasing rate, and if we continue onward, we might someday see as much as 200 percent of the population with high school diplomas. (Ed.: Can somebody double-check the math on that one?)

The world collectively is getting smarter. If you treat the combined mass of human knowledge as a resource for the future (and you should), then we're drowning in riches like Scrooge McDuck.

"All This Processed Food Is Killing Us."


http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/9/9/41899.jpg?v=1

The Complaint:

"Just look at a label. High-fructose corn syrup? 'Phenylketonurics'? Hell, a simple chicken dinner may have 36 ingredients. Who knows what chemical preservative bullshit we eat in an average day? What happened to old-time family meals, when a roast was just a roast, and a loaf of bread just had flour and yeast and other natural ingredients?"

The Reality:

Think those ingredients in your TV dinner are scary? Prior to 1966, there was no ingredient labeling of prepared foods. You bought a tin of meat-and-potato stew, and what was in it was left to the goodwill of the manufacturer, who may have had to fatten profits by feeding people elk hooves and sawdust. You simply didn't know what you were eating.

The ingredient and nutrition labeling acts changed all that. Sure, food manufacturers can still try to lie and put bug shit and viruses in your food, but if caught, they get to pull all of their product off the shelf and dump it, at their own expense. And all those scary chemicals on the ingredients list? Many of those are preservatives. Meant to preserve the food. So it isn't rotten when you eat it.

Also, let's not forget that the refrigerator and freezer are both recent inventions -- go back to the Great Depression or earlier and you find that refrigerators cost more than a car. So keeping food cold or preserved was a crapshoot, with listeria, botulism and the shits acting as the dessert to granny's wholesome down-home country meal.

Oh, and feel free to browse through some recipes from the 1950s -- savor the Baked Corn Chex 'N' Cheese Custard and Spam fritters.

Again, we're not saying there isn't some gross stuff in your food -- there totally is and we have examined it in some detail -- just as we weren't saying that there are no stupid people in the world in our first entry up there.

All we're saying is that we're not at the disastrous nadir of some long downward trend.

"Crime Is Out of Control."

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/9/8/41898.jpg?v=1

The Complaint:

"A member of Congress gets gunned down in yet another mass shooting. You can't turn on the news for five seconds without hearing of a child being abducted and mutilated, or a massive gang war along the Mexican border. Every city in America has one section that you wouldn't dare drive through at night. Now compare that to the 1950s, when nobody even locked their doors at night. What changed?"

The Reality:

There absolutely was a huge crime wave in the 1980s, thanks to the crack epidemic (this graph shows the spike in murders in L.A., for instance). But the numbers do not lie: Crime, property crime, theft and burglary have actually been dropping since about 1993. Dropping and dropping, below even where we were before drug violence skewed the stats upward.

If you look at the homicide rate per 100,000 people, which is one of the only crime stats reliably tracked through the 1900s and into today, you can see that not only is it the lowest since the 1950s, but that it's quite a lot lower than it was in the 1970s and even the 1930s. (And it's a scaling formula, meaning it isn't skewed by population.) Now why would the crime rate be so high in the 1930s?

When the economy is bad, people get desperate, and desperate people will do whatever they can to survive, right? And here we sit, 80 years later, with the worst economy since the Great Depression. How's the crime rate faring now? It's lower than it was before the recession. A few days ago, the FBI published its statistics for the first half of 2010, which show that crime has dropped further still.

What has not dropped is the number of TV shows and news features about crime, and newspapers' need to report on violence whenever it occurs. Therefore, the only thing about crime that seems to be going up is the perception of how bad it really is.

So, by the sheer numbers, you would be just as safe keeping your doors unlocked at night as your grandparents were back in "the good old days."

"Today's Music Is All Derivative Trash."


http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/9/7/41897.jpg?v=1

The Complaint:

"Two words: 'Justin Bieber.' Turn on a classic rock station and you can listen for hours without hearing one bad song. Now turn on a Top 40 station and try not to gouge out your ears. Today's music is just a bland product mass-produced by corporations. Don't take my word for it -- ask any music critic. They'll tell you the stuff that sells today is generic garbage. Not the music back in the day, like Zeppelin, Elvis, The Beatles, Pink Floyd ... bands like that would never top the charts today."

The Reality:

There are two things that skew our cultural memory on things like music.

First of all, you have the fact that the crap from previous eras gets forgotten, leaving only the great stuff behind. Those songs on classic rock stations are obviously cherry-picked as the best and most indicative of an entire era; it's not a random sampling of all the music available at the time. Modern rock or pop stations, on the other hand, have to play whatever's come out in the past six months or so.

So there is a filter applied to the old stuff. Even most of the music in Mozart's day was bullshit. And because it was bullshit, nobody felt the need to keep copies. And what was preserved isn't played today. Because it's bullshit. So it's easy to look back at Mozart's era (or the 1960s, or whatever) and assume that because only the classics survive in our memory, everything made back then was a classic.

The other problem is we assume that what gets remembered over time is whatever was the most popular. Not true.

For instance, what survives from the Vietnam era (thanks mostly to Vietnam movies) are songs like the badass protest song "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival and "Gimme Shelter" by the Rolling Stones. Both were released in 1969, after the war started going bad.

Now look at the Billboard year-end singles charts from 1946 to today. The top song in 1969? "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies. Let us quote the entire lyrics of that song:

Sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Honey, ah sugar sugar
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
I just can't believe the loveliness of loving you
(I just can't believe it's true)
I just can't believe the one to love this feeling to.
(I just can't believe it's true)
Ah sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Ah honey, ah sugar sugar
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
When I kissed you, girl, I knew how sweet a kiss could be
(I know how sweet a kiss can be)
Like the summer sunshine pour your sweetness over me
(Pour your sweetness over me)
Sugar, pour a little sugar on it honey,
Pour a little sugar on it baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah
Pour a little sugar on it oh yeah
Pour a little sugar on it honey,
Pour a little sugar on it baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah
Pour a little sugar on it honey,
Ah sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Oh honey, honey, sugar sugar ..
You are my candy girl .


"Fortunate Son" got no higher than No. 14 on the charts. "Gimme Shelter"? It was never released as a single at all.

Go ahead, look down the list. There is some great music on there, but it's mixed in with a lot of stuff you've probably never even heard of. And do you know what you don't see on there? Queen, Led Zeppelin and a lot of other great musicians. Groups that are well-remembered now, when classic rock radio stations wouldn't be caught dead playing some of the shit that outsold them. Even Elvis and The Beatles are only on there twice, tying for the most No. 1 year-end singles with none other than George Michael.

And that's not even considering that, thanks to the Internet, we have far more access to all kinds of niche music genres and independent artists that we'd have never heard in the past.

And as for the critics, you have to keep in mind that there will always, always be critics who hate whatever the latest trend is. Rock music as a whole was blasted pretty harshly when it first got popular. Melody Maker called it "one of the most terrifying things to have ever happened to popular music." The Daily Mail decided to up the ante by mixing in some good old-fashioned racism: "[Rock music] is deplorable. It is tribal. And it is from America. It follows ragtime, blues, jazz, hot cha-cha and the boogie-woogie, which surely originated in the jungle. We sometimes wonder whether this is the negro's revenge." :eek::eek::eek:

Hell, even The Beatles weren't safe. The Daily Telegraph said that they were "something Hitler might find useful."

Why? Because it's easier to be negative. That part will never change.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2011, 10:10 AM
Woogie Boogie!!

loochy
02-03-2011, 10:12 AM
I actually like this article. I need to show it to my dad. I've tried to argue these things for a while, but I never could dig up any evidence (or pseudo-evidence) to support my claims.

mikeyis4dcats.
02-03-2011, 10:16 AM
some things are a bit skewed though.

Yes, things may not be more expensive today comparatively, but the average person has a LOT more stuff. In the 50s, a man might have 3 or 4 suits and some casual clothes, but todays man on average has a lot more wardrobe I'd imagine. Same with household items...in the 50s a household may have had 1 tv if they were fortunate, now most have several. No household appliances beyond a stove and refrigerator....no vacuum/blender/food processor/quesadilla maker.

It is that perceived need to keep up with modern amenities that makes modern life seem more expensive.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2011, 10:18 AM
A lot of that is bullshit, loochy.

Your average steak has six times the amount of saturated fat in it now as opposed to the past because of the way our modern production techniques (corporate farming) raise the cows on a diet of corn rather than natural grasses. That's not to mention the antibiotics they put in those cows in order to prevent disease spread and acidosis, which also contributes to resistant bacteria.

Pitt Gorilla
02-03-2011, 10:19 AM
Nickelback sucks. They do.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2011, 10:22 AM
The biggest problem with current music, IMO, is that it takes no talent to produce anything. You can go into the studio, sing a song once, run it through autotune, and all of your voice problems will be fixed. From there you can lip sync all of your "live" appearances, and as a result, a lot of the "popular" musical acts are people who can neither play an instrument nor sing.

It's not a coincidence that almost all of the top female solo acts are hot. In the past, you actually had to have a modicum of talent. Now, if you look good, everything else relating to the production of music can be fixed.

DaFace
02-03-2011, 10:24 AM
Interesting article.

Frazod
02-03-2011, 12:32 PM
Interesting point about the TVs. Even from a few years ago, the prices have dropped dramatically. I paid $1,000 for a 32" tube TV in 1997. I paid $500 for a 42" HDTV about a month ago.

And of course the food thing always cracks me up. All you hear about is how we just can't survive unless we get our daily allowance of this, that and the other thing, and how too much of this, that or the other thing will fucking kill us. I wonder what a guy stuck in the middle of the ocean on a 17th century sailing vessel, drinking piss and eating shoe leather because the brackish fresh water and rancid salt pork had run out, would have given for a Happy Meal and extra large Coke?

Saulbadguy
02-03-2011, 12:39 PM
Yeah, go ahead and try to tell me times were better:

loochy
02-03-2011, 12:47 PM
Yeah, go ahead and try to tell me times were better:

Those weren't even the GOOD games.

Rausch
02-03-2011, 12:53 PM
IQ scores have risen 24 points since 1914.

Really?

THAT MUCH?

OMG I wnat to snabbs teh......wait.

24 pts?

With computers and cell phones and instant-innerwebs and everything else we've improved.........24 pts in 100 years?

THAT IS FUCKING FAIL!1!!!!!:cuss:

Frazod
02-03-2011, 12:54 PM
Really?

THAT MUCH?

OMG I wnat to snabbs teh......wait.

24 pts?

With computers and cell phones and instant-innerwebs and everything else we've improved.........24 pts in 100 years?

THAT IS FUCKING FAIL!1!!!!!:cuss:

I somehow suspect that common sense has seen double digit drops.

The God Hypothesis
02-03-2011, 12:57 PM
Can you imagine paying $63.99 for any of those pieces of trash? Back then you did have Super Tecmo Bowl, Final Fantasy 3, and Sim City 3 which were all pretty fantastic on the SNES. In some ways better than the products we have to replace them today, relatively speaking of course.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2011, 12:57 PM
Interesting point about the TVs. Even from a few years ago, the prices have dropped dramatically. I paid $1,000 for a 32" tube TV in 1997. I paid $500 for a 42" HDTV about a month ago.


Moore's Law.

Omaha
02-03-2011, 01:00 PM
Nickelback sucks. They do.

They suck out loud.

DaFace
02-03-2011, 01:33 PM
They suck out loud.

I agree. However, the article's point still stands. No way will hardly know who they are 50 years from now.

Omaha
02-03-2011, 01:37 PM
I agree. However, the article's point still stands. No way will hardly know who they are 50 years from now.

I agree 100%. I just found PG's comment amusing.

Pitt Gorilla
02-03-2011, 01:37 PM
Yeah, go ahead and try to tell me times were better:Good God, man, kids might see this.

Pitt Gorilla
02-03-2011, 01:39 PM
I somehow suspect that common sense has seen double digit drops.I don't think so.

Frazod
02-03-2011, 01:41 PM
I don't think so.

Oh, I'm sure of it, and I have little doubt that it's by design.

dirk digler
02-03-2011, 01:45 PM
The biggest problem with current music, IMO, is that it takes no talent to produce anything. You can go into the studio, sing a song once, run it through autotune, and all of your voice problems will be fixed. From there you can lip sync all of your "live" appearances, and as a result, a lot of the "popular" musical acts are people who can neither play an instrument nor sing.

It's not a coincidence that almost all of the top female solo acts are hot. In the past, you actually had to have a modicum of talent. Now, if you look good, everything else relating to the production of music can be fixed.

Totally agree.

DaFace
02-03-2011, 01:47 PM
Totally agree.

On the other hand, it's easier than ever for independent acts to become successful. So that's a bit of a counterpoint.

Pitt Gorilla
02-03-2011, 01:47 PM
Oh, I'm sure of it, and I have little doubt that it's by design.I suppose I should have you define common sense.

MOhillbilly
02-03-2011, 01:49 PM
i read a thing awhile back that said crime went down because of abortion. less poor, less crime.

dirk digler
02-03-2011, 01:51 PM
On the other hand, it's easier than ever for independent acts to become successful. So that's a bit of a counterpoint.

That is true as well.

I just find the majority of music today just really lacking

Saccopoo
02-03-2011, 01:54 PM
The biggest problem with current music, IMO, is that it takes no talent to produce anything. You can go into the studio, sing a song once, run it through autotune, and all of your voice problems will be fixed. From there you can lip sync all of your "live" appearances, and as a result, a lot of the "popular" musical acts are people who can neither play an instrument nor sing.

It's not a coincidence that almost all of the top female solo acts are hot. In the past, you actually had to have a modicum of talent. Now, if you look good, everything else relating to the production of music can be fixed.

Ella Fitzgerald would, tragically, be an obscure backup singer working the Nashvegas studios in today's music world.

loochy
02-03-2011, 01:56 PM
That is true as well.

I just find the majority of music today just really lacking

It's lacking in what YOU are looking for. However, I could say that music in the past is lacking what I am looking for...like catchy beats, for example.

Edit: I'm not REALLY looking for that, I'm just arguing.

dirk digler
02-03-2011, 02:00 PM
It's lacking in what YOU are looking for. However, I could say that music in the past is lacking what I am looking for...like catchy beats, for example.

That is true. I like rock and not much into Top 40 music

Frazod
02-03-2011, 02:20 PM
I suppose I should have you define common sense.

That is kind of a hard term to pin down - seems easier to define it by its absence rather than its presence. I guess it could also be a sum of certain parts, like actual intelligence, reasoning ability, being able to form opinions based on independent analysis of facts, being able to exercise good judgment, the ability to learn from past mistakes (both yours and those of others), accumulating life wisdom. Some aspects can be learned and enhanced, some you either have or you don't.

Over-Head
02-03-2011, 06:46 PM
I agree. However, the article's point still stands. No way will hardly know who they are 50 years from now.
except for their fans.
Each to their own. I like em, seen a few shows, and man they put on a rock show!!!

Rain Man
02-03-2011, 06:51 PM
The Complaint:

The air is thinner now. It's not like the thick, oxygen-heavy air we had when I was a teenager.


The Reality:

I moved from Missouri to Colorado.

Bacon Cheeseburger
02-03-2011, 06:59 PM
The first point is dead on. The wife and I both have very average jobs and we live better than a doctor would have in the 50s.

KCrockaholic
02-03-2011, 07:04 PM
The "stupider" topic is just wrong. Because when people say someone is "dumb" they aren't usually referring to his education level. Many, many people have college degrees and so on. What people are talking about is common sense. Someone can have straight A's in school, but they could lack any common sense to live life. Also, kids graduating more often is a direct result of schools just pushing students on by, and letting them slide by when really they haven't learned anything. In my high school, if a girl got pregnant at any time during her 4 years she would automatically pass all of her classes and be pushed along to graduation even if she didn't do any work.

Hydrae
02-03-2011, 07:10 PM
I suspect a lot of this is indeed, BS. Just consider the source, Cracked magazine. Sorry but I will take a large grain of salt before falling in to line with the 1980's version of the Onion.

Rain Man
02-03-2011, 07:24 PM
The Complaint:

Hairstylists today stink. There's no creativity, and they can't execute the wide variety of hairstyle options that they could 20 years ago.


The Reality:

I'm bald.

CrazyPhuD
02-03-2011, 07:26 PM
Really?

THAT MUCH?

OMG I wnat to snabbs teh......wait.

24 pts?

With computers and cell phones and instant-innerwebs and everything else we've improved.........24 pts in 100 years?

THAT IS FUCKING FAIL!1!!!!!:cuss:

What they fail to mention is that the old scale was 0-200....the new one is 0-1000.....

suzzer99
02-03-2011, 07:35 PM
Technology and housing are really bad metrics to compare purchasing power from different eras.

jidar
02-03-2011, 07:39 PM
So there should be a lesson in here about anecdotes and trusting perceptions, one which further illustrates why we have things like the scientific method. Of course several of the posters in this thread completely missed that.
I particularly like the ones that refute the arguments by throwing in more anecdotes.

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2011, 07:41 PM
On the other hand, it's easier than ever for independent acts to become successful. So that's a bit of a counterpoint.

Actually, 99% of them they're not financially successful, at all, especially when compared to successful major label artists of the past.

It's a mirage.

jidar
02-03-2011, 07:41 PM
Technology and housing are really bad metrics to compare purchasing power from different eras.

So what would be a good metric?

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2011, 07:43 PM
So what would be a good metric?

Porn

jidar
02-03-2011, 07:43 PM
Actually, 99% of them they're not financially successful, at all, especially when compared to successful major label artists of the past.

It's a mirage.

Which has what to do with what? Are you suggesting indie artists had it better before? Why would you think that? Is that maybe just your perception?

jidar
02-03-2011, 07:43 PM
Porn

Well then score another category for Cracked

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2011, 07:47 PM
Ella Fitzgerald would, tragically, be an obscure backup singer working the Nashvegas studios in today's music world.

No way, Dude.

She'd have been on American Idol, won, picked up and produced by hottest songwriters/producer and be bigger than Beyonce'.

That woman was FAR too talented to be passed over as a lounge singer.

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2011, 07:50 PM
Which has what to do with what? Are you suggesting indie artists had it better before? Why would you think that? Is that maybe just your perception?

Considering I spent 10 years in the music business working for the biggest music corporations in the world, overseeing and administering some of the largest and most popular music catalogs in the world (including the ATV catalog), I can assure you, it's not a perception.

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2011, 07:58 PM
It's lacking in what YOU are looking for. However, I could say that music in the past is lacking what I am looking for...like catchy beats, for example.

Edit: I'm not REALLY looking for that, I'm just arguing.

This is a weak argument.

The largest segment of all album sales is "catalog" music from the 60's and 70's, not from this past decade or the 90's.

HMc
02-03-2011, 08:17 PM
crime dropped because they legalised abortion, primarily.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2011, 08:22 PM
crime dropped because they legalised abortion, primarily.

Someone read Freakonomics.

CrazyPhuD
02-03-2011, 09:16 PM
Actually, 99% of them they're not financially successful, at all, especially when compared to successful major label artists of the past.

It's a mirage.

So here's a question then, how would/could you fix the situation in today's world? Is it even possible? Part of why I'm curious is that there are definite signs that television/movies are following the exact same path.

One of the interesting lessons about 'free' people love free but what most people don't realize is that if no one makes money no one create content. AND another side effect, the less money you make, the less risks you can take, which means the more mundane/proven techniques you have to use. Low profit generally means low risk.

