A group 10 times as talented and willing to experiment as the Beatles were in the 60s simply could not have the same impact today because pop culture just isn’t the monoculture it was then.
That question came up not long ago when that movie came out about the guy time travelling or something to a world where only he knew the songs of the Beatles and introduced them to that world to great acclaim (sorry, never actually saw the movie). My nephew, a Beatles fan, asked me whether I though the Beatles and their music could command the attention of people today as they did in the 60s. Not a fucking chance. Genius is contextual. We hate to think that, but the individual human is not bigger than their historical context. We properly appreciate the Beatles for having the will and ability to dramatically influence their times, but they also needed their times to be that post-50s repressive hangover mixed with narcissistic young people who had lots of cash. That's the cardinal rule of any historian—the when matters as much as the who and where.
Hello,
Damn! This has gotten a lot deeper than "Vote for Lene Lovich!".
Small bursts of more intellectual discourse to justify the 95% of GNDA.
A group 10 times as talented and willing to experiment as the Beatles were in the 60s simply could not have the same impact today because pop culture just isn’t the monoculture it was then.
That question came up not long ago when that movie came out about the guy time travelling or something to a world where only he knew the songs of the Beatles and introduced them to that world to great acclaim (sorry, never actually saw the movie). My nephew, a Beatles fan, asked me whether I though the Beatles and their music could command the attention of people today as they did in the 60s. Not a fucking chance. Genius is contextual. We hate to think that, but the individual human is not bigger than their historical context. We properly appreciate the Beatles for having the will and ability to dramatically influence their times, but they also needed their times to be that post-50s repressive hangover mixed with narcissistic young people who had lots of cash. That's the cardinal rule of any historian—the when matters as much as the who and where.
Hello,
Damn! This has gotten a lot deeper than "Vote for Lene Lovich!".
Small bursts of more intellectual discourse to justify the 95% of GNDA.
Hello,
GNDA? Greater Nashville Darting Association?
Good-natured dumb assery. Has the initialism really fallen out of our collective memory?
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
That question came up not long ago when that movie came out about the guy time travelling or something to a world where only he knew the songs of the Beatles and introduced them to that world to great acclaim (sorry, never actually saw the movie). My nephew, a Beatles fan, asked me whether I though the Beatles and their music could command the attention of people today as they did in the 60s. Not a fucking chance. Genius is contextual. We hate to think that, but the individual human is not bigger than their historical context. We properly appreciate the Beatles for having the will and ability to dramatically influence their times, but they also needed their times to be that post-50s repressive hangover mixed with narcissistic young people who had lots of cash. That's the cardinal rule of any historian—the when matters as much as the who and where.
Hello,
Damn! This has gotten a lot deeper than "Vote for Lene Lovich!".
Small bursts of more intellectual discourse to justify the 95% of GNDA.
Hello,
GNDA? Greater Nashville Darting Association?
Good-natured dumb assery. Has the initialism really fallen out of our collective memory?
Hello,
I don't care for the initial stuff. Writing out the words will take ~500 microseconds (less time than the average penalty kick takes to travel from foot to net - or goalkeeper glove(s)). I have no idea how little to caloric cost of typing 4 short words. Your time isn't worth that much - it's not costing you dollars in lost income by typing out a complete set of words. Those parts of a calorie won't make a difference.
Damn! This has gotten a lot deeper than "Vote for Lene Lovich!".
Small bursts of more intellectual discourse to justify the 95% of GNDA.
Hello,
GNDA? Greater Nashville Darting Association?
Good-natured dumb assery. Has the initialism really fallen out of our collective memory?
Hello,
I don't care for the initial stuff. Writing out the words will take ~500 microseconds (less time than the average penalty kick takes to travel from foot to net - or goalkeeper glove(s)). I have no idea how little to caloric cost of typing 4 short words. Your time isn't worth that much - it's not costing you dollars in lost income by typing out a complete set of words. Those parts of a calorie won't make a difference.
Counterpoint: Western culture gravitates to two ends, laziness and efficiency. In this case, the initialism serves both. In essence, I wear the crown of the entire Enlightenment.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Small bursts of more intellectual discourse to justify the 95% of GNDA.
Hello,
GNDA? Greater Nashville Darting Association?
Good-natured dumb assery. Has the initialism really fallen out of our collective memory?
Hello,
I don't care for the initial stuff. Writing out the words will take ~500 microseconds (less time than the average penalty kick takes to travel from foot to net - or goalkeeper glove(s)). I have no idea how little to caloric cost of typing 4 short words. Your time isn't worth that much - it's not costing you dollars in lost income by typing out a complete set of words. Those parts of a calorie won't make a difference.
Counterpoint: Western culture gravitates to two ends, laziness and efficiency. In this case, the initialism serves both. In essence, I wear the crown of the entire Enlightenment.
Hello,
Isn't this based on the false assumption that one must gravitate without rational with the culture? Didn't the Clash represent drifting away from musical cultural domination? Okay, how about efficiency being defined as movement/expenditure economy at a lesser cost? I posit that the effort saved is not worth the potential loss of understanding - thus, true efficiency would require expressing your message in a manner with which complete understanding is possible for a greater mass (or masses - not sure which) - excess energy but providing complete understanding by a greater number and preventing/eliminating potential misunderstandings and misinterpretations - thus a greater yield. (Man, that might be the most pretentious thing I've ever written!)
