Sgt_Markoff

These two 'high-handed' verdicts of mine (taken from two different thread discussions) are not incompatible. First: any obvious, practical truth can be 'recognized' by a public no matter what level of intellect they otherwise possess. When millions of people tap their feet and whistle and snap their fingers to a song on the radio, what intellect is needed to recognize this? No! I'm not saying that their greatness is 'due to' their huge influence on all subsequent music. It does not STEM FROM this. This is not the relationship. You have it the wrong way around. I'm saying rather, that their enormous influence is evidence of their deep impact on music. There are many such tell-tale signs, 'influence on other musicians' is BUT ONE clue. It indicates that they were not just a popular fad taken up by audience-morons. Audiences are USUALLY morons. But in this case, intelligent and gifted musicians changed the course of their careers based on what this foursome did. That doesn't just happen. To affect your PEERS, (not just the goofy PUBLIC) you gotta have serious clout. Credibility. I appreciate your enthusiasm and I admire the energy of your reply. But as far as an argument, I pored through the rest of your remarks and do not see a single thing which is stated plainly enough for me to respond to. Now, when it comes to Woody Guthrie--the chief example of my previous reply--you seem to want to defray the point I made, by questioning just what Guthrie achieved. I am not sure why you think 'dissecting' Guthrie's appeal has any bearing on what we can all agree on: namely, what he accomplished. It is so huge as to be beyond question, I would have thought? It seems to be a thing beyond subjective interpretation. His legend is universally accepted and agreed upon. It is one thing to describe why Woody became popular but this has nothing to do with the upshot of his career which stands very clearly and plainly in its results. Remember why Woody Guthrie was cited by me in the first place. I mentioned some major bands which are above 'taste' and you suggested that the MONEY they made was the reason why they were so renowned. So I naturally HAD to cite Woody Guthrie. Demonstrating that 'money' has nothing to do with this. My original point was that down through music history there are artists which transcend passing tastes of any era. You raised the idea that commercialism might be responsible for this, so I then cited Guthrie as an example of a colossal talent which had no commercialism. I could have cited others. Now, you are quibbling with me as to why there might be 'some other reasons' why Woody (specifically) became so widely known. It doesn't matter! Stick to the original point and counterpoint! You asserted something ('money' being the reason for fame) and the example of Woody Guthrie definitively deflected the objection you raised. Don't move the goalposts. I'm not brushing aside your questions. Here's your next query: No one is asserting this at all. You are inserting a motive into a hypothetical person in order to discount it. Its completely unrelated. No one need have an intrinsic motive such as you describe. Who exactly is 'listening to any artist just because he thinks it grants him the position to discern quality'? Where does this idea come from? You? Its just not the way it works. No one listens to music they don't like, in order to make pronouncements on music. Many people are just naturally interested in music and a few of these individuals develop the scrutiny to discern what is behind their taste and the taste of others. This is not due to an ulterior or 'personal' motive. The teens on the bus DID display something VERY revealing about their musical intellect, and I have no idea why this riles you so much. The points in the story itself reveal why this is the only conclusion one can draw. Remember they are TEENS. They are too young to have developed depthful taste. Their situation is therefore dissimilar to the fact that older people have been exposed to the Beatles (in an over-saturated way). So your whole chain of assumption --stemming from this point -- collapses, and it is exactly the kind of argument which is maddening to someone like me in that it strays from the established points which should not be questioned. Rebutt fairly!

Whoopi Whatever? She never worked in studio-era Hollywood. M. Night Shamalyan similarly, couldnt have gotten a job in classic Hollywood as a fluffer.

LA ...STEP UP or shut up.

Major corporations like DELTA Airlines are goofing up on an issue this topical, and oh, they should turn to you for advice? If you want to dwell in a detached, impractical, 'dictionary definition' of the concept on the table, by all means do so ...if you want to insist in your point. Meanwhile, the premise I asserted, still stands. And I supported it with some clearly credible reference which anyone ought to accept. Criminey the fecking internet. Unbelievable.

--Uncle Joe I get the joke here. Yawn. 'Playing' with verbiage. Seen it 1000x before. Okay. Taking it seriously: gee, since when is it ...'pseudo-scientific' or 'theoretical' ..."jargon" or ..."rhetoric" ...when major financial periodicals like Forbes and Fortune report on a trend? Is that mere "verbiage"? Look. When I casually back-up a statement with some simple www references, does that irk you? Well. Let's turn it around, Shoddy "web expostulating"....yes, I'm sure we're all tired of that! Its a trait of the net! But...err....how else would you describe the utter gibberish of the platform upon which YOU have built YOUR whole persona? 'Cigarjoe', 'noir guru'. BS. What a crock. As I've pointed out many times before, you have this 'posture' of being a 'noir aficionado'. But its a wheeze. The rationale you use to support your stance, falls apart at the first glance. You've built a castle on sand. Noir is not just a visual style --the idea is patently idiotic. Defend it? You can't. So you're done. Conclusion: don't 'lurk' on my posts like a wimp. Face me 'head on'. Anytime, any where. I like you a lot, but don't go into the gutter with me. You're better than that, Joe Man...don't be petty.