HMc
02-03-2011, 09:31 PM
Someone read Freakonomics.

you're giving me far too much credit, I just watched the film.

crossbow
02-03-2011, 09:32 PM
My take on the intelligence thing:

Our public schools are a total joke. People can't even count back change at the stores now. The machines have to do it for them. I speak to people all day and they definitely seem dumber to me now days compared to a few decades ago. They only have about a 45 second attention span and ........ what was I gonna say ... oh crap.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2011, 09:38 PM
My take on the intelligence thing:

Our public schools are a total joke. People can't even count back change at the stores now. The machines have to do it for them. I speak to people all day and they definitely seem dumber to me now days compared to a few decades ago. They only have about a 45 second attention span and ........ what was I gonna say ... oh crap.

I've personally noticed a marked decline in the ability of the college students I teach every year. I think it's the fact that each one has had another year of learning nothing but rote memorization for a test in order to satisfy a NCLB requirement.

trndobrd
02-03-2011, 10:15 PM
The Complaint:

The air is thinner now. It's not like the thick, oxygen-heavy air we had when I was a teenager.


The Reality:

I moved from Missouri to Colorado.


You've also, no doubt, observed the dramatic increase in the percentage of population who own and wear shoes.

-King-
02-03-2011, 10:23 PM
I've personally noticed a marked decline in the ability of the college students I teach every year. I think it's the fact that each one has had another year of learning nothing but rote memorization for a test in order to satisfy a NCLB requirement.

You teach at Columbia or Stephens?

CrazyPhuD
02-03-2011, 10:44 PM
Ok I found the article I've been looking for, for a while....

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html

When faculty of a major Chinese university asked Plucker to identify trends in American education, he described our focus on standardized curriculum, rote memorization, and nationalized testing. “After my answer was translated, they just started laughing out loud,” Plucker says. “They said, ‘You’re racing toward our old model. But we’re racing toward your model, as fast as we can.’

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2011, 10:59 PM
So here's a question then, how would/could you fix the situation in today's world? Is it even possible? Part of why I'm curious is that there are definite signs that television/movies are following the exact same path.

One of the interesting lessons about 'free' people love free but what most people don't realize is that if no one makes money no one create content. AND another side effect, the less money you make, the less risks you can take, which means the more mundane/proven techniques you have to use. Low profit generally means low risk.

Wow, this is subject I can go on and on and on about but I'll keep it brief.

1. With regards to music, the "genie" is out of the bottle. Most people I know (myself included) think it will take the better part of this decade for the music business to get back to as close as it can to "normal". At some point, people will get tired of manufactured "stars" and "hit" records, then long for great bands with broad appeal they can "grow" with over time. But I definitely think the current model of Disney kids and Idol will stay intact for years to come.

2. The movie business just had it's best year ever in gross ticket sales. While the total number of individual tickets sold was down, it's encouraging that the dollar amounts rose. What this tells us is that people still are interested in the movie "experience", whether it's 2D, 3D or Imax.

And while more and more people are installing home theaters, services like Netflix and Blockbuster are absolutely booming. DVD sales are still "off" but they're far from dwindling.

The MPAA was much more aggressive in protecting their product than the record labels or publishers were and by staying ahead of the curve, their business model, while changing, won't be completely upside down in a short period of time.

Bearcat
02-03-2011, 11:14 PM
Stupid is as stupid Googles...

http://www.google.com/trends

1. why is the ocean salty
2. rosicrucian
3. islamic socialism
4. truancy
5. is the ocean salty because of whale sperm

:facepalm:

Oso
02-03-2011, 11:14 PM
Stupid is as stupid Googles...

http://www.google.com/trends

1. why is the ocean salty
2. rosicrucian
3. islamic socialism
4. truancy
5. is the ocean salty because of whale sperm

:facepalm:

LMAO

CrazyPhuD
02-03-2011, 11:42 PM
Wow, this is subject I can go on and on and on about but I'll keep it brief.

1. With regards to music, the "genie" is out of the bottle. Most people I know (myself included) think it will take the better part of this decade for the music business to get back to as close as it can to "normal". At some point, people will get tired of manufactured "stars" and "hit" records, then long for great bands with broad appeal they can "grow" with over time. But I definitely think the current model of Disney kids and Idol will stay intact for years to come.

2. The movie business just had it's best year ever in gross ticket sales. While the total number of individual tickets sold was down, it's encouraging that the dollar amounts rose. What this tells us is that people still are interested in the movie "experience", whether it's 2D, 3D or Imax.

And while more and more people are installing home theaters, services like Netflix and Blockbuster are absolutely booming. DVD sales are still "off" but they're far from dwindling.

The MPAA was much more aggressive in protecting their product than the record labels or publishers were and by staying ahead of the curve, their business model, while changing, won't be completely upside down in a short period of time.

Well I am most curious but I have a feeling the rest of the CP might not be quite as interested.

As to the first part I think part of it goes to ability to take big risk on very new/novel talent. The more profitable something is, the easier it to take risks. For me the comparison is the Venture Capital community for technology. Part of why they can take big risks on novel ideas is because they get outsized gains when they succeed. So if 90% of all companies fail they are still ok so long as the remaining 10% strike it big.

If the rate of return drops too much, the level of risk that VCs can take will drop considerably because they won't make their money back. I wonder how much of the profitability of music industry has impacted it's ability to take risks, and as a counterpoint how much getting a band to market sooner will impact it's development and the quality of the music.

While I agree TV and movies are in great shape right now, I also see thunderclouds on the horizon. Part of the positive is the MPAA has done a much better job of protecting their content early. But part of it that it's a hell of a lot harder to steal a movie than an mp3, at least for now. Bandwidth is a huge limiting factor but that may not always be the case. It will be interesting to see how the drop in DVD sales evolves and if digital sales can take over for TV/Media. It will also be interesting to see how IPTV impacts the revenue long term. Fortunately for the industries neither netflix nor any of the IPTV services are a replacement for cable/satellite right now, but that could change.

People like free, especially in the internet age, but what they don't realize is that unless the content producers can make money, interesting content drys up. The more money they can make, the more interesting/different content they can create. If profit margins drop too much we'll stagnate. I worry that we see signs of this even now with all of the rehash movies(ala ateam) and reality tv, etc. It's far less risky to take a proven commodity than it is to create something new. The reality is this has always been done to a degree, but it 'feels' like it has gotten more common(without any stats to back that up).

But this is far closer to your industry than mine. In media now rather than music?

CrazyPhuD
02-03-2011, 11:48 PM
Stupid is as stupid Googles...

http://www.google.com/trends

1. why is the ocean salty
2. rosicrucian
3. islamic socialism
4. truancy
5. is the ocean salty because of whale sperm

:facepalm:

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/02/why-is-the-ocean-salty-jersey-shores-snooki-says-its-whale-sperm.html

:facepalm:

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2011, 11:50 PM
But this is far closer to your industry than mine. In media now rather than music?

Let's just say that I'm a media producer. :D

There was an entire generation of kids in the 90's that illegally downloaded music and still, to this day, feel entitled to "free" music. Fortunately, the generation just behind them grew up with iTunes (and now Pandora, etc.) and the revenues are on the upswing. But with music being a "disposable" medium, meaning that you don't need to be in a "specialized" environment like a movie theater to enjoy it, there will always be a huge faction of illegal downloading, unless governments worldwide begin to police and monitor ISP's for illegal activity.

As for film and TV, there are several options on the horizon including Google TV and Apple TV. All of the content providers realize that the terrestrial and satellite broadcasts will essentially be phased out over the next two decades (if not sooner), giving way to internet television.

But with that said, advertising will always foot the bill for content providers so while you and I may view content over the internet directly from ABC, ESPN, CBS, etc., the revenues will not shrink.

CrazyPhuD
02-04-2011, 12:07 AM
But with that said, advertising will always foot the bill for content providers so while you and I may view content over the internet directly from ABC, ESPN, CBS, etc., the revenues will not shrink.

Is it? So this is one article I read recently.

http://billniemeyer.tv/2009/05/10/todays-cable-tv-revenue-split-and-why-over-the-top-likely-cant-be-ad-supported-only/

So hulu is a great example of the industries foot forward in IPTV...however given how few commercials it has(relatively speaking), the hulu model can't pay for it's content like network or cable TV can because it doesn't get near the revenue from advertising that the networks do. Hulu succeeds because it's content is effectively already paid for by existing models. Hulu is 'extra revenue' but not clear it's a business to itself right now. Now we could go semi-subscription only but the advertising model seems to be weakening in the DVR/IPTV era.

This is what I find interesting, we have this great potential right now, currently bandwidth holds us back from real explosion. This may actually be a good thing because the business model still doesn't feel there yet unless you're talking about subscription/PPV, those models will definitely work. It's going to be an interesting next 5-10 years as we figure this out. On thing I fear is that there may be quite a bit of exclusivity lock outs, sort of like what we are seeing with 3D content. This would be annoying from a consumer point of view, but at the same time understandable from a business point of view.

But still how much of it would suck to see all Disney content on Verizon and all Sony content on ATT? It's like the iphone exclusivity but for content. Mobile/tablet will be a very interesting IPTV space but is even further bandwidth constrained.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 12:10 AM
Is it? So this is one article I read recently.



Hulu is owned by NBC and by and large, is a way to promote their shows and others (over 200 at last count).

However, Comcast hasn't decided if they'll continue with the service.

Most fear illegal activity as opposed to licensed content.

CrazyPhuD
02-04-2011, 12:19 AM
Hulu is owned by NBC and by and large, is a way to promote their shows and others (over 200 at last count).

However, Comcast hasn't decided if they'll continue with the service.

Most fear illegal activity as opposed to licensed content.

Interesting..hence all the 30 day moves for DVD availability to netlix/redbox etc. It's also why a move to IPTV could be beneficial IF the issues can be sorted out. Unlike DVDs/BluRays, you can actually create a secure content system with an active network communication, if the hardware is secure. That will be one of the harder challenges. Although I *think* the new intel processors may come with an interesting security infrastructure built in.

BWillie
02-04-2011, 12:39 AM
Yep. I like when old ppl bitch about crime. I try to tell them violent crime and most other forms of crime is way down, but they just won't believe me and say that everybody is wack jobs nowadays. I really wasn't aware of the tax thing though, that surprised me.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 12:40 AM
Yep. I like when old ppl bitch about crime. I try to tell them violent crime and most other forms of crime is way down, but they just won't believe me and say that everybody is wack jobs nowadays. I really wasn't aware of the tax thing though, that surprised me.

That's because, as always, you're on the cutting edge

chiefzilla1501
02-04-2011, 12:46 AM
They use statistics rather loosely here, don't you think?

1. Everything is so expensive....
Things may be cheaper today, but the demands of the modern world have forced us to buy a lot of expensive things in order to give us the means to compete. You have to have a monthly internet bill, a laptop, a cell phone (likely a smart phone). You have to pay for an education. We are accountable for our own retirement, so we're stashing our income away for later, whereas in the past we let the government take it out for social security. The poor don't have any money, like always. The middle class have less money, because of all those things above that are required to stay connected and get access to information. And technology is changing at breakneck speeds, so we always require new stuff before the competition gets it first. Our life is more expensive because there are so many more accessories. We may not need all of them, but many of them we do in subtle ways.

2. People are getting stupider relative to what the world demands at us. We're receiving information at breakneck speeds. Some are equipped to handle, some are not. Some don't have the motivation to keep up. For me, it's about learning about my job, reading and keeping cultured, watching sports, keeping up with friends, politics, news, pop culture. How do you keep up with all of this information? Some do it very well, others don't. So people are stupider because many are not able to keep up with how much information is out there at our fingertips.

3. Wow, huge problem here. The leading killers in this world are heart disease and health care costs are through the roof. Think our food supply has anything to do with that? We're feeding our cattle a gazillion tons of corn, which they can't naturally digest, because corn is subsidized by the government. Mass food production by fast food started the trend toward steroiding our chickens so much so that our kids are hitting puberty at younger ages. Raw meat today disguisedly adds salt and other additives (yes, raw meat). Almost any processed food has a million additive ingredients, biggest culprit being high fructose corn syrup--it's in everything in obscene doses. Our restaurants like PF Changs are selling dishes with sodium in the thousands. And most consumers have no choice because shitty food is so dirt cheap. Type II Diabetes is becoming an epidemic. That disease is caused by obesity and poor health habits. Case closed.

4. Okay, on crime, I agree

5. On music, that's a generational thing. Some people like it, some people don't. Once I got into indie music, I began to realize there is a lot more good music than what plays on air.

Fascinating article.
(http://www.cracked.com/article_18983_5-complaints-about-modern-life-that-are-statistically-b.s..html)

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 12:50 AM
I began to realize there is a lot more good music than what plays on air.

The same can be said for major label artists, which is actually how you come to KNOW an artist.

NewChief
02-04-2011, 05:53 AM
Stupid is as stupid Googles...

http://www.google.com/trends

1. why is the ocean salty
2. rosicrucian
3. islamic socialism
4. truancy
5. is the ocean salty because of whale sperm

:facepalm:

The worst is that google trend was brought to you by Jersey Shore, where the dumbass Snookie said, "I don't like the ocean. It's gross. It's salty because of whale sperm. I'm serious. Google it."

Americans then ran off to do that, obviously.

KcMizzou
02-04-2011, 06:02 AM
The worst is that google trend was brought to you by Jersey Shore, where the dumbass Snookie said, "I don't like the ocean. It's gross. It's salty because of whale sperm. I'm serious. Google it."

Americans then ran off to do that, obviously.ROFL

TIED5573
02-04-2011, 06:40 AM
The worst is that google trend was brought to you by Jersey Shore, where the dumbass Snookie said, "I don't like the ocean. It's gross. It's salty because of whale sperm. I'm serious. Google it."

Americans then ran off to do that, obviously.

Hey, whales do produce a lot of sperm. If not, why would they call them sperm whales. :p Check it out. It's on the internest. Must be true. Sperm whales.

Otter
02-04-2011, 09:56 AM
2. People are getting stupider relative to what the world demands at us. We're receiving information at breakneck speeds. Some are equipped to handle, some are not. Some don't have the motivation to keep up. For me, it's about learning about my job, reading and keeping cultured, watching sports, keeping up with friends, politics, news, pop culture. How do you keep up with all of this information? Some do it very well, others don't. So people are stupider because many are not able to keep up with how much information is out there at our fingertips.

The population isn't getting more stupid (stupider?) in a general knowledge sense but in practical and applicable knowledge sense I would say it most certainly is getting worse.

Just because you can functionally operate an IPhone doesn't mean you understand it. How many people that own an IPhone could give you a basic premise on how it gets its information from it's source? How an ATT uses cell phone towers and data centers to translates the radio waves into binary sent thru the air then how a cpu, memory and display translates and stores those 1s and 0s into what you see on your little screen? Or why can't you hear someones cell phone conversation on your car radio while your driving?

Look at the millions of people that use a computer and car every day that don't know how to defrag a hard drive or change the oil or a tire. IQ is a measure of general overall knowledge which is useful to a point. That's not the problem with America's population. The problem is finding people with the practical and applicable intelligence to design, create from scratch and improve the IPhone.

Just one example in a particular sector but it applies overall.

IQ doesn't measure that and you can train a monkey to make a phone call.

That's how America is getting stupider.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:48 AM
Look at the millions of people that use a computer and car every day that don't know how to defrag a hard drive or change the oil or a tire. IQ is a measure of general overall knowledge which is useful to a point. That's not the problem with America's population. The problem is finding people with the practical and applicable intelligence to design, create from scratch and improve the IPhone.

Just one example in a particular sector but it applies overall.

IQ doesn't measure that and you can train a monkey to make a phone call.

That's how America is getting stupider.

I don't subscribe to this argument, whatsoever.

Throughout history, people's abilities have been divided. Whether it's science, math, literature or art, there are very few humans throughout recorded history that have a mastery of all of the above.

I don't think that not knowing how to change a tire or hacking an iPhone makes someone "stupid", as long as that person is contributing to society to the best of their abilities.

The problem I see with society in America is that the unwanted side effects of global, mass communications via the internet is that dumb people without goals in life can unite, whether it's the Jersey Shore crowd or the Teen Mom crowd or the Oprah crowd and whatnot.

The danger is in thinking that the abnormal is somehow "normalized" because these dumbfucks now realize they're not alone.

Cave Johnson
02-04-2011, 10:50 AM
I've personally noticed a marked decline in the ability of the college students I teach every year. I think it's the fact that each one has had another year of learning nothing but rote memorization for a test in order to satisfy a NCLB requirement.

Ok I found the article I've been looking for, for a while....

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html

Absolutely. There's a reason the Chinese nickname for R&D is replicate and duplicate. If you teach for the test, in a sisyphean effort to beat nations that spend way more time in the classroom, you lose the creativity necessary to innovate.

The architects of NCLB should be kicked in the crotch, repeatedly.

Iowanian
02-04-2011, 10:51 AM
All of these vaccinations from formerly deadly diseases are dangerous and making people sick....

Cave Johnson
02-04-2011, 10:53 AM
Actually, 99% of them they're not financially successful, at all, especially when compared to successful major label artists of the past.

It's a mirage.

I don't really give a shit whether they're selling 4-5M albums.

From my perspective, the ability for talented musicians to be recognized produces way better music than the old, top down, record label-centric model.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:56 AM
I don't really give a shit whether they're selling 4-5M albums.

From my perspective, the ability for talented musicians to be recognized produces way better music than the old, top down, record label-centric model.

I don't really give a shit to hear poorly recorded "musicians" blather on for the sake of being "Indie", just to be Indie.

Check back in a couple of decades to let us know how Indie music from 2001-2010 holds up from a societal perspective.

Saulbadguy
02-04-2011, 11:02 AM
All of these vaccinations from formerly deadly diseases are dangerous and making people sick....

Heh

ChiefsCountry
02-04-2011, 11:14 AM
The biggest change in music has been in rock music. Thats the genre where staying power has been hit the hardest. Its why all of the top tours are classic rock or country. Rock groups just don't put together enough material anymore to have really successful tours. Looking at music history, rock groups are the legendary ones for the most part. Pop music is pop music, face it - its popular for a second then it goes. That has never really changed at all. Country has went more to a popish sound but hell thats happened before and it will always will. Willie, Waylon were called Outlaws for a reason. It wasn't Hank Sr stuff they sung. American Idol has produced more C & D listers more than anything. Carrie Underwood was a boom and they need another one of her if the show wants to keep doing something. But then again she isn't in the pop world either. Country has the most staying power mainly bc its the most loyal fanbase.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:22 AM
The biggest change in music has been in rock music. Thats the genre where staying power has been hit the hardest. Its why all of the top tours are classic rock or country. Rock groups just don't put together enough material anymore to have really successful tours. Looking at music history, rock groups are the legendary ones for the most part. Pop music is pop music, face it - its popular for a second then it goes. That has never really changed at all. Country has went more to a popish sound but hell thats happened before and it will always will. Willie, Waylon were called Outlaws for a reason. It wasn't Hank Sr stuff they sung. American Idol has produced more C & D listers more than anything. Carrie Underwood was a boom and they need another one of her if the show wants to keep doing something. But then again she isn't in the pop world either. Country has the most staying power mainly bc its the most loyal fanbase.

Country is generally comprised of pretty faces that can sing, backed by world class studio musicians, producers and composers. It's rare that a country artist actually composes their hit songs and you're right, they have a built-in audience.

The problem with today's rock scene is that with the lack of album sales due to illegal downloading, brand new bands must sell a ridiculous amount units with their debut record, or they face being dropped from the label altogether. Bands aren't allowed to grow and find an audience and instead, it's the other way around: Bands are "created" to fulfill a certain audience, whether it's the 10-13, 14-18, or 18-22 crowd.