That question came up not long ago when that movie came out about the guy time travelling or something to a world where only he knew the songs of the Beatles and introduced them to that world to great acclaim (sorry, never actually saw the movie). My nephew, a Beatles fan, asked me whether I though the Beatles and their music could command the attention of people today as they did in the 60s. Not a fucking chance. Genius is contextual. We hate to think that, but the individual human is not bigger than their historical context. We properly appreciate the Beatles for having the will and ability to dramatically influence their times, but they also needed their times to be that post-50s repressive hangover mixed with narcissistic young people who had lots of cash. That's the cardinal rule of any historian—the when matters as much as the who and where.
Hello,
Damn! This has gotten a lot deeper than "Vote for Lene Lovich!".
Small bursts of more intellectual discourse to justify the 95% of GNDA.
Hello,
GNDA? Greater Nashville Darting Association?
Good-natured dumb assery. Has the initialism really fallen out of our collective memory?
Dang, and I thought it was Greater Nashville Darting Association all those years.
Good-natured dumb assery. Has the initialism really fallen out of our collective memory?
Hello,
I don't care for the initial stuff. Writing out the words will take ~500 microseconds (less time than the average penalty kick takes to travel from foot to net - or goalkeeper glove(s)). I have no idea how little to caloric cost of typing 4 short words. Your time isn't worth that much - it's not costing you dollars in lost income by typing out a complete set of words. Those parts of a calorie won't make a difference.
Counterpoint: Western culture gravitates to two ends, laziness and efficiency. In this case, the initialism serves both. In essence, I wear the crown of the entire Enlightenment.
Hello,
Isn't this based on the false assumption that one must gravitate without rational with the culture? Didn't the Clash represent drifting away from musical cultural domination? Okay, how about efficiency being defined as movement/expenditure economy at a lesser cost? I posit that the effort saved is not worth the potential loss of understanding - thus, true efficiency would require expressing your message in a manner with which complete understanding is possible for a greater mass (or masses - not sure which) - excess energy but providing complete understanding by a greater number and preventing/eliminating potential misunderstandings and misinterpretations - thus a greater yield. (Man, that might be the most pretentious thing I've ever written!)
Well, yeah, it only works if both sides of the communication understand the shorthand. If both sides share the knowledge, the abbreviated version means you can get to the meat of the communication more efficiently. We do it all the time with concepts. Marxists don't spell out what, say, mode of production means every time they want to talk about the conditions of labour. They just use that short phrase and get on with their greater point. Sabermetricians don't explain the logic and formula behind WAR every time they assess a ballplayer's value. It's expected that all involved know what it means and it doesn't have to be restated each time. But it only works if both sides know what the phrase means. Communication is always an act of imprecision, even at the best of times, so we hope that using shorthand that is understand lets us to be clearer in the tougher stuff.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Good-natured dumb assery. Has the initialism really fallen out of our collective memory?
Hello,
I don't care for the initial stuff. Writing out the words will take ~500 microseconds (less time than the average penalty kick takes to travel from foot to net - or goalkeeper glove(s)). I have no idea how little to caloric cost of typing 4 short words. Your time isn't worth that much - it's not costing you dollars in lost income by typing out a complete set of words. Those parts of a calorie won't make a difference.
Counterpoint: Western culture gravitates to two ends, laziness and efficiency. In this case, the initialism serves both. In essence, I wear the crown of the entire Enlightenment.
Hello,
Isn't this based on the false assumption that one must gravitate without rational with the culture? Didn't the Clash represent drifting away from musical cultural domination? Okay, how about efficiency being defined as movement/expenditure economy at a lesser cost? I posit that the effort saved is not worth the potential loss of understanding - thus, true efficiency would require expressing your message in a manner with which complete understanding is possible for a greater mass (or masses - not sure which) - excess energy but providing complete understanding by a greater number and preventing/eliminating potential misunderstandings and misinterpretations - thus a greater yield. (Man, that might be the most pretentious thing I've ever written!)
Well, yeah, it only works if both sides of the communication understand the shorthand. If both sides share the knowledge, the abbreviated version means you can get to the meat of the communication more efficiently. We do it all the time with concepts. Marxists don't spell out what, say, mode of production means every time they want to talk about the conditions of labour. They just use that short phrase and get on with their greater point. Sabermetricians don't explain the logic and formula behind WAR every time they assess a ballplayer's value. It's expected that all involved know what it means and it doesn't have to be restated each time. But it only works if both sides know what the phrase means. Communication is always an act of imprecision, even at the best of times, so we hope that using shorthand that is understand lets us to be clearer in the tougher stuff.
Hello,
Okay, great! Thanks for that. Going forward, please understand I do not understand any initials with the following exceptions: ASAP, and all major sport associations/leagues. What a great day!
Okay, great! Thanks for that. Going forward, please understand I do not understand any initials with the following exceptions: ASAP, and all major sport associations/leagues. What a great day!
10-4, roger, A-OK!
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