Fedya, a normally astute poster, blathered: Huh? Eh? You are really reaching here. Blacklists? Name anywhere that strange, incoherent precept is being adopted, (or would be adopted) as an extension of our discussion here (which is purely descriptive). What the eff are you even talking about? Get it together. I'm hardly a business major but you are clearly not one either. Blacklists? How? Marketing strategies ...do not necessarily involve ANY use of 'blacklists'. Blacklists? -whether right or wrong-- have nothing what so ever to effing do with this topic at all. Thanks for muddying the waters. Geez. When I returned home this evening --a night surrounded by morons-- I sat down at this laptop, and saw SIX fresh TCM notifications when I logged in to the site. All towards THIS subject matter. All of the notices telling me that people are refuting my rather *uncontroversial* point that corporations these days are OBVIOUSLY adopting 'diversity marking'. You're all against the idea. Sheesh! Cripes! Really? Why the hell does this very basic, obvious observation generate SIX vehement rebuttals? Like, what cavern are you all living in? This is why the internet is such utter fecking ****. Do you think the trend towards diversity marking CAN'T be DOCUMENTED? Whether you like it or not, do you think its a mirage? What???

I don't see a single coherent reply to my original statement which is worth a good god-damn. Do you think this is an imaginary phenomenon? Really? When Forbes and Fortune are reporting it? Do you really wanna take a 'dictionary definition' stance to hide behind? But why? Is this prospect so daunting that you have to plunge your head-in-the-sand and deny its even happening? Ludicrous. Do you really think mega-conglomerates are not taking into account the contemporary push towards diversity? Listen clowns. Uncle Joe, I'm talking specifically to you. Don't lurk in the shadows like a coward. Taking cheap pot-shots at statements I make. If six news articles aren't good enough for you, come out in the open --if you want to take me on. I'll cut you to ribbons. This topic, or any topic.

Well. :) Did you read the whole article? I provided several, in order to show that this new paradigm isn't just 'based on one report'. Meanwhile (back at the ranch) I'm not quite sure how your dictionary-definition diversity pertains, to the earlier point we embarked on: "does diversity marketing equate to more money"? The articles show that it is starting to. What do companies care if they are being equally liked by both sides, they only care whether this new left-leaning strategy is profitable. If it is, they certainly aren't going to care that they haven't kept everyone in the new definition of 'inclusivity'. Just sayin...

Diversity = dollars: yes I think the data is starting to bear it out. Of course, this is only 'web evidence' but its mounting up. Once Pew goes after the topic then maybe we'll see. https://tinyurl.com/ybqdersc https://tinyurl.com/y54anrxc http://tinyurl.com/y3q3bjyz http://tinyurl.com/y57hx2vj http://tinyurl.com/y7qt2so3

Aye. I sure remember Brad Davis. He would have been a major star. Hard working, enthusiastic young actor: 'A Rumor of War', 'Chiefs', 'Midnight Express'.

It's true enough as far as it goes, that all the social sciences are interpretative; that's their nature. We've spoken about it in the 'Get Smart' thread or some other place around this forum. Anyway --although at first it might seem as if social studies 'should' be on board along with hard science, as everything else seemingly is these days. But no--there's very good reason for them to remain interpretative and not engineering-like. Keep them un-pliable and un-engineered. Under no circumstance would we want human socialization to lend itself to any kind of programming (aka 'manipulation'), as happens to everything that comes into the laboratory.

'written by the victors' is exactly the notion which makes my skin crawl. A hideous conceit that seduces too many in the crowd these days. But otherwise yes I agree with what you and LA are saying. The information age is plaguing us with poor mental habits. Sure, not even books are immune from error but books have all sorts of oversight and error-catching. But if you consume a poorly-prepared documentary on television, the entire format skates past this.

That's a healthy attitude to take. I myself have really been working on bettering my interactions but it can be like, "three steps forward, two steps back". I'm a friendly 'Doctor Jekyll' Monday through Thursday, but Friday to Sunday 'Mister Hyde' comes out. I'm surprised I've lasted on the site this long. I'm surprised I get home on Friday and Saturday nights at all without winding up in Brooklyn tombs or Lenox Hill Hospital. Job stress...

Truly. If I had known how that horseplay of mine was going to sully my reputation around here I never would have done it. Just didn't know folks were so sensitive! Some veteran forum-ites like 'Hibi' still aren't talking to me. I'm persona non-grata

The popularity of the History Channel and the Discovery Channel is a little disturbing to me in that people who so avidly watch these information-outlets become all too easily convinced that they are the 'last word' in any topic. Such is the power of the television screen, seriously. The very nature of the 'visual' medium; it utterly beguiles the brain no matter what info is presented. --TopBill'd Questioning historicism is good; and has a lot of different directions you can pursue. But its also dangerous. because it can lead down the path that the post-structuralists took. Minds like Foucault, Derrida, Kristeval, deleuze, deMan, and Lacan. These are a bunch of boutique academics very attractive today because they represent the rein of subjectivity; the posture that 'there are no facts, there is no history', 'everything is just opinion'. This is a really heinous stance to take up. I despise the post-structuralists.