It's very unnatural and is the primary reason why there are no rock artist from the past decade that will be around for the next several decades. It's brutal.

gblowfish
02-04-2011, 11:26 AM
Damn Kids, get off my lawn!

notorious
02-04-2011, 11:29 AM
My complaint about Modern Life:



Reality TV.





I want to find the guy that made "The Real World" and shove a Red Spanish Pineapple up his ass.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 11:30 AM
The population isn't getting more stupid (stupider?) in a general knowledge sense but in practical and applicable knowledge sense I would say it most certainly is getting worse.

Just because you can functionally operate an IPhone doesn't mean you understand it. How many people that own an IPhone could give you a basic premise on how it gets its information from it's source? How an ATT uses cell phone towers and data centers to translates the radio waves into binary sent thru the air then how a cpu, memory and display translates and stores those 1s and 0s into what you see on your little screen? Or why can't you hear someones cell phone conversation on your car radio while your driving?

Look at the millions of people that use a computer and car every day that don't know how to defrag a hard drive or change the oil or a tire. IQ is a measure of general overall knowledge which is useful to a point. That's not the problem with America's population. The problem is finding people with the practical and applicable intelligence to design, create from scratch and improve the IPhone.

Just one example in a particular sector but it applies overall.

IQ doesn't measure that and you can train a monkey to make a phone call.

That's how America is getting stupider.

I suggest you bone up on accelerating change.

morphius
02-04-2011, 11:32 AM
I don't really give a shit whether they're selling 4-5M albums.

From my perspective, the ability for talented musicians to be recognized produces way better music than the old, top down, record label-centric model.
I've never really understood the bias against bands that "made it". Of course, considering that I've heard that the record labels have a 90% failure rate on artists they sign doesn't really say much for their business model or their taste in music...

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:34 AM
My complaint about Modern Life:

Reality TV.

I want to find the guy that made "The Real World" and shove a Red Spanish Pineapple up his ass.

I thought "The Real World" was an interesting, conceptually, from the start. It's the subsequent seasons that became annoying and at this point, shows like "Jersey Shore" and "Teen Mom" are almost parodies of "The Real World".

But overall, I'm with you on most reality TV. I have a friend that created and produces several reality shows currently running and in the past and I always feel like a dick when I tell him that I can't stand to watch any of them.

The only reality shows that have any appeal to me are the Iron Chef types or the shows on HGTV, although it's very rare that I make time to watch those series.

Otter
02-04-2011, 11:36 AM
I don't subscribe to this argument, whatsoever.

Throughout history, people's abilities have been divided. Whether it's science, math, literature or art, there are very few humans throughout recorded history that have a mastery of all of the above.

I don't think that not knowing how to change a tire or hacking an iPhone makes someone "stupid", as long as that person is contributing to society to the best of their abilities.

The problem I see with society in America is that the unwanted side effects of global, mass communications via the internet is that dumb people without goals in life can unite, whether it's the Jersey Shore crowd or the Teen Mom crowd or the Oprah crowd and whatnot.

The danger is in thinking that the abnormal is somehow "normalized" because these dumb****s now realize they're not alone.

That was just an example of the overall problem that I see. I don't expect a surgeon to be able to setup a mass wireless grid nor would I want a wireless engineer cutting me open to perform surgery. It just seems that so many people don't find something to sink their proverbial teeth into and master to some degree despite being surrounded by all these different facets of technology and science that they use and see everyday.

I just chose wireless communication because that's my niche and when we need to fill a high tech role that's often a feat in itself.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:38 AM
I've never really understood the bias against bands that "made it". Of course, considering that I've heard that the record labels have a 90% failure rate on artists they sign doesn't really say much for their business model or their taste in music...

Oh, give me a fucking break.

Labels would invest up to a million dollars on brand new artists and it's next to impossible to predict who will find an audience and who won't.

Hell, Geffen Records, which had an amazing track record in the 80's and early 90's, were completely clueless as well. They signed a band called "Rock City Angels" (which featured a young guy unknown guy by the name of Johnny Depp) to a HUGE deal in 1986 while at the same time, signed another band called Guns 'N' Roses to a modest $250k deal.

I think we all know who found an audience and who didn't.

The bands that hit huge pay for all of the failures. The problem is that predicting the failures and hits is extremely difficult in rock music. In Country, not so much.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:40 AM
That was just an example of the overall problem that I see. I don't expect a surgeon to be able to setup a mass wireless grid nor would I want a wireless engineer cutting me open to perform surgery. It just seems that so many people don't find something to sink their proverbial teeth into and master to some degree despite being surrounded by all these different facets of technology and science that they use and see everyday.

I just chose wireless communication because that's my niche and when we need to fill a high tech role that's often a feat in itself.

That's not because people have become "stupider", it's because people are aimless and lack direction or passion.

Look no further than our own dopey, college educated pizza boy in Hootie. He's the prime example of an educated person that lacks the desire and drive to rise above the rest and would rather live like a frat guy than enter the real world.

It's an epidemic.

notorious
02-04-2011, 11:40 AM
I thought "The Real World" was an interesting, conceptually, from the start. It's the subsequent seasons that became annoying and at this point, shows like "Jersey Shore" and "Teen Mom" are almost parodies of "The Real World".

But overall, I'm with you on most reality TV. I have a friend that created and produces several reality shows currently running and in the past and I always feel like a dick when I tell him that I can't stand to watch any of them.

The only reality shows that have any appeal to me are the Iron Chef types or the shows on HGTV, although it's very rare that I make time to watch those series.

The shows on HGTV, DIY, etc. are constructive shows, not some attention whore thinking their life is worthy of others' attention. Besides, you probably know better then anyone that the reality of the "Reality Shows" is pre-scripted in many aspects.

Sorry about the rant. My wife is very intelligent yet still watches Kendra, Kardouchians, and that pile of shit known as The Bad Girls Club. I can't stand being in the same room as that crap.


:facepalm:

notorious
02-04-2011, 11:42 AM
"The Real World" creator was a genious. The crap that spawned from that ground-breaking show is where my hatred is directed.

The Spanish Pineapple bit is CP tough talk. :D

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 11:43 AM
The shows on HGTV, DIY, etc. are constructive shows, not some attention whore thinking their life is worthy of others' attention. Besides, you probably know better then anyone that the reality of the "Reality Shows" is pre-scripted in many aspects.

Sorry about the rant. My wife is very intelligent yet still watches Kendra, Kardouchians, and that pile of shit known as The Bad Girls Club. I can't stand being in the same room as that crap.


:facepalm:

Well, if you are a believer of the philosophy of Noam Chomsky and Reinhold Neibuhr, every society is broken up into two strata. The top 20%, the professional class, are the ones who essentially make all of the decisions, but they are still subject to coercion from elites. The bottom 80%'s job is essentially not to think. A lot of the entertainment that we have now on TV (and have always had, look at those old TV shows, FFS) really serves as little other than a distraction to deaden their critical thinking ability.

Brock
02-04-2011, 11:45 AM
Well, if you are a believer of the philosophy of Noam Chomsky and Reinhold Neibuhr, every society is broken up into two strata. The top 20%, the professional class, are the ones who essentially make all of the decisions, but they are still subject to coercion from elites. The bottom 80%'s job is essentially not to think. A lot of the entertainment that we have now on TV (and have always had, look at those old TV shows, FFS) really serves as little other than a distraction to deaden their critical thinking ability.

It sounds about right. Especially the last sentence.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 11:45 AM
I don't subscribe to this argument, whatsoever.

Throughout history, people's abilities have been divided. Whether it's science, math, literature or art, there are very few humans throughout recorded history that have a mastery of all of the above.

I don't think that not knowing how to change a tire or hacking an iPhone makes someone "stupid", as long as that person is contributing to society to the best of their abilities.

The problem I see with society in America is that the unwanted side effects of global, mass communications via the internet is that dumb people without goals in life can unite, whether it's the Jersey Shore crowd or the Teen Mom crowd or the Oprah crowd and whatnot.

The danger is in thinking that the abnormal is somehow "normalized" because these dumbfucks now realize they're not alone.

Actually, until the middle of the 19th century, it was eminently possible for someone to be an expert in "all" fields. We think it hasn't been the case, but that's due to the exponential rate of technological change in our own society, and the specialization of forms of information.

ChiefsCountry
02-04-2011, 11:48 AM
Country is generally comprised of pretty faces that can sing, backed by world class studio musicians, producers and composers. It's rare that a country artist actually composes their hit songs and you're right, they have a built-in audience.

The problem with today's rock scene is that with the lack of album sales due to illegal downloading, brand new bands must sell a ridiculous amount units with their debut record, or they face being dropped from the label altogether. Bands aren't allowed to grow and find an audience and instead, it's the other way around: Bands are "created" to fulfill a certain audience, whether it's the 10-13, 14-18, or 18-22 crowd.

It's very unnatural and is the primary reason why there are no rock artist from the past decade that will be around for the next several decades. It's brutal.

More country artists today are writing more and more of their stuff. Carrie Underwood actually writes most of her stuff. Me personally I judge most artists on how well they can play live. Majority of today's country singers actually can do that pretty good, some can't at all ie Miranda Lambert.

Now to rock, I think the biggest problem with rock music is their is no real mainstream rock sound. Rock has went farther and farther into grunge and heavier metal than what most people would accept. Cowboy Joe out in the sticks or Thug Tom from the streets or Suburban Susie would generally be accepting of an AC/DC or Metallica song but would freak out at some of today's bands.

Now to downloading, I see both sides of the argument on it. I don't really care either way bc my music business side is more into live concerts and who can put butts in seats. However people know about your music and want to spend money to see you in person is fine with me.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:49 AM
Actually, until the middle of the 19th century, it was eminently possible for someone to be an expert in "all" fields. We think it hasn't been the case, but that's due to the exponential rate of technological change in our own society, and the specialization of forms of information.

Wasn't that rare? I'm certainly not claiming that gifted people don't exist, it just seems like it's very rare to meet people with a higher education and knowledge in various fields.

For example, I know several doctors and lawyers that are quite successful, but they can't sit at a piano and play a song, nor can they paint a picture or understand how to maneuver a computer operating system.

It's not to say that they're not intelligent enough to do so but for some reason, they're unable to comprehend things outside of their specialties. Does that make sense?

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 11:58 AM
Wasn't that rare? I'm certainly not claiming that gifted people don't exist, it just seems like it's very rare to meet people with a higher education and knowledge in various fields.

For example, I know several doctors and lawyers that are quite successful, but they can't sit at a piano and play a song, nor can they paint a picture or understand how to maneuver a computer operating system.

It's not to say that they're not intelligent enough to do so but for some reason, they're unable to comprehend things outside of their specialties. Does that make sense?

That's because their specialties are infinitely more complex than they were 150 years ago.

If you were a doctor in the mid 19th century, the idea of little things called germs making you sick were anathema, and people like Ignaz Semmelweis were outcast because of it.

Here's a more practical way to think of it:

There have been more technological innovations in the last century than in the entirety of human history leading up to it.

notorious
02-04-2011, 12:03 PM
Wasn't that rare? I'm certainly not claiming that gifted people don't exist, it just seems like it's very rare to meet people with a higher education and knowledge in various fields.

For example, I know several doctors and lawyers that are quite successful, but they can't sit at a piano and play a song, nor can they paint a picture or understand how to maneuver a computer operating system.

It's not to say that they're not intelligent enough to do so but for some reason, they're unable to comprehend things outside of their specialties. Does that make sense?

Society has made people "specialize" in specific areas, and to be really successful in those specific areas you become a unbalanced person in the process. It's only natural, since they devote a lot more time becoming the best.


Variety in skills is very rare these days. I guess I am fortunate enough to choose my field instead of it choosing me. I could be a banker, airline pilot, aircraft mechanic, teacher, farmer, etc. Since I worked in a variety of fields while I grew up, it has opened up many avenues for me to explore.

Many of my friends have one-track minds, and I guess that is the way they were raised. If they didn't end up in an airline they fell into a job trap because they had no other interests or skills.

notorious
02-04-2011, 12:11 PM
Well, if you are a believer of the philosophy of Noam Chomsky and Reinhold Neibuhr, every society is broken up into two strata. The top 20%, the professional class, are the ones who essentially make all of the decisions, but they are still subject to coercion from elites. The bottom 80%'s job is essentially not to think. A lot of the entertainment that we have now on TV (and have always had, look at those old TV shows, FFS) really serves as little other than a distraction to deaden their critical thinking ability.


A lot of people are idiots that can't make a tough decision or solve problems, whether it be in their life or at work. They can barely see 2 days into the future much less months or years.

Being prepared and being able to adapt are skills that every parent should teach their kids. I see less and less of this every day.

I look at this as a positive for my kids, though. They will end up being the boss while the others can be the drones that have "jobs" instead of "careers".


I don't want to sound like an elitist asshole, but it's hard not to when discussing this subject.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 12:19 PM
I don't want to sound like an elitist asshole, but it's hard not to when discussing this subject.

Fuckin' elitist asshole




:D

Iowanian
02-04-2011, 12:52 PM
This tells you how bad things are now.....People in "poverty" have the highest level of obesity.

If things were that tough.....our poor would look different, like the parasite bloated nomads in Sudan.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 12:54 PM
This tells you how bad things are now.....People in "poverty" have the highest level of obesity.

If things were that tough.....our poor would look different, like the parasite bloated nomads in Sudan.

So yer sayin' they're fat and stupid?

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 12:56 PM
This tells you how bad things are now.....People in "poverty" have the highest level of obesity..

That's because the cheapest foods are also the worst for you, thanks to our senseless corn subsidies.

Brock
02-04-2011, 12:58 PM
Everybody's fat nowadays.

kysirsoze
02-04-2011, 01:34 PM
Well, if you are a believer of the philosophy of Noam Chomsky and Reinhold Neibuhr, every society is broken up into two strata. The top 20%, the professional class, are the ones who essentially make all of the decisions, but they are still subject to coercion from elites. The bottom 80%'s job is essentially not to think. A lot of the entertainment that we have now on TV (and have always had, look at those old TV shows, FFS) really serves as little other than a distraction to deaden their critical thinking ability.

Damn this is true. I was at a friends house last night and they were watching Jersey Shore. I haven't watched much of it and kept blurting out comments on how asinine it was or how obviously staged and cleverly edited it was. They were like, "Dude, it's Jersey Shore." I realized the obvious fact that they were right. Why bother? I've seen the bolded point before, but reading it with that show fresh in my mind actually makes me feel a little disgusted.

My friends are very smart, critical people. Still, watching so much entertainment that can't be criticized because of its very nature has to have a cumulative effect of the thinking of the individual. It's kinda scary.

dirk digler
02-04-2011, 01:39 PM
Actually, 99% of them they're not financially successful, at all, especially when compared to successful major label artists of the past.

It's a mirage.

Interesting info. I wouldn't have thought that.

Would you agree though that because of new media that has helped discover new artists?

For instance everyone's favorite Justin Bieber?

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 01:46 PM
Interesting info. I wouldn't have thought that.

Would you agree though that because of new media that has helped discover new artists?

For instance everyone's favorite Justin Bieber?

In 2009, only 2% of all albums released sold more than 5,000 copies.

5,000.

I really don't believe that the internet is responsible or is much of a factor in finding new artists. I believe that Justin Beiber would have been "found" if "traditional" record companies existed as they had in the past.

For one Justin Beiber, there are millions upon millions of singers and artists that are unsuccessful and quite frankly, hold little appeal.

Inspector
02-04-2011, 01:57 PM
Wow, this is subject I can go on and on and on about but I'll keep it brief.

1. With regards to music, the "genie" is out of the bottle. Most people I know (myself included) think it will take the better part of this decade for the music business to get back to as close as it can to "normal". At some point, people will get tired of manufactured "stars" and "hit" records, then long for great bands with broad appeal they can "grow" with over time. But I definitely think the current model of Disney kids and Idol will stay intact for years to come.

The MPAA was much more aggressive in protecting their product than the record labels or publishers were and by staying ahead of the curve, their business model, while changing, won't be completely upside down in a short period of time.

This is depressing. I'm gonna go cry.:(

Omaha
02-04-2011, 02:00 PM
I don't really give a shit whether they're selling 4-5M albums.

From my perspective, the ability for talented musicians to be recognized produces way better music than the old, top down, record label-centric model.

This.

There's a lot more garbage available to have to sort through, but when you find something special, it's really cool. I've always been a fan of our local music scene & there's some great music to be found with a little looking. :thumb:

dirk digler
02-04-2011, 02:06 PM
In 2009, only 2% of all albums released sold more than 5,000 copies.

5,000.

I really don't believe that the internet is responsible or is much of a factor in finding new artists. I believe that Justin Beiber would have been "found" if "traditional" record companies existed as they had in the past.

For one Justin Beiber, there are millions upon millions of singers and artists that are unsuccessful and quite frankly, hold little appeal.

wow. How much is that due to piracy do you think?

You obviously know more about the record industry than I do but I would just assume because of places like YouTube people can get noticed alot faster.

notorious
02-04-2011, 02:09 PM
We can purchase one song at a time now, instead of a CD that contained 75% garbage back then.


10 songs for $16 or 1 song for $1. That's got to hurt.

Frazod
02-04-2011, 02:11 PM
We can purchase one song at a time now, instead of a CD that contained 75% garbage back then.


10 songs for $16 or 1 song for $1. That's got to hurt.

Yeah, that's something I don't miss - buying a fucking album only to find out the single you heard on the radio is the only song on it that doesn't suck balls. :#

notorious
02-04-2011, 02:12 PM
Yeah, that's something I don't miss - buying a ****ing album only to find out the single you heard on the radio is the only song on it that doesn't suck balls. :#

Very few of them were quality all the way through.


Counting Crows, Pearl Jam, and a few others were worth their full price. Oh ya, I have always had a place for Mazzy.

DaFace
02-04-2011, 02:16 PM
In 2009, only 2% of all albums released sold more than 5,000 copies.

5,000.

I really don't believe that the internet is responsible or is much of a factor in finding new artists. I believe that Justin Beiber would have been "found" if "traditional" record companies existed as they had in the past.

For one Justin Beiber, there are millions upon millions of singers and artists that are unsuccessful and quite frankly, hold little appeal.

I'm sure you're still right, but in this day and age, album sales doesn't really tell you much. I've probably bought one album in the past three years (and I largely obtain my music legally).

dirk digler
02-04-2011, 02:19 PM
Good points by all about album sales. I totally forgot about buying singles via Itunes or Amazon etc

Omaha
02-04-2011, 02:26 PM
Very few of them were quality all the way through.


Counting Crows, Pearl Jam, and a few others were worth their full price. Oh ya, I have always had a place for Mazzy.

I buy a lot of singles, but I always get the CD when these guys put one out.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 02:27 PM
I'm sure you're still right, but in this day and age, album sales doesn't really tell you much. I've probably bought one album in the past three years (and I largely obtain my music legally).

What it "tells you" is that there are no long term, sustainable artists.

People loved bands from the 60's, 70's and even 80's not because of singles, but because of their catalog.

Most people aren't going pay $75-$250 dollars for a concert ticket to see a band perform their "hit" song. But if you love band or artist's entire catalog and all of their albums, it's a no-brainer.

That's why bands like Tom Petty, U2, ZZ Top, etc. are the highest grossing touring bands in America.

If you're only capable of writing one "hit" song that's worthy of a .99 cent download, I'm fairly certain that no one is going to your concert in 2035.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 02:29 PM
We can purchase one song at a time now, instead of a CD that contained 75% garbage back then.


10 songs for $16 or 1 song for $1. That's got to hurt.

Yeah but this includes Indie bands as well.

So if you're an Indie band with virtually no promotional money, no money to tour and very little money to record an album, how are you going to sustain a career (or live) if only a few people pay .99 cents for a song?

This is where the current "Indie" model falls completely apart.

notorious
02-04-2011, 02:34 PM
Yeah but this includes Indie bands as well.

So if you're an Indie band with virtually no promotional money, no money to tour and very little money to record an album, how are you going to sustain a career (or live) if only a few people pay .99 cents for a song?

This is where the current "Indie" model falls completely apart.

Okay, off to Google. I don't know what "Indie" band means.

notorious
02-04-2011, 02:36 PM
****, I just found out that all of the bands I love were Indie.


If PJ, Alice in Chains, Crows, and Mazzy are Indie, I am a fan.

DaFace
02-04-2011, 02:38 PM
What it "tells you" is that there are no long term, sustainable artists.

People loved bands from the 60's, 70's and even 80's not because of singles, but because of their catalog.

Most people aren't going pay $75-$250 dollars for a concert ticket to see a band perform their "hit" song. But if you love band or artist's entire catalog and all of their albums, it's a no-brainer.

That's why bands like Tom Petty, U2, ZZ Top, etc. are the highest grossing touring bands in America.

If you're only capable of writing one "hit" song that's worthy of a .99 cent download, I'm fairly certain that no one is going to your concert in 2035.

Do you happen to know how they categorize album sales for online purchases? To clarify my above post, I actually do typically obtain albums as a whole, but I buy them online (as a collection of mp3's). Does that end up being called an album purchase or a collection of single purchases?

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 02:56 PM
Do you happen to know how they categorize album sales for online purchases? To clarify my above post, I actually do typically obtain albums as a whole, but I buy them online (as a collection of mp3's). Does that end up being called an album purchase or a collection of single purchases?

An album purchase is categorized as someone purchasing the entire album available.

So for example, I go to Amazon.com (my preferred digital downloading source due to their bit rate encoding and codec), click on "Slash" and purchase the entire release at once.

If I were to pick and choose a songs from that album without purchasing the entire record, it would not count as an album purchase. Singles only.

For the record, singles drove the record business for years in the form of 45's, 78's and cassettes. But those sales didn't necessarily reflect the long-term sustainability of such artists as the Eagles, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, et al.

CrazyPhuD
02-04-2011, 04:48 PM
Country is generally comprised of pretty faces that can sing, backed by world class studio musicians, producers and composers. It's rare that a country artist actually composes their hit songs and you're right, they have a built-in audience.

The problem with today's rock scene is that with the lack of album sales due to illegal downloading, brand new bands must sell a ridiculous amount units with their debut record, or they face being dropped from the label altogether. Bands aren't allowed to grow and find an audience and instead, it's the other way around: Bands are "created" to fulfill a certain audience, whether it's the 10-13, 14-18, or 18-22 crowd.

It's very unnatural and is the primary reason why there are no rock artist from the past decade that will be around for the next several decades. It's brutal.

This is one of the interesting trends in television that I find worrisome. Seinfeld is the quoted classic example. They ended up being one of the most successful shows around but for the first I think 4 years they had problems drawing an audience. When they caught on, they caught on big. From what I've read, the Seinfeld experience is unlikely to be reproduced today because there is a much bigger push in TV to be profitable now. They simply can't afford to let shows develop anymore.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 04:53 PM
This is one of the interesting trends in television that I find worrisome. Seinfeld is the quoted classic example. They ended up being one of the most successful shows around but for the first I think 4 years they had problems drawing an audience. When they caught on, they caught on big. From what I've read, the Seinfeld experience is unlikely to be reproduced today because there is a much bigger push in TV to be profitable now. They simply can't afford to let shows develop anymore.

Yes but fortunately, there are other avenues that exist.

For example, there are several TV shows on networks like FX, USA, A&E and even Direct TV's 101 that have shows that would have failed spectacularly on network television, yet flourish on the non-premium cable channels.

While I agree somewhat with the notion that some shows aren't given the room to develop and grow, it also make decision to green-light shows that will find an audience quickly, so that the characters can develop and grow, all the more important given today's climate.

It's definitely a balancing act, which is why network execs make the big bucks.

acesn8s
02-04-2011, 04:53 PM
EVERYTHING IS SO EXPENSIVE!

Why is the author comparing a product that was new and cutting edge technology to today's version of the same thing? Wouldn't the comparison be to today's new products? A new computer in the early 80s was more expensive than today's PCs with less performance but still more expensive than the 1950s refrigerator. What car was $500 in 1950? A 1950 Chrysler Town & Country Wagon cost $2,340 while a 2011 Chrysler Town & Country Minivan starts at $30,160. Additionally, almost half of the families took home between $4,000 and $7,500 unlike the $2,600 the author is claiming.

PEOPLE ARE GETTING STUPIDER!

IQ has nothing to do with your ability to read. An IQ test will never test a person's ability to read or comprehend because of the multitude of different languages. I cannot read Chinese but it does not mean that I have a lower IQ when I go to China. Additionally, graduation rates has nothing to do with IQ; it has everything to do with the amount of money from the federal government. A person can have a high IQ but stupid as hell (just go to D.C. forum for proof).

"All This Processed Food Is Killing Us."

The refridgerator was not a recent invention in the 1950s. It was invented in 1876. 80% of the homes in 1955 had them. All those great preservatives the author was applauding are made from some form of salt, which raises blood pressure and risk of heart attacks. Additionally, the convenience of such foods has been linked to obseity. Old time family meals were traditionally NOT from prepackaged meals as the author attempts to claim.

"Crime Is Out of Control."

Crime generally stays around 12%. 12% of the population commit crimes but not all crime is reported/calculated. Police officers commit crimes but the good ole boy network keeps bad cops from being convicted. Charges are routinely pled down to lesser crimes to ensure conviction. Crime isn't lower, we just have better lawyers.

"Today's Music Is All Derivative Trash."

Comparing pop to rock is like comparing rap to country. The best music stands the test of time. Pop is known as pop because it is designed to rise in the charts and "pop" like a balloon. Pop charts do not reflect the best music of that time. In the mid 80s many of us listened to Seek and Destroy but you won't find it on any pop charts. In fact, the band who recorded the song didn't hit the top 10 charts til years later.

RJ
02-04-2011, 07:59 PM
Bullshit. Stupid people are just as stupid as they ever were only now there are more of them. Just for fun, try counting how many you have contact with on any given day.

-King-
02-04-2011, 08:06 PM
Jesus fuck is there any reason you chose that size font aces?

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:23 PM
****, I just found out that all of the bands I love were Indie.


If PJ, Alice and Chains, Crows, and Mazzy are Indie, I am a fan.

No, not at all.

AIC was signed to CBS/Columbia. They didn't know how to market them and at first, tried to market them as a "College Band". That didn't work, so they tried them as a rock band and put them on the road with Extreme (of all bands). They sold about 500,000 records of their debut album.

Between the time of their first record and their second, Nirvana exploded onto the scene, shortly followed by Pearl Jam. Temple of the Dog (which was recorded a years earlier) hit the radio waves because it included Cornell and Vedder. By the time "Dirt" came out, the music public was ready for anything and everything that Seattle had to offer, and they sold records hand over fist (and deservedly so. That record is a classic).

PJ Harvey had been around forever and signed to Island Records. Mazzy Star was a major label band signed to Capitol.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 10:26 PM
AIC was so much better than Nirvana it makes me ill to see who history regards as the better band.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:28 PM
AIC was so much better than Nirvana it makes me ill to see who history regards as the better band.

Dave Grohl is about 1,000,000 more times talented that Kurt Cobain that it's ludicrous to even compare the two.

And for my money, no album from the 90's can match the passion, desperation, emotion and rage of "Dirt".

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 10:32 PM
Dave Grohl is about 1,000,000 more times talented that Kurt Cobain that it's ludicrous to even compare the two.

And for my money, no album from the 90's can match the passion, desperation, emotion and rage of "Dirt".

1. Dirt
2. Ten

Or something like that :)

Miles
02-04-2011, 10:33 PM
AIC was so much better than Nirvana it makes me ill to see who history regards as the better band.

I share this unpopular opinion as well. Usually doesn't go well with others when the topic of the early 90's Seattle bands crops up, which occurred far more 5-10 years ago than now.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:34 PM
1. Dirt
2. Ten

Or something like that :)

I vacillate between "Ten" and "Temple of the Dog" as my second favorite records of the 90's.

Cornell was bleeding when he wrote that record. He'd just lost his best friend and roommate and there's just so much emotion, not to mention amazing performances from the guys that would later become Pearl Jam.

Miles
02-04-2011, 10:38 PM
It has been a long time since I have revisited Temple of the Dog and might need to. Didn't care much for it in the 90's for some reason but my tastes have changed a hell of a lot since then.

KcMizzou
02-04-2011, 10:43 PM
Dave Grohl is about 1,000,000 more times talented that Kurt Cobain that it's ludicrous to even compare the two.

And for my money, no album from the 90's can match the passion, desperation, emotion and rage of "Dirt".I LOVED Nirvana, and I agree.

morphius
02-04-2011, 10:45 PM
1. Dirt
2. Ten

Or something like that :)
And sadly

Ten > Go-Go's > Anything else that Perl Jam made

:D

morphius
still listen to Dirt on occasion, good stuff.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 10:47 PM
And sadly

Ten > Go-Go's > Anything else that Perl Jam made

:D

morphius
still listen to Dirt on occasion, good stuff.

There isn't a single Pearl Jam song I like that isn't on that album.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 10:48 PM
I vacillate between "Ten" and "Temple of the Dog" as my second favorite records of the 90's.

Cornell was bleeding when he wrote that record. He'd just lost his best friend and roommate and there's just so much emotion, not to mention amazing performances from the guys that would later become Pearl Jam.

You know who was a great band who was tragically cut short?

Mother Love Bone.

Miles
02-04-2011, 10:52 PM
There isn't a single Pearl Jam song I like that isn't on that album.

Rearview Mirror is pretty solid. Can't think another band that broke out with such an epic album and then put out largely mediocre stuff for a long ass time while still retaining general respect.

KcMizzou
02-04-2011, 10:52 PM
Grohl's pretty good for a drummer.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:52 PM
You know who was a great band who was tragically cut short?

Mother Love Bone.

Most definitely. Stone & Jeff were in that band. Andrew Wood was Cornell's roommate and he died the day of that album release of a heroin overdose, which is what "Temple of the Dog" is all about, especially "Say Hello to Heaven".

Polygram records was so enamored of Andrew Wood that they created a new label for him called Stardog Records. The band "Ugly Kid Joe" was the first band signed to Stardog.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 10:53 PM
Stardog for "Stardog Champion" I'm betting, right?

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:54 PM
Grohl's pretty good for a drummer.

LMAO

Dave is THE best rock drummer in the world, bar none. Besides that, he's an awesome multi-instrumentalist (guitar, bass and piano) and his vocal abilities have skyrocketed over the years to the point where he's one of THE best rock vocalists in the world.

The dude is a fucking rock god.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:54 PM
Stardog for "Stardog Champion" I'm betting, right?

Cornell gave Andy Wood the nickname, "Star Dog" and that took on its own life.

Miles
02-04-2011, 10:55 PM
You know who was a great band who was tragically cut short?

Mother Love Bone.

I bought that album once in the early 90's and still wouldn't mind my money back.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 10:55 PM
I bought that album once in the early 90's and still wouldn't mind my money back.

LMAO...Apple?

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-04-2011, 10:57 PM
LMAO

Dave is THE best rock drummer in the world, bar none. Besides that, he's an awesome multi-instrumentalist (guitar, bass and piano) and his vocal abilities have skyrocketed over the years to the point where he's one of THE best rock vocalists in the world.

The dude is a fucking rock god.

What do you think of Mike Patton?

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 10:58 PM
I saw Pearl Jam in late 2009 at the Gibson Amphitheater and was absolutely blown fucking away.

Not only have they matured as human beings and musicians since their debut record, they are absolutely phenomenal as performers, especially Eddie Vedder. He was nothing short of amazing.

Of course, it didn't hurt that Cornell came out for an encore and sang "Hunger Strike" and "Say Hello To Heaven".

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 11:00 PM
I saw Pearl Jam in late 2009 at the Gibson Amphitheater and was absolutely blown ****ing away.

Not only have they matured as human beings and musicians since their debut record, they are absolutely phenomenal as performers, especially Eddie Vedder. He was nothing short of amazing.

Of course, it didn't hurt that Cornell came out for an encore and sang "Hunger Strike" and "Say Hello To Heaven".

You love the 90's like I love the 80's Hair Bands...

Miles
02-04-2011, 11:01 PM
LMAO...Apple?

Probably it. Unfortunately, I am revisiting via youtube at the moment. Were they really around before the other Seattle bands and credited for some of the sound or just friends/influences on the latter movement?

KcMizzou
02-04-2011, 11:01 PM
LMAO

Dave is THE best rock drummer in the world, bar none. Besides that, he's an awesome multi-instrumentalist (guitar, bass and piano) and his vocal abilities have skyrocketed over the years to the point where he's one of THE best rock vocalists in the world.

The dude is a ****ing rock god.:D

Agreed.

I'm a fan.

Miles
02-04-2011, 11:04 PM
These Mother Love Bone vids on youtube sound like 80's hair bands and Seattle bands fucked and maybe produced a generaic and bad version of Tesla.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:05 PM
What do you think of Mike Patton?

Well, it's difficult to describe.

On one hand (admittedly, the quite obvious hand), the guy was pure genius for a short period of time. I was living in the Bay area shortly after their breakout but oddly enough, there was very little buzz about that band and they were pretty much no where to be found.

I think the guy is incredibly talented but his musical interests went so far outside the mainstream that he literally fell off the map. I know he's scoring from time to time but that's about it.

I have to admit, I loved, loved, loved "The Real Thing" and it's a shame the band fell apart because they had something really special, IMO.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:05 PM
These Mother Love Bone vids on youtube sound like 80's hair bands and Seattle bands fucked and maybe produced a generaic and bad version of Tesla.

Go find the video for Chloe, then report back.

What was ultimately compiled and released AFTER the Seattle explosion wasn't what was intended to be the initial release.

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 11:05 PM
These Mother Love Bone vids on youtube sound like 80's hair bands and Seattle bands ****ed and maybe produced a generaic and bad version of Tesla.

Tesla was an ok band until I saw them live... Pretty solid actually...

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 11:11 PM
How many remember the original days of MTV's Headbangers Ball?

IF I remember right it came on on Friday nights? I remember all my friends coming over and staying the night as we set the VCR to record the whole show....

We were such dorks...

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:13 PM
You love the 90's like I love the 80's Hair Bands...

Actually, there are only a few artists that I like from the 90's. The overwhelming majority of releases are filled with of fluff worthy of 80's hair bands.

AIC
Temple of the Dog
"Ten" by Pearl Jam
The first two AIC records (plus SAP)
Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
STP
Failure
Filter
NIN
Foo Fighters
White Zombie
Smashing Pumpkins

That's pretty much it. On the whole, the 90's blew chunks, IMO, for album artists.

DaneMcCloud
02-04-2011, 11:13 PM
We were such dorks...

"Were"?

Miles
02-04-2011, 11:17 PM
How many remember the original days of MTV's Headbangers Ball?

IF I remember right it came on on Friday nights? I remember all my friends coming over and staying the night as we set the VCR to record the whole show....

We were such dorks...

Yeah Riki Rachtman used have some saying one foot in the gutter... Remember really digging that show for a short period in the early 90's.

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 11:20 PM
Actually, there are only a few artists that I like from the 90's. The overwhelming majority of releases are filled with of fluff worthy of 80's hair bands.

AIC
Temple of the Dog
"Ten" by Pearl Jam
The first two AIC records (plus SAP)
Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
STP
Failure
Filter
NIN
Foo Fighters
White Zombie
Smashing Pumpkins

That's pretty much it. On the whole, the 90's blew chunks, IMO, for album artists.

The dude from Smashing Pumpkins always creeped me out...

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 11:21 PM
"Were"?:thumb:

KcMizzou
02-04-2011, 11:22 PM
This thread has gone off the rails... but it's still interesting.

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 11:24 PM
Yeah Riki Rachtman used have some saying one foot in the gutter... Remember really digging that show for a short period in the early 90's.

I remember how we all drooled over Lita Ford...

We saw her in concert the summer of 09.... I was 36 and I still drooled like a 13 year old in 1986....

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 11:26 PM
This thread has gone off the rails... but it's still interesting.

Would you expect anything less on CP? This what makes this place the best...

Miles
02-04-2011, 11:26 PM
Go find the video for Chloe, then report back.


Definitely better than anything I remembered from them but still not understanding the praise.

Miles
02-04-2011, 11:28 PM
I remember how we all drooled over Lita Ford...

We saw her in concert the summer of 09.... I was 36 and I still drooled like a 13 year old in 1986....

I only know her from the song she had with Ozzy.

Miles
02-04-2011, 11:31 PM
Actually, there are only a few artists that I like from the 90's. The overwhelming majority of releases are filled with of fluff worthy of 80's hair bands.

AIC
Temple of the Dog
"Ten" by Pearl Jam
The first two AIC records (plus SAP)
Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
STP
Failure
Filter
NIN
Foo Fighters
White Zombie
Smashing Pumpkins

That's pretty much it. On the whole, the 90's blew chunks, IMO, for album artists.

Would probably agree with the general take on the 90's but no Radiohead?

Buehler445
02-04-2011, 11:40 PM
A lot of that is bullshit, loochy.

Your average steak has six times the amount of saturated fat in it now as opposed to the past because of the way our modern production techniques (corporate farming) raise the cows on a diet of corn rather than natural grasses. That's not to mention the antibiotics they put in those cows in order to prevent disease spread and acidosis, which also contributes to resistant bacteria.

There is an option. You can purchase naturally raised, organic, grassfed beef. Nobody is stopping you.

However, I would absolutely LOVE to hear your plan to produce enough beef to feed the county on fucking grass. It absolutely would not happen. Especially if you put chickens and hogs out on grass too. Even if you cleared off all the natural reserves, parks, CRP, walk in hunting areas, and every non-cropped acre, you would still not have enough grass. There are about half a million cows in Scott County Kansas and it takes 12 acres of grass per animal just to hold their weight. I don't know what it would take to fatten them. That's 6 Million acres. Lane has about as many cows. Finney, and Wichita counties have even more than Scott.

The short answer is no feasible way. So the alternative is to import it. Comparable feedlots overseas do not produce the quality of beef American ones do.

Cows have been fed corn for fucking ever. Feedlots in this area have been around since the 1930s and have been feeding corn or sorghum the entire time.

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 11:41 PM
There is an option. You can purchase naturally raised, organic, grassfed beef. Nobody is stopping you.

However, I would absolutely LOVE to hear your plan to produce enough beef to feed the county on ****ing grass. It absolutely would not happen. Especially if you put chickens and hogs out on grass too. Even if you cleared off all the natural reserves, parks, CRP, walk in hunting areas, and every non-cropped acre, you would still not have enough grass. There are about half a million cows in Scott County Kansas and it takes 12 acres of grass per animal just to hold their weight. I don't know what it would take to fatten them. That's 6 Million acres. Lane has about as many cows. Finney, and Wichita counties have even more than Scott.

The short answer is no feasible way. So the alternative is to import it. Comparable feedlots overseas do not produce the quality of beef American ones do.

Cows have been fed corn for ****ing ever. Feedlots in this area have been around since the 1930s and have been feeding corn or sorghum the entire time.

Did you just hit us with some knowledge?

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 12:29 AM
There is an option. You can purchase naturally raised, organic, grassfed beef. Nobody is stopping you.

However, I would absolutely LOVE to hear your plan to produce enough beef to feed the county on ****ing grass. It absolutely would not happen. Especially if you put chickens and hogs out on grass too. Even if you cleared off all the natural reserves, parks, CRP, walk in hunting areas, and every non-cropped acre, you would still not have enough grass. There are about half a million cows in Scott County Kansas and it takes 12 acres of grass per animal just to hold their weight. I don't know what it would take to fatten them. That's 6 Million acres. Lane has about as many cows. Finney, and Wichita counties have even more than Scott.

The short answer is no feasible way. So the alternative is to import it. Comparable feedlots overseas do not produce the quality of beef American ones do.

Cows have been fed corn for ****ing ever. Feedlots in this area have been around since the 1930s and have been feeding corn or sorghum the entire time.

Understandable that there's only so many ways you can affect the food supply. What is embarrassing, shameless, and disgusting, is the way that we manipulate people into thinking that disgusting food is okay.

In my opinion, food has become increasingly unhealthy because the FDA has utterly failed to educate consumers about what they are putting into their bodies. And also because we scrapped home ec. classes and nobody has any idea how to cook a healthy meal of their own. Because we have no idea how to make good meals for ourselves or don't realize that our Panera sandwich is actually a butter sandwich, we are reliant on processed food and fast food. And processed food and fast food are incentivized to load their food with salt and sugar and all kinds of additives to make it taste better and so you'll want to buy it again.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-05-2011, 12:41 AM
There is an option. You can purchase naturally raised, organic, grassfed beef. Nobody is stopping you.

However, I would absolutely LOVE to hear your plan to produce enough beef to feed the county on ****ing grass. It absolutely would not happen. Especially if you put chickens and hogs out on grass too. Even if you cleared off all the natural reserves, parks, CRP, walk in hunting areas, and every non-cropped acre, you would still not have enough grass. There are about half a million cows in Scott County Kansas and it takes 12 acres of grass per animal just to hold their weight. I don't know what it would take to fatten them. That's 6 Million acres. Lane has about as many cows. Finney, and Wichita counties have even more than Scott.

The short answer is no feasible way. So the alternative is to import it. Comparable feedlots overseas do not produce the quality of beef American ones do.

Cows have been fed corn for ****ing ever. Feedlots in this area have been around since the 1930s and have been feeding corn or sorghum the entire time.

In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, you are starting from an illogical premise, and moving perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion.

1) No one said that you needed that many cows. One of the reasons why we are so unhealthy is because we eat so much meat. That obviates the need for so much grassland as well

2) Our beef consumption has actually decreased since the 1970s, while our use of corn has increased greatly. If we were eating more beef when using less corn (both as sweetener and feed), then it stands to reason that the Beef raised in a US with less corn seemed to do so quite fine.

3) The use of so much corn as feed has caused us to use 2/3 of our antibiotics on the livestock cattle supply, rather than human beings, which has greatly increased the amount of MRSA in our society.

4) Current cows aren't just growing on nothing but corn, anyway. They are loaded to the gills with growth hormones and other steroids.

5) If cows were fed corn for fucking ever, their stomachs wouldn't be evolutionary un-equipped to handle the corn, which sends them into acidotic states. Incidentally, acidic states in the GI tract are favorable for the growth of E. coli

6) Due to the nature of corn feed, and how it is produced (through fertilization, transportation, etc.), it takes over 275 gallons of oil to grow a corn-fed cow


But let's get back to 1). Neither grass-fed beef, nor corn-fed beef are sustainable, but for different reasons. With that being the case, why are both integral to our existence? We eat 80% more meat than we did in the 1950s, and we eat 1/3 more than Canadians, who don't exactly seem to be a bunch of Starvin Marvins.

CrazyPhuD
02-05-2011, 01:23 AM
There is an option. You can purchase naturally raised, organic, grassfed beef. Nobody is stopping you.

However, I would absolutely LOVE to hear your plan to produce enough beef to feed the county on fucking grass. It absolutely would not happen. Especially if you put chickens and hogs out on grass too. Even if you cleared off all the natural reserves, parks, CRP, walk in hunting areas, and every non-cropped acre, you would still not have enough grass. There are about half a million cows in Scott County Kansas and it takes 12 acres of grass per animal just to hold their weight. I don't know what it would take to fatten them. That's 6 Million acres. Lane has about as many cows. Finney, and Wichita counties have even more than Scott.

The short answer is no feasible way. So the alternative is to import it. Comparable feedlots overseas do not produce the quality of beef American ones do.

Cows have been fed corn for fucking ever. Feedlots in this area have been around since the 1930s and have been feeding corn or sorghum the entire time.

Damn man I never thought about infusing my beef with weed like this. Fuck brownies, I'm making organic pot steaks!PBJ

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 05:32 AM
One of the reasons why we are so unhealthy is because we eat so much meat.

Wrong.

Carbs are the devil in the modern American diet.

Everything we eat is loaded with carbs and sugar and HFCS.

There are societies that eat almost nothing but meat and they are all the picture of health.

http://www.suite101.com/content/high-carbohydrate-diet-may-be-cause-of-american-obesity-epidemic-a332755

notorious
02-05-2011, 06:12 AM
No, not at all.

AIC was signed to CBS/Columbia. They didn't know how to market them and at first, tried to market them as a "College Band". That didn't work, so they tried them as a rock band and put them on the road with Extreme (of all bands). They sold about 500,000 records of their debut album.

Between the time of their first record and their second, Nirvana exploded onto the scene, shortly followed by Pearl Jam. Temple of the Dog (which was recorded a years earlier) hit the radio waves because it included Cornell and Vedder. By the time "Dirt" came out, the music public was ready for anything and everything that Seattle had to offer, and they sold records hand over fist (and deservedly so. That record is a classic).

PJ Harvey had been around forever and signed to Island Records. Mazzy Star was a major label band signed to Capitol.


Thanks Dane, I guess I don't support the little guy after all. :(

Mainstream is in my bloodstream. :D

notorious
02-05-2011, 06:21 AM
Actually, there are only a few artists that I like from the 90's. The overwhelming majority of releases are filled with of fluff worthy of 80's hair bands.

AIC
Temple of the Dog
"Ten" by Pearl Jam
The first two AIC records (plus SAP)
Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
STP
Failure
Filter
NIN
Foo Fighters
White Zombie
Smashing Pumpkins

That's pretty much it. On the whole, the 90's blew chunks, IMO, for album artists.

JFC

This was pretty much our playlist at all of the college parties we hosted.

Throw in a little Incubus, Lit, and Fuel near the end.

Incubus, Foo Fighters, and AIC acoustic for the ultimate win.

notorious
02-05-2011, 06:22 AM
Would probably agree with the general take on the 90's but no Radiohead?

They had a couple of good ones for the mainstream listener, but I like most people did not go insane for them.

Baby Lee
02-05-2011, 06:31 AM
You know who was a great band who was tragically cut short?

Mother Love Bone.

THAT's the band I was trying to think of. Disagree, loved Temple of the Dog, Ten, and Mudhoney [now they were tragically cut short], so I picked up MLB sight unseen. Tried and failed to bridge the gap between grunge and hair metal, or was still stuck in hair metal while grunge was still incubating.

Baby Lee
02-05-2011, 06:43 AM
Actually, there are only a few artists that I like from the 90's. The overwhelming majority of releases are filled with of fluff worthy of 80's hair bands.

AIC
Temple of the Dog
"Ten" by Pearl Jam
The first two AIC records (plus SAP)
Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
STP
Failure
Filter
NIN
Foo Fighters
White Zombie
Smashing Pumpkins

That's pretty much it. On the whole, the 90's blew chunks, IMO, for album artists.

I'd add

Black Crows
Jane's Addiction
The Pixies
Toy Matinee
Pulp
Beck
Weezer
Radiohead
Cake
The Prodigy
Everclear
Kid Rock [squeaks in debuting in 98]

Iowanian
02-05-2011, 07:28 AM
If someone knew shit from shinola, they'd know that cattle raised on grass have a very slow rate of gain and aren't very profitable, and then don't discount the fact that cattle finished without grain don't have enough marbling(which is graded by USDA) is too lean and tastes like boiled ass.

You can have all of the grass fed beef you want....keep it.

Saul Good
02-05-2011, 08:47 AM
I've never really understood the bias against bands that "made it". Of course, considering that I've heard that the record labels have a 90% failure rate on artists they sign doesn't really say much for their business model or their taste in music...

The failure rate means nothing until compared to the rate of return on successes. If it pays 100:1 when you hit, a 90% failure rate likely means that you aren't missing often enough.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 08:54 AM
If someone knew shit from shinola, they'd know that cattle raised on grass have a very slow rate of gain and aren't very profitable, and then don't discount the fact that cattle finished without grain don't have enough marbling(which is graded by USDA) is too lean and tastes like boiled ass.

You can have all of the grass fed beef you want....keep it.

lol

fuckin libs

Jenson71
02-05-2011, 10:31 AM
If someone knew shit from shinola, they'd know that cattle raised on grass have a very slow rate of gain and aren't very profitable, and then don't discount the fact that cattle finished without grain don't have enough marbling(which is graded by USDA) is too lean and tastes like boiled ass.

You can have all of the grass fed beef you want....keep it.

I think a lot of people know that, and they know that it's not as healthy for you.

And the cows love the corn. Give a cow corn, and it's like giving a kid candy. But regular candy feeding to kids ends up with an unhealthy kid. And then when you eat that kid, you're doing bad to yourself.

It's quicker, it tastes better, but it's not as good for you.

Brock
02-05-2011, 10:41 AM
They'll be manufacturing meat soon without having to feed a single cow anyway.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 11:11 AM
The music industry will be interesting to watch. The industry, like network TV, is still run by grandpas collecting fat checks who still insist that the music industry should be run on an outdated business model. It's embarrassing. Worse, in the 80's/90's mainstream radio, DJs had liberty to set playlists. Now because they're all run by Clear Channel, they all play from the same list. So the few hundred that make the list make a shitload of money, and everyone else is completely squeezed out. Without knowing, I bet that the failure rate is far higher today than it was in the 90's for that reason. Yes, if you want to be a multi-millionaire, mainstream labels can get more bands there. But whereas indie labels will make you a struggling artist, mainstream labels will put over 90% of bands in absolute debt and slaves to the record label for years. That's one great thing about indie music--it does enough to allow indie bands to live a moneyless lifestyle, but it's not going to put them in nearly the kind of debt a failing major artist would incur. That's why so many indie artists are sticking around and pumping out albums 10 years later. A lot of them do it for love of music and are okay with not making mega-millions.

Dane, I disagree that indie labels are flopping. They're gaining steam, whereas major labels are losing steam, because they embrace innovation. They're working social media a hell of a lot better than mainstream. They're getting people to listen to music on Pandora and youtube and Sirius. Most indie bands don't make money on mp3 sales anyway. They make money by touring. So they're getting really creative about how they make their music spread virally. Radiohead offered "In Rainbows" for free. Indie bands are selling their albums on Amazon for $3. Most importantly, they're starting to cut out the expensive middlemen. Tech improvements allow more bands to do a lot of their own production--big cost cut there. A lot of bands are starting to own their tracks. Great example is The Arcade Fire--They own their music, but license it to a record label. By the way, their album hit #1 and they sold out Madison Square Garden almost the instant the tickets went on sale.

Indie rock will continue to have starving artists who are comfortable being that way. But be on the lookout for a lot more smart indie artists to find huge marketability despite no mainstream play in the way Arcade Fire and Radiohead did. The way indie rock is creatively promoting music, that's much more indicative of where music is going, not mainstream.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 11:40 AM
The music industry will be interesting to watch. The industry, like network TV, is still run by grandpas collecting fat checks who still insist that the music industry should be run on an outdated business model. It's embarrassing. Worse, in the 80's/90's mainstream radio, DJs had liberty to set playlists. Now because they're all run by Clear Channel, they all play from the same list. So the few hundred that make the list make a shitload of money, and everyone else is completely squeezed out. Without knowing, I bet that the failure rate is far higher today than it was in the 90's for that reason. Yes, if you want to be a multi-millionaire, mainstream labels can get more bands there. But whereas indie labels will make you a struggling artist, mainstream labels will put over 90% of bands in absolute debt and slaves to the record label for years. That's one great thing about indie music--it does enough to allow indie bands to live a moneyless lifestyle, but it's not going to put them in nearly the kind of debt a failing major artist would incur. That's why so many indie artists are sticking around and pumping out albums 10 years later. A lot of them do it for love of music and are okay with not making mega-millions.

Dane, I disagree that indie labels are flopping. They're gaining steam, whereas major labels are losing steam, because they embrace innovation. They're working social media a hell of a lot better than mainstream. They're getting people to listen to music on Pandora and youtube and Sirius. Most indie bands don't make money on mp3 sales anyway. They make money by touring. So they're getting really creative about how they make their music spread virally. Radiohead offered "In Rainbows" for free. Indie bands are selling their albums on Amazon for $3. Most importantly, they're starting to cut out the expensive middlemen. Tech improvements allow more bands to do a lot of their own production--big cost cut there. A lot of bands are starting to own their tracks. Great example is The Arcade Fire--They own their music, but license it to a record label. By the way, their album hit #1 and they sold out Madison Square Garden almost the instant the tickets went on sale.

Indie rock will continue to have starving artists who are comfortable being that way. But be on the lookout for a lot more smart indie artists to find huge marketability despite no mainstream play in the way Arcade Fire and Radiohead did. The way indie rock is creatively promoting music, that's much more indicative of where music is going, not mainstream.

I don't have time to address this batch of nonsense because we're getting ready to step out for the day but clearly, you do not work in the music business in any capacity, nor are you familiar with the true economics of record and music publishing companies.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 12:17 PM
I don't have time to address this batch of nonsense because we're getting ready to step out for the day but clearly, you do not work in the music business in any capacity, nor are you familiar with the true economics of record and music publishing companies.

Dane, you said so yourself that the music industry is pumping shit out their labels on a daily basis. We all know the failure rate for major label artists is ridiculously high and a lot of that is due to the enormous amount of middle-man costs. We all have seen that the music industry has been ridiculously slow to adapt to the new media world. I don't know the industry. I'm just analyzing it from the outside, just as anyone would criticize my inefficiently run company, so I know I'm wrong on several points. But the fact that record labels are losing more and more money and that they fail to pump out good music anymore, doesn't that indicate that those in the know don't really know either?

From what I see from the outside, the new media world is squeezing labels thinner with freely shared music and cheap downloads. They seem to devote so much energy to fighting it instead of figuring out how to work with it. I'm just pointing out that there are bands that seem to be finding ways to innovate around the traditional system? As a business strategist, I am intrigued by disruption. Netflix and Geico were both industry disrupters. I just feel like it's only a matter of time before somebody figures it out in music too. I'll be curious to hear where I'm wrong later.

Brock
02-05-2011, 12:20 PM
I think you can sum up what's wrong with the music business today pretty simply. They don't have the money they used to. That's a dumb outsider's opinion, but I'm pretty sure it's right, if too simplified.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 12:27 PM
I think you can sum up what's wrong with the music business today pretty simply. They don't have the money they used to. That's a dumb outsider's opinion, but I'm pretty sure it's right, if too simplified.

Again from a dumb outsider, I'm betting you're right. But my dumb outsider feeling also leads me to believe that there are ways to make more money within that system if the major players would embrace the change instead of resisting it.

I'll be interested to hear Dane's view as an insider about not what's wrong with the industry, but where is the opportunity for it to bounce back in this whole new media world. And I'm completely asking that from the standpoint of a curious dumb insider who finds the industry interesting.

Brock
02-05-2011, 12:29 PM
Really, the biggest problem is that rock music has been done to death. Everything that can be done has already been done better by somebody else.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 02:40 PM
Really, the biggest problem is that rock music has been done to death. Everything that can be done has already been done better by somebody else.

I don't think that's true. It's not for everybody, but there are a million and a half different genres of indie music (which is part of the reason why it struggles some). Some of it is poppy and similar to stuff we've all heard before. But there are also a lot of bands like The Arcade Fire and Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes that are mixing a lot of instruments together in a really interesting way, Radiohead started a trend of mixing in an electronic sound into their music that lots of other bands have followed, lots of bands that are starting to play retro type music in a new and interesting way. Indie rock today has a ton of genres that are really different from anything we've ever heard before. The problem is that these genres are so niche that certain people prefer certain genres and some people flat out hate it.

Buehler445
02-05-2011, 02:57 PM
In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, you are starting from an illogical premise, and moving perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion.

At least I have a fucking premise. You are just spewing bullshit points. So what is your plan to feed the world with grass fed cows? Is your plan to just force American cattlemen to raise grassfed beef? OK. We'll just import it from Argentina or Austrailia, maybe Canada. So then do you want to disallow beef imports? That's cool man. We'll just have beef that costs about 1000X more than any other country. And then we won't have enough. You can argue that we'll take some cropland to grass, but it wouldn't ever even get close to national demand. Typically when one of the proteins gets high priced, Americans go to the other two, but I'm assuming you want to do the same to pork and poultry. Oh. Good luck keeping fucking chickens alive on open grass.



1) No one said that you needed that many cows. One of the reasons why we are so unhealthy is because we eat so much meat. That obviates the need for so much grassland as well
What on earth are you talking about? If we didn't need it we wouldn't be able to sell it. The other alternative is making it cost prohibitive, but again I'm assuming you want to do it to pork and poultry too. So you want to completely eliminate protein from peoples diets? Or do you want to get it through soy meal? Maybe we can just feed the people who can't afford steaks DDGs. Oh yeah you don't like corn. So what's your master plan?


2) Our beef consumption has actually decreased since the 1970s, while our use of corn has increased greatly. If we were eating more bbeef when using less corn (both as sweetener and feed), then it stands to reason that the Beef raised in a US with less corn seemed to do so quite fine.


Unequivocally incorrect. You can't grow cows without corn. And demand has come from areas other than cows.

3) The use of so much corn as feed has caused us to use 2/3 of our antibiotics on the livestock cattle supply, rather than human beings, which has greatly increased the amount of MRSA in our society.
What does that have to do with anything? Feedlots are bad. MMMKay. Until you give me some sort of feasible plan to get rid of feedlots this is pointless.

4) Current cows aren't just growing on nothing but corn, anyway. They are loaded to the gills with growth hormones and other steroids.No shit they eat stuff other than corn. But most of it is silage, hay, and protein. If you want to cut out growth hormones and steroids, go ahead. But to say they're packed to the gills is assenine. They don't do a lot anyway. Most feedlots have lots of pens of natural cows and the performance isn't that much different.

5) If cows were fed corn for fucking ever, their stomachs wouldn't be evolutionary un-equipped to handle the corn, which sends them into acidotic states. Incidentally, acidic states in the GI tract are favorable for the growth of E. coli

Are you refuting the fact that corn has been fed to cows forever? Well, that's why they mix forage into the ration with some silage and hay. They vary it based on the needs of the cow to optomize cost of gain. They don't just feed them corn. I'm really sorry if you thought that was the case.

Just like they've been doing for fucking ever. What do you think feedlots fed the cows in the "glory days" that you think we should go back to (I'm assuming. Since you still haven't said what we should do).

6) Due to the nature of corn feed, and how it is produced (through fertilization, transportation, etc.), it takes over 275 gallons of oil to grow a corn-fed cow

LOL. United States is the most efficient producer of all agricultural products and it isn't close. Argentina and Brazil use the same fucking fertilizers we do and still feed their cows corn (sometimes with corn they imported from us) and they have a shitterrible infrastructure.

Again, what do you suggest we do?

But let's get back to 1). Neither grass-fed beef, nor corn-fed beef are sustainable, but for different reasons. With that being the case, why are both integral to our existence? We eat 80% more meat than we did in the 1950s, and we eat 1/3 more than Canadians, who don't exactly seem to be a bunch of Starvin Marvins.
Again, what the fuck do you suggest we do? Starve people? The people that can afford it will continue to eat it and the poor people that can't will get none. Just because you think we eat too much doesn't mean we should abandon feedlots and go to grassfed cows.

And I thought you said beef consumption has fallen since the 70s? Sounds like some fuzzy math.

So if grassfed and cornfed cows aren't feasible, what is feasible? What's your master plan? Hamas, I like the shit out of you, but unless you have a feasible alternative, I have a really hard time accepting any of your criticism of the current system.
Posted via Mobile Device

Baby Lee
02-05-2011, 03:05 PM
Again, what the fuck do you suggest we do? Starve people?
Ahem, I, uh, think Mr. Obama pretty much nailed it when he hinted at a massive initiative to lower the cost of arugula at Whole Foods.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 03:15 PM
At least I have a ****ing premise. You are just spewing bullshit points. So what is your plan to feed the world with grass fed cows? Is your plan to just force American cattlemen to raise grassfed beef? OK. We'll just import it from Argentina or Austrailia, maybe Canada. So then do you want to disallow beef imports? That's cool man. We'll just have beef that costs about 1000X more than any other country. And then we won't have enough. You can argue that we'll take some cropland to grass, but it wouldn't ever even get close to national demand. Typically when one of the proteins gets high priced, Americans go to the other two, but I'm assuming you want to do the same to pork and poultry. Oh. Good luck keeping ****ing chickens alive on open grass.



What on earth are you talking about? If we didn't need it we wouldn't be able to sell it. The other alternative is making it cost prohibitive, but again I'm assuming you want to do it to pork and poultry too. So you want to completely eliminate protein from peoples diets? Or do you want to get it through soy meal? Maybe we can just feed the people who can't afford steaks DDGs. Oh yeah you don't like corn. So what's your master plan?




Unequivocally incorrect. You can't grow cows without corn. And demand has come from areas other than cows.


What does that have to do with anything? Feedlots are bad. MMMKay. Until you give me some sort of feasible plan to get rid of feedlots this is pointless.

No shit they eat stuff other than corn. But most of it is silage, hay, and protein. If you want to cut out growth hormones and steroids, go ahead. But to say they're packed to the gills is assenine. They don't do a lot anyway. Most feedlots have lots of pens of natural cows and the performance isn't that much different.



Are you refuting the fact that corn has been fed to cows forever? Well, that's why they mix forage into the ration with some silage and hay. They vary it based on the needs of the cow to optomize cost of gain. They don't just feed them corn. I'm really sorry if you thought that was the case.

Just like they've been doing for ****ing ever. What do you think feedlots fed the cows in the "glory days" that you think we should go back to (I'm assuming. Since you still haven't said what we should do).


LOL. United States is the most efficient producer of all agricultural products and it isn't close. Argentina and Brazil use the same ****ing fertilizers we do and still feed their cows corn (sometimes with corn they imported from us) and they have a shitterrible infrastructure.

Again, what do you suggest we do?


Again, what the **** do you suggest we do? Starve people? The people that can afford it will continue to eat it and the poor people that can't will get none. Just because you think we eat too much doesn't mean we should abandon feedlots and go to grassfed cows.

And I thought you said beef consumption has fallen since the 70s? Sounds like some fuzzy math.

So if grassfed and cornfed cows aren't feasible, what is feasible? What's your master plan? Hamas, I like the shit out of you, but unless you have a feasible alternative, I have a really hard time accepting any of your criticism of the current system.
Posted via Mobile Device

If there's anything this article did, it really points out a few industries that are really fascinating. Again, as an outsider, a few questions....

First, not a question as much as a comment, but I'm pretty sure chickens can be fed corn so grass-feeding would make sense, therefore, Hamas would care less about that, correct?

Second, I don't think Hamas' point is that you should eliminate all corn-fed cows. Rather, it's that the system has made unhealthy beef dirt cheap and healthy, grass-fed beef redonkulously expensive. If you raise prices on unhealthy beef, I would imagine that some of that demand would shift to healthier beef making healthy beef cheaper. So I don't think Hamas is saying we should be 100% grass-fed, but that there should be a balance and that healthier beef should be at least somewhat excessible to poorer people. That may sound like the rich get to eat beef and the poor don't, but given how grossly unhealthy poorer people are, what's more important? Them staying healthy? Or them having access to cheap beef?

Finally, I wonder if, like illegal immigration, we've for too long fed into a system where we can't return back. Rising prices in meat would be devastating, I'm sure, for a ton of players in America and a lot of jobs could be lost.

I'm intrigued by this debate because I truly believe that the biggest weight on our health care system is on people eating unhealthily. I'll continue to buy local and organic when I can because I can afford it, but I feel bad for people who can't. So beef and chicken are tough for me because I know changes would probably hurt the system more than help. I'm still of the opinion that the biggest change we can make is to force better labelling and standards for processed foods and to slowly wean Americans off of salt and sugar.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-05-2011, 03:35 PM
If there's anything this article did, it really points out a few industries that are really fascinating. Again, as an outsider, a few questions....

First, not a question as much as a comment, but I'm pretty sure chickens can be fed corn so grass-feeding would make sense, therefore, Hamas would care less about that, correct?

Second, I don't think Hamas' point is that you should eliminate all corn-fed cows. Rather, it's that the system has made unhealthy beef dirt cheap and healthy, grass-fed beef redonkulously expensive. If you raise prices on unhealthy beef, I would imagine that some of that demand would shift to healthier beef making healthy beef cheaper. So I don't think Hamas is saying we should be 100% grass-fed, but that there should be a balance and that healthier beef should be at least somewhat excessible to poorer people. That may sound like the rich get to eat beef and the poor don't, but given how grossly unhealthy poorer people are, what's more important? Them staying healthy? Or them having access to cheap beef?

Finally, I wonder if, like illegal immigration, we've for too long fed into a system where we can't return back. Rising prices in meat would be devastating, I'm sure, for a ton of players in America and a lot of jobs could be lost.

I'm intrigued by this debate because I truly believe that the biggest weight on our health care system is on people eating unhealthily. I'll continue to buy local and organic when I can because I can afford it, but I feel bad for people who can't. So beef and chicken are tough for me because I know changes would probably hurt the system more than help. I'm still of the opinion that the biggest change we can make is to force better labelling and standards for processed foods and to slowly wean Americans off of salt and sugar. It's far easier to distort your opponents claims to the most extreme possible one on the continuum (i.e. no corn ever) than to actually look at what was said.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-05-2011, 03:40 PM
If someone knew shit from shinola, they'd know that cattle raised on grass have a very slow rate of gain and aren't very profitable, and then don't discount the fact that cattle finished without grain don't have enough marbling(which is graded by USDA) is too lean and tastes like boiled ass.

You can have all of the grass fed beef you want....keep it.

You'll never have the marbling with grass fed beef you will with corn unless you resort to genetic tampering. I'm well aware of this.

I spent a great deal of time on the farms of two sets of grandparents. I've seen how cows flock to charge like Tyrone Biggums to a free crack giveaway.

I'm well aware of the fact that it's going to take 4+ years to raise a grass-fed cow as opposed to a year, or less, for a grain-fed cow. That's one of the reasons why I said that neither are sustainable.

Look, if we could eat 100 pounds of meat per person, per year and seem to do quite fine (as we did in the 1950s), then why exactly are we worried about starving if we cut down the amount of meat we eat now? It's obvious we can do quite well on roughly half of what we currently eat, granted we wouldn't have the ancillary benefits of obesity, Type II diabetes, and colorectal cancer to joy about.

It's not an either-or situation. It's a question of portion size.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-05-2011, 03:45 PM
So if grassfed and cornfed cows aren't feasible, what is feasible? What's your master plan? Hamas, I like the shit out of you, but unless you have a feasible alternative, I have a really hard time accepting any of your criticism of the current system.
Posted via Mobile Device

It's pretty easy, and it was in the original post that you obviously omitted, either due to oversight or something else.

We cut down the amount of meat we consume. It's a terribly inefficient system, and it has loads of backend costs. Believe it or not, a lot of that farmland currently used for cattle feed (over half of our corn) could then be used for other purposes. It's not a Yahoo! login that will only take "corn" as the password to enter the soil.

Eric Schlosser said it best, "The price you pay is never on the menu." You think you're eating cheap meat. The reality is that we could still eat more than almost every country on earth while halving our intake, and live longer, healthier lives because of it.

notorious
02-05-2011, 03:52 PM
Hamas is a smart mother ****er, but I agree with Buehler on this one.


I was born and raised around cattle, most of my flying business deals with cattle owners and packers, and I live in the heartland of beef packing.

The people I fly the most just "acquired" a packing plant in North Texas 5 years ago. They also own hundreds of thousands of head across the US and Mexico. They were prepared to invest heavily into history-verified naturally raised beef.

They discovered something that drove them away from that market: IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY MONEY! The high-end restaraunts they deal with want the good stuff, and they don't give a shit how it was raised.

The market for naturally raised beef is a figment of the big-city person's imagination.

Producers have to raise cattle like they do to make money. Unless a person is ready to pony up $75 for a shitty steak, this is how it is going to be.

notorious
02-05-2011, 03:57 PM
Hamas, I just read your last two posts, and I apologize if I missed your points.


Of course people should eat less and naturally fed beef is probably healthier.


There is no way on the business end to make that happen. People want want they want, and the producer is giving it to them.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 05:01 PM
The music industry will be interesting to watch. The industry, like network TV, is still run by grandpas collecting fat checks who still insist that the music industry should be run on an outdated business model. It's embarrassing.

Complete and utter fucking bullshit.

First off, I'd like for you to personally name the "grandpas collecting fat checks". That's a load of fucking horseshit.

The music industry has been run by Ivy League bean counters, beginning in the 90's. The quality of music has dropped considerably because "grandpas" like Amet Ertegun, Clive Davis (who works in name only these days) and the myriad of composers and music producers who USED to run the record companies are LONG GONE.

As far as "outdated models", again, you don't know what you're talking about. Itunes generates BILLIONS for the labels and Amazon is also doing well for the labels.


Worse, in the 80's/90's mainstream radio, DJs had liberty to set playlists.

LMAO

Apparently, you don't know anything about "Independent Promoters" and the Payola scandals.

JFC.

Now because they're all run by Clear Channel, they all play from the same list. So the few hundred that make the list make a shitload of money, and everyone else is completely squeezed out.

Radio has had little to do with the record business since the FCC approved the mergers of the large radio conglomerates. It's all about advertising dollars.

Without knowing, I bet that the failure rate is far higher today than it was in the 90's for that reason.

Wow, there is so much horseshit in this statement that I don't know where to begin. But the simplest way I can explain it is that for the most part, radio play does not equal album sales, period.

We had a band a Paramount called Harvey Danger, that had HUGE performance royalties but very, very little mechanical income (record sales). If you looked at "radio revenue" (I'll keep this simple), you'd think they had sold 5,000,000 records or more but in reality, they sold on 200,000 copies. I could give you 100 examples of the same exact circumstances.

Yes, if you want to be a multi-millionaire, mainstream labels can get more bands there. But whereas indie labels will make you a struggling artist, mainstream labels will put over 90% of bands in absolute debt and slaves to the record label for years.

JFC, you know, without sounding like a dick, you're absolutely clueless.

First off, when a band signed with a record label from the 70's through about 2005, they received $250-$500k for their "Recording Fund", which went to record the band at a professional studio (usually about $2000 per day) and Master the record. The labels then spent another $200k or so for a video. If they sent a band on the road, they'd pay their expenses (somewhere around $30-40k per month).

If the band flopped, they didn't "owe" the record company a fucking penny, nor where they "liable" in any way, shape or form for lack of sales. They weren't "in debt" for years, nor were they "slaves".

JFC, just reading this fucking bullshit pisses me off to NO end.

Furthermore, you know absolutely NOTHING about "Indie" labels and how they work. They're essentially a distribution mechanism that doesn't pay for recording, marketing or touring expenses. Instead of a major record label funding EVERYTHING in hopes of a payoff (or at least a break even), Indies are rarely EVER at risk. The band sacrifices everything, pays out of pocket for recording, touring and promoting.


That's one great thing about indie music--it does enough to allow indie bands to live a moneyless lifestyle, but it's not going to put them in nearly the kind of debt a failing major artist would incur. That's why so many indie artists are sticking around and pumping out albums 10 years later. A lot of them do it for love of music and are okay with not making mega-millions.

Again, more fucking horseshit.


Dane, I disagree that indie labels are flopping. They're gaining steam, whereas major labels are losing steam, because they embrace innovation. They're working social media a hell of a lot better than mainstream. They're getting people to listen to music on Pandora and youtube and Sirius. Most indie bands don't make money on mp3 sales anyway. They make money by touring. So they're getting really creative about how they make their music spread virally.

Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

If you don't have album sales or single sales, you're not earning any money. You're borrowing money from your parents or working a day job or doing anything you can in an attempt to find an audience, so 10 billion fucking bands try to reach people on the internet, which generally results in EPIC failure.

Like I said earlier, only 2% of all albums released in 2009 sold more than 5,000 copies. 2%. And 5,000 copies doesn't pay shit, certainly not enough to tour on and most definitely not enough to live on.

Radiohead offered "In Rainbows" for free.

This is fucking laughable. First off, Radiohead isn't an Indie band. Secondly, they offered a 128kbs (shit) bitrate version of their album and allowed people to pay whatever they chose. 80% chose to download it and pay nothing.

THEN, they signed with a French company, got a few million dollar advance, then released the record on CD, full 320 bitrate AND vinyl for $69.99! Yeah, that was free.

LMAO

Indie bands are selling their albums on Amazon for $3.

Which is why they aren't making any money.

Most importantly, they're starting to cut out the expensive middlemen. Tech improvements allow more bands to do a lot of their own production--big cost cut there.

:shake:

If you think that working with producers and engineers that have decades of experience working with excellent artists while continuing to churn out excellent music is considered "middlemen", you're fucking clueless.

And as for "tech improvements", HA! Sure, some guys can make a "record" with Garage Band on a Mac, but 99.99999999% of the time, it sounds like complete and utter dogshit. Fake drums, fake digital guitars, shit vocals, crappy production, crappy mixes.

It's a joke.


A lot of bands are starting to own their tracks. Great example is The Arcade Fire--They own their music, but license it to a record label.

You think this is something new? Licensing complete albums has been around since the 60's and was very prominent in the 80's. Motley Crue licensed their first "Indie" record to Elektra after they sold 20,000 copies on their own. They were also smart enough to get a "Masters Reversion" clause and once that expired, they took their albums to Universal to distribute.

The bottom line, however, is that the likelihood of selling a huge number of units, whether on a major or Indie label, is minimal at best.

Indie rock will continue to have starving artists who are comfortable being that way. But be on the lookout for a lot more smart indie artists to find huge marketability despite no mainstream play in the way Arcade Fire and Radiohead did. The way indie rock is creatively promoting music, that's much more indicative of where music is going, not mainstream.

Radiohead isn't Indie. And Arcade Fire is the exception, not the rule.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 05:05 PM
Hamas, are you vegan?

Iowanian
02-05-2011, 05:37 PM
Can anyone tell me what makes Beef taste good?
why do USDA grades have the criteria they do and what might those be relating to?


If you want grass fed organic beef, you can find it, but they already make something that tastes like what professor dude ranch wants, and it's called tofu.

People aren't fat because they eat beef, they're fat because they eat doritos, ring dings, bread by the loaf, drink 10x the calories each day that they should and sit on their asses instead of doing physical activities like our previous generations did out of necessity.



*only on Chiefsplanet will you be able to find 4 different arguments on 3 separate topics in 1 location. You dumbasses are pricks, but you entertain me.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 05:39 PM
*only on Chiefsplanet will you be able to find 4 different arguments on 3 separate topics in 1 location. You dumbasses are pricks, but you entertain me.

I resemble that remark

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 05:41 PM
People aren't fat because they eat beef, they're fat because they eat doritos, ring dings, bread by the loaf, drink 10x the calories each day that they should and sit on their asses instead of doing physical activities like our previous generations did out of necessity.


Bingoooooooooooooooooo.

Hell, the burgers they serve at fast food joints are about as far away from quality beef as you can get.

notorious
02-05-2011, 05:43 PM
Bingoooooooooooooooooo.

Hell, the burgers they serve at fast food joints are about as far away from quality beef as you can get.

You would be amazed at the quality of beef McDonald's hamburgers start with. Really good stuff.




It has to be. With all the filler shit they mix with it I'm am amazed it comes out tasting like it does.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 05:44 PM
You would be amazed at the quality of beef McDonald's hamburgers start with. Really good stuff.

I probably ate at McDonalds about 6-10 times total in the past 15 years. But since the report came out that it took a Happy Meal six months to decompose, I'd rather starve than ever eat there again.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 05:46 PM
You would be amazed at the quality of beef McDonald's hamburgers start with. Really good stuff.




It has to be. With all the filler shit they mix with it I'm am amazed it comes out tasting like it does.

It comes out tasting like shit.

I haven't had McDonalds or Wendy's or any of that crap in months.

If I want a burger I go to a real restaurant (or a specialized burger joint like Smashburger). Even the burgers at a shithole like Chili's blow away McDonalds.

Marcellus
02-05-2011, 05:47 PM
Complete and utter ****ing bullshit.

First off, I'd like for you to personally name the "grandpas collecting fat checks". That's a load of ****ing horseshit.

The music industry has been run by Ivy League bean counters, beginning in the 90's. The quality of music has dropped considerably because "grandpas" like Amet Ertegun, Clive Davis (who works in name only these days) and the myriad of composers and music producers who USED to run the record companies are LONG GONE.

As far as "outdated models", again, you don't know what you're talking about. Itunes generates BILLIONS for the labels and Amazon is also doing well for the labels.



LMAO

Apparently, you don't know anything about "Independent Promoters" and the Payola scandals.

JFC.



Radio has had little to do with the record business since the FCC approved the mergers of the large radio conglomerates. It's all about advertising dollars.



Wow, there is so much horseshit in this statement that I don't know where to begin. But the simplest way I can explain it is that for the most part, radio play does not equal album sales, period.

We had a band a Paramount called Harvey Danger, that had HUGE performance royalties but very, very little mechanical income (record sales). If you looked at "radio revenue" (I'll keep this simple), you'd think they had sold 5,000,000 records or more but in reality, they sold on 200,000 copies. I could give you 100 examples of the same exact circumstances.



JFC, you know, without sounding like a dick, you're absolutely clueless.

First off, when a band signed with a record label from the 70's through about 2005, they received $250-$500k for their "Recording Fund", which went to record the band at a professional studio (usually about $2000 per day) and Master the record. The labels then spent another $200k or so for a video. If they sent a band on the road, they'd pay their expenses (somewhere around $30-40k per month).

If the band flopped, they didn't "owe" the record company a ****ing penny, nor where they "liable" in any way, shape or form for lack of sales. They weren't "in debt" for years, nor were they "slaves".

JFC, just reading this ****ing bullshit pisses me off to NO end.

Furthermore, you know absolutely NOTHING about "Indie" labels and how they work. They're essentially a distribution mechanism that doesn't pay for recording, marketing or touring expenses. Instead of a major record label funding EVERYTHING in hopes of a payoff (or at least a break even), Indies are rarely EVER at risk. The band sacrifices everything, pays out of pocket for recording, touring and promoting.




Again, more ****ing horseshit.




Again, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

If you don't have album sales or single sales, you're not earning any money. You're borrowing money from your parents or working a day job or doing anything you can in an attempt to find an audience, so 10 billion ****ing bands try to reach people on the internet, which generally results in EPIC failure.

Like I said earlier, only 2% of all albums released in 2009 sold more than 5,000 copies. 2%. And 5,000 copies doesn't pay shit, certainly not enough to tour on and most definitely not enough to live on.



This is ****ing laughable. First off, Radiohead isn't an Indie band. Secondly, they offered a 128kbs (shit) bitrate version of their album and allowed people to pay whatever they chose. 80% chose to download it and pay nothing.

THEN, they signed with a French company, got a few million dollar advance, then released the record on CD, full 320 bitrate AND vinyl for $69.99! Yeah, that was free.

LMAO



Which is why they aren't making any money.



:shake:

If you think that working with producers and engineers that have decades of experience working with excellent artists while continuing to churn out excellent music is considered "middlemen", you're ****ing clueless.

And as for "tech improvements", HA! Sure, some guys can make a "record" with Garage Band on a Mac, but 99.99999999% of the time, it sounds like complete and utter dogshit. Fake drums, fake digital guitars, shit vocals, crappy production, crappy mixes.

It's a joke.




You think this is something new? Licensing complete albums has been around since the 60's and was very prominent in the 80's. Motley Crue licensed their first "Indie" record to Elektra after they sold 20,000 copies on their own. They were also smart enough to get a "Masters Reversion" clause and once that expired, they took their albums to Universal to distribute.

The bottom line, however, is that the likelihood of selling a huge number of units, whether on a major or Indie label, is minimal at best.



Radiohead isn't Indie. And Arcade Fire is the exception, not the rule.

Dammit Dane why do you have to post something I agree with?

notorious
02-05-2011, 05:48 PM
It comes out tasting like shit.

I haven't had McDonalds or Wendy's or any of that crap in months.

If I want a burger I go to a real restaurant (or a specialized burger joint like Smashburger). Even the burgers at a shithole like Chili's blow away McDonalds.

I agree.

Buehler445
02-05-2011, 05:48 PM
It's pretty easy, and it was in the original post that you obviously omitted, either due to oversight or something else.

We cut down the amount of meat we consume. It's a terribly inefficient system, and it has loads of backend costs. Believe it or not, a lot of that farmland currently used for cattle feed (over half of our corn) could then be used for other purposes. It's not a Yahoo! login that will only take "corn" as the password to enter the soil.

Eric Schlosser said it best, "The price you pay is never on the menu." You think you're eating cheap meat. The reality is that we could still eat more than almost every country on earth while halving our intake, and live longer, healthier lives because of it.

You focused so heavily on why the current system is bad, I figured that was your point. My mistake.

But my question is how do you reduce the intake of Americans? Practically?

Education? People have been taught that shit in health classes for years.

Regulation? All that does from a practical standpoint is raise prices.

The only feasible way I can see to do it is to raise the price, to prevent people from eating. I am not in favor of that at all. Besides, it seems to me that many lower income people will not choose quality food over other material products. My guess is the net societal effect would be negative.
Posted via Mobile Device

Marcellus
02-05-2011, 05:48 PM
It comes out tasting like shit.

I haven't had McDonalds or Wendy's or any of that crap in months.

If I want a burger I go to a real restaurant (or a specialized burger joint like Smashburger). Even the burgers at a shithole like Chili's blow away McDonalds.

How can anyone taste a McD's burger (and I tried one of their Angus burgers a while back) and say it is quality is beyond me.

Iowanian
02-05-2011, 05:50 PM
Keep Beef for dinner.....mandate every mobile person walk-run 2 miles each day with a govt sponsored ankle GPS device that plays shitty, overrated and misunderstood music that is stolen via illegal download and funded by a cigarette and fast food tax.


and while I'm at it...drug test for welfare, automatic tube ties for any abortion, and the govt should mandate a vaccine that eats fat.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 05:51 PM
How can anyone taste a McD's burger (and I tried one of their Angus burgers a while back) and say it is quality is beyond me.

That Angus crap is all marketing bullshit.

They throw in, like, a half ounce of actual angus beef and that's all that's required to call it an angus burger.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 05:51 PM
It comes out tasting like shit.

I haven't had McDonalds or Wendy's or any of that crap in months.

If I want a burger I go to a real restaurant (or a specialized burger joint like Smashburger). Even the burgers at a shithole like Chili's blow away McDonalds.

I do my best to avoid fast food but Wendy's has a decent salad selection these days. Grilled chicken, spring lettuce, lo-cal dressing, etc. They're decent if you're in a bind.

notorious
02-05-2011, 05:52 PM
How can anyone taste a McD's burger (and I tried one of their Angus burgers a while back) and say it is quality is beyond me.

People shovel that shit into their mouth like it's going out of style.

I thought McDonalds bought the lowest quality shit that was legal before meeting people in the business that know.

They told me (This was 4 years ago) that McDonalds buys a majority of their beef from Argentina, and it is not the low quality crap.


They just dilute the hell out of it.

Buehler445
02-05-2011, 06:21 PM
It's pretty easy, and it was in the original post that you obviously omitted, either due to oversight or something else.

We cut down the amount of meat we consume. It's a terribly inefficient system, and it has loads of backend costs. Believe it or not, a lot of that farmland currently used for cattle feed (over half of our corn) could then be used for other purposes. It's not a Yahoo! login that will only take "corn" as the password to enter the soil.

Eric Schlosser said it best, "The price you pay is never on the menu." You think you're eating cheap meat. The reality is that we could still eat more than almost every country on earth while halving our intake, and live longer, healthier lives because of it.

Oh. And the other thing. The cornbelt will grow corn because their climate is fuicking perfect for it. Even if the price goes to hell, it will likely still be more profitable for them to grow corn than peas or spring wheat or something.
Posted via Mobile Device

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 06:25 PM
Complete and utter ****ing bullshit.

First off, I'd like for you to personally name the "grandpas collecting fat checks". That's a load of ****ing horseshit.

The music industry has been run by Ivy League bean counters, beginning in the 90's. The quality of music has dropped considerably because "grandpas" like Amet Ertegun, Clive Davis (who works in name only these days) and the myriad of composers and music producers who USED to run the record companies are LONG GONE.

As far as "outdated models", again, you don't know what you're talking about. Itunes generates BILLIONS for the labels and Amazon is also doing well for the labels.

LMAO

Apparently, you don't know anything about "Independent Promoters" and the Payola scandals.

JFC.

Radio has had little to do with the record business since the FCC approved the mergers of the large radio conglomerates. It's all about advertising dollars.

Wow, there is so much horseshit in this statement that I don't know where to begin. But the simplest way I can explain it is that for the most part, radio play does not equal album sales, period.

We had a band a Paramount called Harvey Danger, that had HUGE performance royalties but very, very little mechanical income (record sales). If you looked at "radio revenue" (I'll keep this simple), you'd think they had sold 5,000,000 records or more but in reality, they sold on 200,000 copies. I could give you 100 examples of the same exact circumstances.



JFC, you know, without sounding like a dick, you're absolutely clueless.

First off, when a band signed with a record label from the 70's through about 2005, they received $250-$500k for their "Recording Fund", which went to record the band at a professional studio (usually about $2000 per day) and Master the record. The labels then spent another $200k or so for a video. If they sent a band on the road, they'd pay their expenses (somewhere around $30-40k per month).

If the band flopped, they didn't "owe" the record company a ****ing penny, nor where they "liable" in any way, shape or form for lack of sales. They weren't "in debt" for years, nor were they "slaves".

JFC, just reading this ****ing bullshit pisses me off to NO end.

Furthermore, you know absolutely NOTHING about "Indie" labels and how they work. They're essentially a distribution mechanism that doesn't pay for recording, marketing or touring expenses. Instead of a major record label funding EVERYTHING in hopes of a payoff (or at least a break even), Indies are rarely EVER at risk. The band sacrifices everything, pays out of pocket for recording, touring and promoting.

Again, more ****ing horseshit.

Again, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

If you don't have album sales or single sales, you're not earning any money. You're borrowing money from your parents or working a day job or doing anything you can in an attempt to find an audience, so 10 billion ****ing bands try to reach people on the internet, which generally results in EPIC failure.

Like I said earlier, only 2% of all albums released in 2009 sold more than 5,000 copies. 2%. And 5,000 copies doesn't pay shit, certainly not enough to tour on and most definitely not enough to live on.

This is ****ing laughable. First off, Radiohead isn't an Indie band. Secondly, they offered a 128kbs (shit) bitrate version of their album and allowed people to pay whatever they chose. 80% chose to download it and pay nothing.

THEN, they signed with a French company, got a few million dollar advance, then released the record on CD, full 320 bitrate AND vinyl for $69.99! Yeah, that was free.

LMAO

Which is why they aren't making any money.

:shake:

If you think that working with producers and engineers that have decades of experience working with excellent artists while continuing to churn out excellent music is considered "middlemen", you're ****ing clueless.

And as for "tech improvements", HA! Sure, some guys can make a "record" with Garage Band on a Mac, but 99.99999999% of the time, it sounds like complete and utter dogshit. Fake drums, fake digital guitars, shit vocals, crappy production, crappy mixes.

It's a joke.

You think this is something new? Licensing complete albums has been around since the 60's and was very prominent in the 80's. Motley Crue licensed their first "Indie" record to Elektra after they sold 20,000 copies on their own. They were also smart enough to get a "Masters Reversion" clause and once that expired, they took their albums to Universal to distribute.

The bottom line, however, is that the likelihood of selling a huge number of units, whether on a major or Indie label, is minimal at best.

Radiohead isn't Indie. And Arcade Fire is the exception, not the rule.

All interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time to flesh it out. That's actually not being sarcastic.

A few things I want to clarify and would be interested in your thoughts. First, when I talk about "outdated models" and "grandpas" I'm only talking about how long it took for labels to embrace iTunes and mp3 downloads, and to accept that the world was moving to mp3. And from what I've seen from the outside, to figure out how to monetize the new media world in general--agree? You agreed that the record industry is run by a bunch of Ivy leaguers with no concept of music. So to me, that tells me you at least agree that the music industry needs dramatic changes. What do you suggest those changes be?

Second, I brought up radio to suggest that the main channel for getting your music out to a huge population is inaccessible to the vast majority of musicians. That was my support for thinking that innovation is the only way to bring the music industry back. I'm not saying Radiohead is indie, but that they used an innovative approach that ended up being a very good business decision for them. I think of indie labels like small businesses and major labels like corporations, and in my experience outside of music, I've seen that it's the smaller guys who have a lot more to lose and are willing to take the risks that turn the industry around. You don't think that indie bands are going to start looking at how Vampire Weekend or Arcade Fire saw extraordinary success largely by bypassing the typical system? Or that an innovative indie label is going to figure out a formula to make it work?

Finally, as I acknowledged and you agreed, indie artists don't make $ on albums, they make it on tour. And there seem to be quite a few bands building up quite a following. Aren't there a decent amount of indie bands that are making reasonable incomes by spreading music virally and touring to big crowds and likely landing some play in commercials or movies? Is it really true that all indie artists are starving? Or are there still a decent chunk making reasonable, livable incomes off the industry? And are there a decent chunk that are actually living very comfortably? And given that a lot of indie bands seem to get traction when they sign with bigger labels, aren't indie labels a critical step for most bands to build the following that gets them to that next step?

Again, might be wrong on a lot of these things, but curious on your thoughts anyway. Flame away.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 06:35 PM
You focused so heavily on why the current system is bad, I figured that was your point. My mistake.

But my question is how do you reduce the intake of Americans? Practically?

Education? People have been taught that shit in health classes for years.

Regulation? All that does from a practical standpoint is raise prices.

The only feasible way I can see to do it is to raise the price, to prevent people from eating. I am not in favor of that at all. Besides, it seems to me that many lower income people will not choose quality food over other material products. My guess is the net societal effect would be negative.
Posted via Mobile Device

I had a few suggestions above, but I'll repeat....
1) Education, absolutely. Health classes teach about the food pyramid, but who actually pays attention or cares? Teach it in a way that people understand why you eat carbs/proteins/saturated fats, how to read labels, etc... and make every student understand how to shop educationally in the grocery store. I bet Americans lose a shitload of weight if they just learned how to read the label, instead of falling into bullshit lies about how a diet Coke is something any reasonable person would drink on a diet.
2) Education... in home ec. Nobody knows how to cook anymore. When you cook, you can control what you put in your body. And in many cases, you learn about how disgusting stuff like mayonaise really is.
3) Wean the population off of salt/sugar. It's going to make the raw meats we buy a little blander. Our soups too. But in a few years, we'll develop new pallates and accept it.
4) Start early. Educate kids on this stuff and by God, take shitty sugar milk and vending machines out of the schools. There are programs in place where cafeterias can get fresh food supplies to make for the schools. I love that idea.
5) Labelling and transparency. Start having gov't standards that champion foodmakers that actually meet rigorous nutrition standards. Make labels easy for a 4th grader to read and understand. Every restaurant should have warnings about foods that have high saturated fat, sodium, or whatever. If people still want to eat it, fine. But they made the choice with the right information.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 06:39 PM
I don't think any of that stuff is going to happen in a free America.

notorious
02-05-2011, 06:41 PM
Like Denis Leary once said,"You could label a pack of cigarettes 'Tumors' and people will still smoke them".


Same with food. Most people do not have the long-term foresight it takes to realize what unhealthy eating does to their body.


BTW, this area of the country is loaded with people that eat an insane amount of beef per day, yet live to be 90+. Maybe it's because they physically work for a living instead of sit in an office for 8 hours a day.


Most people will eat whatever tastes good regardless of health ramifications.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 06:43 PM
The fast food, soda and restaurant industries have this country by the balls. Addictive advertising and availability of cheap, oversized portions is going to ensure this country stays fat.

I'm sure a miracle get skinny drug will come along eventually, though.

All you have to do is turn on the TV though. Every commercial break EAT DRINK EAT DRINK EAT DRINK.

notorious
02-05-2011, 06:45 PM
The fast food, soda and restaurant industries have this country by the balls. Addictive advertising and availability of cheap, oversized portions is going to ensure this country stays fat.

I'm sure a miracle get skinny drug will come along eventually, though.

I am really surprised they haven't engineered a "Healthy Parasite" that eats up all the bad food and is politely disposed via dump after a set period of time.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 06:49 PM
Like Denis Leary once said,"You could label a pack of cigarettes 'Tumors' and people will still smoke them".


Same with food. Most people do not have the long-term foresight it takes to realize what unhealthy eating does to their body.


BTW, this area of the country is loaded with people that eat an insane amount of beef per day, yet live to be 90+. Maybe it's because they physically work for a living instead of sit in an office for 8 hours a day.


Most people will eat whatever tastes good regardless of health ramifications.

You're not going to fix everyone that way. But there are also a significant amount of people who are genuinely trying to lose weight, but can't because they eat at Panera instead of McDonalds thinking they're eating healthier. For example. I think if people realized that their PF Changs dinner had 1500 mg of Sodium, they'd at least think twice before eating there again.

If labelling leads people to say, eat 1 better meal a month, that's 307M better meals a month in the US, 4B a year. I know that's oversimplification, but point being that incremental improvements are a good thing. Even if only 1% change their habits significantly, that's a huge improvement on America's overall healthiness.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 06:53 PM
I would bet, eventually, all soda will be 0 calories, because it's pretty clear they can do some amazing shit with flavoring chemicals.

In fact they use a lot of the same shit in fast food.

That might make a difference.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 06:55 PM
The fast food, soda and restaurant industries have this country by the balls. Addictive advertising and availability of cheap, oversized portions is going to ensure this country stays fat.

I'm sure a miracle get skinny drug will come along eventually, though.

All you have to do is turn on the TV though. Every commercial break EAT DRINK EAT DRINK EAT DRINK.

Yes and no. Fast food doesn't have the share it once had now that you have Panera and Chipotle and Subway squeezing in the mix. Soda market share continues to slide heavily as a lot of these drink manufacturers are getting into the juice/water/etc... business. The dominators still dominate, but not nearly as much as they used to--there's a lot more fragmentation in these industries.

And states are starting to fight back. Some obviously, like Cali banning happy meals. Some more subtly, like NY working with major food producers to limit sodium content and many schools starting to introduce healthy food into the schools.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 06:58 PM
Dude, it's all the same shit...Panera, Chipotle and Subway make you fat, too. You've got people going to Subway in truckloads because of Jared, who is still an unhealthy, pasty tub of goo. Who cares about low fat when it's loaded with calories...I bet if I go look up calories on Subway most of it is insane.

Didn't know about the banning of happy meals. Fascists! :D

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 07:00 PM
OK, I take it back. Most of Subways shit is pretty good. But they still push combo meals and cookies.

Insidious.

Jenson71
02-05-2011, 07:02 PM
The subway guy ran a marathon. That's pretty good.

Jenson71
02-05-2011, 07:05 PM
OK, I take it back. Most of Subways shit is pretty good. But they still push combo meals and cookies.

Insidious.

Yeah, they should feature more fresh fruit as a side. Much better than chips and cookies. Although their macadamia cookies are damn tasty.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 07:07 PM
Dude, it's all the same shit...Panera, Chipotle and Subway make you fat, too. You've got people going to Subway in truckloads because of Jared, who is still an unhealthy, pasty tub of goo. Who cares about low fat when it's loaded with calories...I bet if I go look up calories on Subway most of it is insane.

Didn't know about the banning of happy meals. Fascists! :D

Nah, not pointing out that they're any healthier, though Subway can be for those who commit to it. Just pointing out that the powerhouses don't dominate the world as much as they used to. I truly believe that a lot of the movement away from fast food is from eaters who wanted something healthier and are duped into thinking that places like Panera are actually good for you.

Same with juice. Healthier than soda, but still loaded with sugar and additives.

In both cases, fragmentation hopefully makes it easier to push through health initiatives. More importantly, I think it shows that eaters are to some small extent willing to eat something a little bit different if it's actually healthy, it's just that most people have no clue what that is. It's all about educating them about what they're putting into their bodies.

notorious
02-05-2011, 07:11 PM
Every restaraunt will hand you the breakdown of all of their food if you request it.


Learning proper nutrition goes far beyond what they teach in school. Learning what the numbers on the label actually mean takes time.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 07:14 PM
See the grip food has on us?

We have taken this article on a variety of topics and all we can talk about is the food.

I had no idea this thread would blow up like this. Very interesting.

notorious
02-05-2011, 07:15 PM
See the grip food has on us?

We have taken this article on a variety of topics and all we can talk about is the food.

I had no idea this thread would blow up like this. Very interesting.

Food kicks ass.

Well, good food anyway.

Jenson71
02-05-2011, 07:16 PM
I'm trying to develop my palette. I'm one of the most in-discriminating eaters I know.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 07:17 PM
Food kicks ass.

Well, good food anyway.

Eat to live, don't live to eat.

notorious
02-05-2011, 07:20 PM
Eat to live, don't live to eat.

LOL you need to copyright that.


It's easy for me to spout off about food since I have never been overweight in my life. I haven't lived the fat life, and probably never will.

Count Zarth
02-05-2011, 07:25 PM
LOL you need to copyright that.


It's easy for me to spout off about food since I have never been overweight in my life. I haven't lived the fat life, and probably never will.

It's not original. I forget where I read it.

I don't think I ever had a chance. As soon a I hit puberty I ballooned up like a motherfucker and no one tried to stop it...was never encouraged to be active or eat healthy.

Buehler445
02-05-2011, 07:26 PM
If there's anything this article did, it really points out a few industries that are really fascinating. Again, as an outsider, a few questions....

First, not a question as much as a comment, but I'm pretty sure chickens can be fed corn so grass-feeding would make sense, therefore, Hamas would care less about that, correct?

Cows can be fed corn too... That's why they are fed corn. I really don't know much about chicken feeding, but I do know that a few years ago PETA was making waves about treatment of chickens. I've also heard rumblings about open range chickens or some shit. I don't really pay attention to it, but I think chickens have more steroids than most cows. If I were arguing against feedlots, I would argue against chicken and hog lots too. I don't know though. I'm a long way away from that camp.

Second, I don't think Hamas' point is that you should eliminate all corn-fed cows. Rather, it's that the system has made unhealthy beef dirt cheap and healthy, grass-fed beef redonkulously expensive. If you raise prices on unhealthy beef, I would imagine that some of that demand would shift to healthier beef making healthy beef cheaper. So I don't think Hamas is saying we should be 100% grass-fed, but that there should be a balance and that healthier beef should be at least somewhat excessible to poorer people. That may sound like the rich get to eat beef and the poor don't, but given how grossly unhealthy poorer people are, what's more important? Them staying healthy? Or them having access to cheap beef?

You're assuming there is a correlation between eating beef and unhealthy Americans. Protein is critical to any diet. If you make a pound of hamburger $10, they'll probably replace it with $1 HoHos.

Plus, if you raise the price of beef, feedlots will continue to produce it just like they are now. But their profit margin will be better.

Finally, I wonder if, like illegal immigration, we've for too long fed into a system where we can't return back. Rising prices in meat would be devastating, I'm sure, for a ton of players in America and a lot of jobs could be lost.

Raising prices in meat would affect EVERYONE. The increased dollars you would spend on food couldn't be spent on other products or services that drive the economy. Effective inflation for the average American puts stress on economic growth.

I'm intrigued by this debate because I truly believe that the biggest weight on our health care system is on people eating unhealthily. I'll continue to buy local and organic when I can because I can afford it, but I feel bad for people who can't. So beef and chicken are tough for me because I know changes would probably hurt the system more than help. I'm still of the opinion that the biggest change we can make is to force better labelling and standards for processed foods and to slowly wean Americans off of salt and sugar.

You know, my opinion is that the protein complex is not the biggest danger to American health. Fast food, and simple sugars are. Sodium probably is in there too.

Hamas is a smart mother ****er, but I agree with Buehler on this one.


I was born and raised around cattle, most of my flying business deals with cattle owners and packers, and I live in the heartland of beef packing.

The people I fly the most just "acquired" a packing plant in North Texas 5 years ago. They also own hundreds of thousands of head across the US and Mexico. They were prepared to invest heavily into history-verified naturally raised beef.

They discovered something that drove them away from that market: IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY MONEY! The high-end restaraunts they deal with want the good stuff, and they don't give a shit how it was raised.

The market for naturally raised beef is a figment of the big-city person's imagination.

Producers have to raise cattle like they do to make money. Unless a person is ready to pony up $75 for a shitty steak, this is how it is going to be.

That's what people don't understand. Cattle producers aren't some old farmer chewing on a wheat stalk and holding a pitchfork. These are factories. The focus on cost of gain. Cost of gain is optimized through efficient growth. Efficient growth is maximized by optimizing their diet.

I had a few suggestions above, but I'll repeat....
1) Education, absolutely. Health classes teach about the food pyramid, but who actually pays attention or cares? Teach it in a way that people understand why you eat carbs/proteins/saturated fats, how to read labels, etc... and make every student understand how to shop educationally in the grocery store. I bet Americans lose a shitload of weight if they just learned how to read the label, instead of falling into bullshit lies about how a diet Coke is something any reasonable person would drink on a diet.
2) Education... in home ec. Nobody knows how to cook anymore. When you cook, you can control what you put in your body. And in many cases, you learn about how disgusting stuff like mayonaise really is.
3) Wean the population off of salt/sugar. It's going to make the raw meats we buy a little blander. Our soups too. But in a few years, we'll develop new pallates and accept it.
4) Start early. Educate kids on this stuff and by God, take shitty sugar milk and vending machines out of the schools. There are programs in place where cafeterias can get fresh food supplies to make for the schools. I love that idea.
5) Labelling and transparency. Start having gov't standards that champion foodmakers that actually meet rigorous nutrition standards. Make labels easy for a 4th grader to read and understand. Every restaurant should have warnings about foods that have high saturated fat, sodium, or whatever. If people still want to eat it, fine. But they made the choice with the right information.

The people of the United States have shown they are not interested in this. You could implement these things and help a few people, but most wouldn't care. Must people are busy and really don't care what they put in their bodies as long as it tastes good and they can keep going.

You're not going to fix everyone that way. But there are also a significant amount of people who are genuinely trying to lose weight, but can't because they eat at Panera instead of McDonalds thinking they're eating healthier. For example. I think if people realized that their PF Changs dinner had 1500 mg of Sodium, they'd at least think twice before eating there again.

If labelling leads people to say, eat 1 better meal a month, that's 307M better meals a month in the US, 4B a year. I know that's oversimplification, but point being that incremental improvements are a good thing. Even if only 1% change their habits significantly, that's a huge improvement on America's overall healthiness.

See above.

notorious
02-05-2011, 07:28 PM
It's not original. I forget where I read it.

I don't think I ever had a chance. As soon a I hit puberty I ballooned up like a mother****er and no one tried to stop it...was never encouraged to be active or eat healthy.

If only masterbating every hour on the hour was an effective weight loss technique.....

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 07:29 PM
Every restaraunt will hand you the breakdown of all of their food if you request it.


Learning proper nutrition goes far beyond what they teach in school. Learning what the numbers on the label actually mean takes time.

It does, but it shouldn't. Most people aren't going to buy your orange juice because you want to know about its Vitamin A or Vitamin D content. Give us the cliff notes. How much salt, sugar, calories, carbs, fat, etc... just the key ones. And stop deceiving consumers by using serving sizes. If I buy orange juice, tell me right away what the entire carton has.

And there should be seals of approval for manufacturers that are low-fat, for example, and warning seals when they're excessive. I'm just talking off the cuff here, but again, small steps could go a long way.

notorious
02-05-2011, 07:32 PM
It does, but it shouldn't. Most people aren't going to buy your orange juice because you want to know about its Vitamin A or Vitamin D content. Give us the cliff notes. How much salt, sugar, calories, carbs, fat, etc... just the key ones. And stop deceiving consumers by using serving sizes. If I buy orange juice, tell me right away what the entire carton has.

And there should be seals of approval for manufacturers that are low-fat, for example, and warning seals when they're excessive. I'm just talking off the cuff here, but again, small steps could go a long ay.


Damn, good point. I wish they displayed TOTAL content instead of serving content since labeled serving sizes are laughable on most containers.

I am good at math, but a majority of people don't take the time to figure that stuff up.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 07:44 PM
Cows can be fed corn too... That's why they are fed corn. I really don't know much about chicken feeding, but I do know that a few years ago PETA was making waves about treatment of chickens. I've also heard rumblings about open range chickens or some shit. I don't really pay attention to it, but I think chickens have more steroids than most cows. If I were arguing against feedlots, I would argue against chicken and hog lots too. I don't know though. I'm a long way away from that camp.
What I meant was that saying Hamas probably wants chickens to eat grass doesn't make sense, because I believe chickens eat corn feed naturally, whereas cows can eat corn, but it's very unnatural. And yeah, I believe chickens are pumped to hell with hormones and steroids. From everything I've heard, most chicken farmers are slaves to big food, and are being forced to raise chickens in unsanitary conditions. I don't think free range would be a big deal if the public had more trust of what was going on in the chicken coops.

You're assuming there is a correlation between eating beef and unhealthy Americans. Protein is critical to any diet. If you make a pound of hamburger $10, they'll probably replace it with $1 HoHos.
I think if beef is a staple, they'll replace beef with something that can satisfy a full meal. I do agree that they're not always going to replace it with something healthy. Usually won't, actually.

Plus, if you raise the price of beef, feedlots will continue to produce it just like they are now. But their profit margin will be better.[/.quote]
I'm talking about supply/demand shifts. If beef prices go up because beef farmers are incurring more cost to supply the beef, then the margins stay the same. But arguably, as less healthy beef prices come closer to organic, then organic demand should increase, which should lower organic prices. If organic demand increases, regular beef demand drops. Right?

[quote]Raising prices in meat would affect EVERYONE. The increased dollars you would spend on food couldn't be spent on other products or services that drive the economy. Effective inflation for the average American puts stress on economic growth.
That's what I think too, which makes it an interesting and complex problem. I also think it squeezes margins on a lot of restaurants, which would put a lot of people out of jobs.

You know, my opinion is that the protein complex is not the biggest danger to American health. Fast food, and simple sugars are. Sodium probably is in there too.
Absolutely agree.

That's what people don't understand. Cattle producers aren't some old farmer chewing on a wheat stalk and holding a pitchfork. These are factories. The focus on cost of gain. Cost of gain is optimized through efficient growth. Efficient growth is maximized by optimizing their diet.

The people of the United States have shown they are not interested in this. You could implement these things and help a few people, but most wouldn't care. Must people are busy and really don't care what they put in their bodies as long as it tastes good and they can keep going.

See above.
I don't really agree. I think a lot of Americans would eat very differently if they knew exactly what they were putting into their bodies. You see people go on crash diets all the time, buying more organic and leading to fresher grocers like Whole Foods, increased focus on buying local. I think a lot of people get frustrated because they try and it doesn't work. But a lot of those failures are driven by people not understanding what they put in their body. If someone dieted and actually started to see weight loss results, I believe a lot of people would eat differently.


They may not take the time to understand the difference between organic and regular beef, but if they look on the shelf and see

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 07:46 PM
Damn, good point. I wish they displayed TOTAL content instead of serving content since labeled serving sizes are laughable on most containers.

I am good at math, but a majority of people don't take the time to figure that stuff up.

Yeah, that and my guess is the only people who care about Vitamin content are the ones who are healthy anyway. Same with protein.

If you simplified nutrition content to focus on just the few key measures in total (vs. serving size), would make it all a hell of a lot easier to read. And for that matter, would be nice to know exactly how much high fructose corn syrup is in my meal, not just that it's there.

Jenson71
02-05-2011, 07:52 PM
If only masterbating every hour on the hour was an effective weight loss technique.....

If you do it right, it can be.

Buehler445
02-05-2011, 08:05 PM
What I meant was that saying Hamas probably wants chickens to eat grass doesn't make sense, because I believe chickens eat corn feed naturally, whereas cows can eat corn, but it's very unnatural. And yeah, I believe chickens are pumped to hell with hormones and steroids. From everything I've heard, most chicken farmers are slaves to big food, and are being forced to raise chickens in unsanitary conditions. I don't think free range would be a big deal if the public had more trust of what was going on in the chicken coops.

Cows eating corn is not unnatural. It's just as natural as chicken. You put cows on stalks in an open range scenario and they'll eat the shit out of any grain on the ground. I don't really know how the public views feedlots vs chicken lots.

I think if beef is a staple, they'll replace beef with something that can satisfy a full meal. I do agree that they're not always going to replace it with something healthy. Usually won't, actually.

If you dramatically raise the price of beef, others will follow. Just because people will still pay.

I'm talking about supply/demand shifts. If beef prices go up because beef farmers are incurring more cost to supply the beef, then the margins stay the same. But arguably, as less healthy beef prices come closer to organic, then organic demand should increase, which should lower organic prices. If organic demand increases, regular beef demand drops. Right?

Technically, that's not a shift in the demand curve. It is movement along the demand curve. I guess I missed something. How are you raising beef prices? That would have to be in the feeder cattle market.

As to the second part of your question, if we start buying more organic, it will be likely that feedlots won't change anything. We will just export the traditionally produced beef to other countries that don't particularly care about organics.


That's what I think too, which makes it an interesting and complex problem. I also think it squeezes margins on a lot of restaurants, which would put a lot of people out of jobs.

Why would restaurants reduce their margins. If the price of beef rises, they can continue to hold the current percentage of markup over grocery stores and people should still be willing to pay. What will kill restaurants is when the economy goes to shit because everyone has to spend all their money on food. [/Quote]


I don't really agree. I think a lot of Americans would eat very differently if they knew exactly what they were putting into their bodies. You see people go on crash diets all the time, buying more organic and leading to fresher grocers like Whole Foods, increased focus on buying local. I think a lot of people get frustrated because they try and it doesn't work. But a lot of those failures are driven by people not understanding what they put in their body. If someone dieted and actually started to see weight loss results, I believe a lot of people would eat differently.

I guess you view people differently than I. Perhaps you're right. I just think there is enough info out there to make a good decision if you care enough to.

chiefzilla1501
02-05-2011, 09:56 PM
Cows eating corn is not unnatural. It's just as natural as chicken. You put cows on stalks in an open range scenario and they'll eat the shit out of any grain on the ground. I don't really know how the public views feedlots vs chicken lots.



If you dramatically raise the price of beef, others will follow. Just because people will still pay.



Technically, that's not a shift in the demand curve. It is movement along the demand curve. I guess I missed something. How are you raising beef prices? That would have to be in the feeder cattle market.

As to the second part of your question, if we start buying more organic, it will be likely that feedlots won't change anything. We will just export the traditionally produced beef to other countries that don't particularly care about organics.




Why would restaurants reduce their margins. If the price of beef rises, they can continue to hold the current percentage of markup over grocery stores and people should still be willing to pay. What will kill restaurants is when the economy goes to shit because everyone has to spend all their money on food.

I guess you view people differently than I. Perhaps you're right. I just think there is enough info out there to make a good decision if you care enough to.

Thanks, man. Very educational.

To your last point, I've always taken decent care of myself. But it wasn't until about 2 years ago when I started reading beyond the fine print and committing to a healthier diet. It's hard to know that whole wheat bread usually has a million additives or that a turkey sandwich at Panera is loaded with shit in the bread. And kids especially don't know the difference. To me, the problem is, there are some people who make the choice to eat shitty food and know they're eating shitty food (but the food is shittier than they realize). But worse, there are others who try but eat shitty food disguised as semi-healthy food and we don't have the time to check cals/sodium/etc... of every restaurant we eat in, to read fine print for every grocery item we buy, etc.... I doubt most people understand the benefit of a whole grain. I bet people don't know how disgusting mayonaisse really is. And then there are those who I think don't care too much, but would care if you made it obvious.

Take me. I don't think I'm all that dumb. But I've been eating completely wrong for years, even when I thought I was eating a so-so diet. And it wasn't for lack of trying. It was a lack of getting the right information, because it's not out there the way it should be. And yet, I still learn every day of new things I'm doing wrong.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 10:17 PM
Definitely better than anything I remembered from them but still not understanding the praise.

Well, there are several factors in play here.

Firstly, it's difficult for many people to go "back". If you're not "living" of an era of music as it "happens", it's difficult for many people to "get it" 20 years later, especially when you're talking about a band that had basically disbanded before their album was released, never toured, etc.

Secondly, Andrew Wood was WAY ahead of his "time", especially if you listen to a track like "Chloe". For one, it's a 7 minute + song. It's also more akin to "real" songwriting that harkens back to the 60's & 70's in terms of music, lyrics, passion and emotion. Keep in mind, this band was signed before Nirvana and in 1990, "hair metal" ruled the airwaves in many parts of the country (though not in all parts).

Thirdly, Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament founded this band with Andrew Wood. They wrote some pretty great music, got signed and the singer tragically died before the record was released. What happened next was even more amazing, considering they captured "lightening in a bottle" by discovering and adding Eddie Vedder as the singer, changing their name to "Mookie Blaylock", then to Pearl Jam.

If anything, it's nice to hear the growth and transition these guys made from a singer like Andy Wood to Eddie Vedder, especially considering that these singers are nothing even remotely alike.

Hope that helps.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 10:23 PM
All interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time to flesh it out. That's actually not being sarcastic.

A few things I want to clarify and would be interested in your thoughts. First, when I talk about "outdated models" and "grandpas" I'm only talking about how long it took for labels to embrace iTunes and mp3 downloads, and to accept that the world was moving to mp3. And from what I've seen from the outside, to figure out how to monetize the new media world in general--agree? You agreed that the record industry is run by a bunch of Ivy leaguers with no concept of music. So to me, that tells me you at least agree that the music industry needs dramatic changes. What do you suggest those changes be?

Second, I brought up radio to suggest that the main channel for getting your music out to a huge population is inaccessible to the vast majority of musicians. That was my support for thinking that innovation is the only way to bring the music industry back. I'm not saying Radiohead is indie, but that they used an innovative approach that ended up being a very good business decision for them. I think of indie labels like small businesses and major labels like corporations, and in my experience outside of music, I've seen that it's the smaller guys who have a lot more to lose and are willing to take the risks that turn the industry around. You don't think that indie bands are going to start looking at how Vampire Weekend or Arcade Fire saw extraordinary success largely by bypassing the typical system? Or that an innovative indie label is going to figure out a formula to make it work?

Finally, as I acknowledged and you agreed, indie artists don't make $ on albums, they make it on tour. And there seem to be quite a few bands building up quite a following. Aren't there a decent amount of indie bands that are making reasonable incomes by spreading music virally and touring to big crowds and likely landing some play in commercials or movies? Is it really true that all indie artists are starving? Or are there still a decent chunk making reasonable, livable incomes off the industry? And are there a decent chunk that are actually living very comfortably? And given that a lot of indie bands seem to get traction when they sign with bigger labels, aren't indie labels a critical step for most bands to build the following that gets them to that next step?

Again, might be wrong on a lot of these things, but curious on your thoughts anyway. Flame away.

JFC, Dude. There are like 20 questions in this response! I've encouraged you to be less verbose in posts in the past and I'm asking again. It's just to much to address in a single sitting.

Out of all these questions, please pare it down to the three most important and we'll go from there. I don't mind answering but I don't have hours on end.

Thanks.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-05-2011, 10:29 PM
Hamas, I just read your last two posts, and I apologize if I missed your points.


Of course people should eat less and naturally fed beef is probably healthier.


There is no way on the business end to make that happen. People want want they want, and the producer is giving it to them.

You do realize that one of the reasons why people eat so much beef is because its initial price is artificially inflated by corn subsidies. Business has nothing to do with it, it's the government.

For as much as people talk about the panacea of the free market, there isn't a more fixed market than beef, which might be nice if it weren't so bad for you.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 10:33 PM
You do realize that one of the reasons why people eat so much beef is because its initial price is artificially inflated by corn subsidies. Business has nothing to do with it, it's the government.

For as much as people talk about the panacea of the free market, there isn't a more fixed market than beef, which might be nice if it weren't so bad for you.

Beef is absolutely outrageously priced in SoCal.

Seriously, it costs me at least $35 dollars for a couple of nice NY Strip steaks at the market. Lean hamburger is $7 dollars a pound (for "good" hamburger, not Costco hamburger, which sucks).

We eat very, very little beef because of the climate (who wants to eat steak three times a week when it's 80 degrees outside?), but the cost also deters our consumption.

Plus, we're more into fish, chicken and salads.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-05-2011, 10:33 PM
People aren't fat because they eat beef, they're fat because they eat doritos, ring dings, bread by the loaf, drink 10x the calories each day .

And what is the common denominator in all of those?