|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 11, 2024 9:09:38 GMT
It wont be music which will bring the planet down. It will be the rise in planetary temperatures.
And if nations dont stop killing each orher and instead all pull in the same direction, the next generation will think our current problems were as nothing as crops fail, millions move, and storms destroy what we build.
And we did nothing but mock the warnings until as now, it is too late to fix it. We have lost control of the balance of nature as it reacts to our arrogance..
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 11, 2024 9:24:37 GMT
Important to note that the discussion has been restricted to pop music. No claims so far that serious or 'grown up' music has experienced similar declines in quality.
In fact it is quite obvious it hasn't, so the points raised in your post about sustainability of agricultural productivity are the salient ones to consider, along with I'd suggest societal collapse and demographic change. Music is of minor importance in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 11, 2024 11:03:30 GMT
Earlier in the discussion you appeared to be offering Led Zeppelin as an example of how popular music has deteriorated in the past twenty years or so from some Olympian plane of Excellence. How would you respond to the argument that the means of production is irrelevant and that in terms of quality of musical output your preferred exponents in the popular music field are no better and no worse that today's 'stars' who you quite correctly label as rubbish? Just different that's all. With all similar conversations, we would have to first clear away the objection to generalisation and looks at aggregates. There was a lot more creativity in the often played 'pop music' scene in the eighties than there is now. Trying to deny it just daft (imho) - the form is now stagnant and recycled. How would i respond? That might a tricky diplomatically. I certainly wouldn't share some of my suspicions. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 11, 2024 11:18:56 GMT
Would you at least subscribe to Steppenwolf's view that Led Zeppelin's oeuvre was qualitatively superior musically to current offerings in the pop music field? And representative of the best music created during its period?
I'd just note also a remark by Quincy Jones in the documentary 'The New Order Story' about the time he was recruited to assist in producing during the group's first trip to New York. He said he couldn't tell who was playing what since all the instrumentation was produced by sequencers and synthesisers.
That would have been around the early eighties.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on May 13, 2024 5:55:41 GMT
Important to note that the discussion has been restricted to pop music. No claims so far that serious or 'grown up' music has experienced similar declines in quality. Classical music has remained the same (i.e. classical) but the attempts by "serious" musicians to promote more modern atonal music have been largely rejected by the cognoscenti. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on May 13, 2024 6:15:54 GMT
It wont be music which will bring the planet down. It will be the rise in planetary temperatures. And if nations dont stop killing each orher and instead all pull in the same direction, the next generation will think our current problems were as nothing as crops fail, millions move, and storms destroy what we build. And we did nothing but mock the warnings until as now, it is too late to fix it. We have lost control of the balance of nature as it reacts to our arrogance.. I think the arrogance is thinking that humans can control the climate. We could possibly have some limited effect if we could ever agree on what to do and agree to stick to it - but humans don't behave like that. So we'll carry on doing exactly what we've always done. The Earth's climate will carry on evolving meanwhile and, if we can no longer grow enough food to live we'll die out. We never had "control of the balance of nature" - that was always been down to random natural events on a macro scale far too large for us to control. Incidentally I don't think any of the things that the climate lobby are pressuring us to do will have any significant effect on climate - and many of them will make it worse. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2024 8:30:36 GMT
It wont be music which will bring the planet down. It will be the rise in planetary temperatures. And if nations dont stop killing each orher and instead all pull in the same direction, the next generation will think our current problems were as nothing as crops fail, millions move, and storms destroy what we build. And we did nothing but mock the warnings until as now, it is too late to fix it. We have lost control of the balance of nature as it reacts to our arrogance.. The planet is 20% greener, crop yields are at record levels because the increasing CO2 is an excellent plant food. Areas are changing no doubt about that but population is the problem not temperature and there is no evidence whatsoever that storms are becoming worse or more prevalent. We are part of the balance of nature I agree and there is little doubt that many others want what we here in the UK have. Our leaders seem determined to let them have it. Since we as humans cannot all agree it is best to see to ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 13, 2024 9:56:33 GMT
The rest of the world has noticed that 10% of the global population occupies 40% of the total land area, including most of the productive agricultural land in temperate climate zones with adequate rainfall. Climate change is not likely to have the catastrophic effects in those zones it is having and will continue to have elsewhere. The net effect will be tens if not hundreds of millions of climate refugees over the course of the century.
In the normal course of events we ought to be able to deter this invasion but liberal democracies have made a fetish out of 'fairness' so the chances of appropriate evasive action given current political realities are effectively nil.
That will be the consequence of climate change - not here, but there.
As Churchill is supposed to have said after touring Germany's bombed-out cities after WWII "It is clear to me now that we have slaughtered the wrong pig"
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 13, 2024 11:02:05 GMT
That you regularly engage and amplify this nonsense is quite odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 13, 2024 11:09:33 GMT
Nonsense? Please elaborate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 13, 2024 13:35:09 GMT
No response. That's odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2024 14:10:05 GMT
The rest of the world has noticed that 10% of the global population occupies 40% of the total land area, including most of the productive agricultural land in temperate climate zones with adequate rainfall. Climate change is not likely to have the catastrophic effects in those zones it is having and will continue to have elsewhere. The net effect will be tens if not hundreds of millions of climate refugees over the course of the century. In the normal course of events we ought to be able to deter this invasion but liberal democracies have made a fetish out of 'fairness' so the chances of appropriate evasive action given current political realities are effectively nil. That will be the consequence of climate change - not here, but there. As Churchill is supposed to have said after touring Germany's bombed-out cities after WWII "It is clear to me now that we have slaughtered the wrong pig" Climate change is not having an effect over and above that which was usual in the normal course of events in these areas. No scientist says there are such effects and no data indicates such things are happening. Much rests on model predictions which we can easily show are frequently wrong. No droughts, storms or tempests are greater than they have ever been but they are regular occurrences in these areas causing problems no different to that which they have done except now the populations are much greater and have been helped over similar events that usually claimed many lives. To pile insult on injury the 'West' are saying that they should not develop fossil fuel industries. If there is a plan to inundate the West with a multitude of migrants then this is the info that would be released and this is the action that would be allowed. Is it any wonder conspiracy theories abound. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 13, 2024 17:25:28 GMT
I don't think there is any need for conspiracy theories when the potentially catastrophic consequences of the nexus between the long-term deterioration in climatic conditions and out of control population growth in those areas most affected are so glaringly obvious.
We don't need scientists or spreadsheets to explain the likely consequences and it is madness to avoid taking preventative action until the catastrophe is actually at our door.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2024 18:11:01 GMT
I don't think there is any need for conspiracy theories when the potentially catastrophic consequences of the nexus between the long-term deterioration in climatic conditions and out of control population growth in those areas most affected are so glaringly obvious. We don't need scientists or spreadsheets to explain the likely consequences and it is madness to avoid taking preventative action until the catastrophe is actually at our door. The catastrophe at the door is population. The AGW and the 'need' to achieve 'net zero' is a politically inspired goal that has no basis in actual science with more and more research indicating that the assumptions surrounding it are poorly made but religiously followed. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on May 15, 2024 2:13:42 GMT
Explain to me how "nothing works"? Are seriously suggesting life was better 25, 50, 75, 100 years ago? lol. There are always challenges, life is never perfect. I would certainly suggest that life was better 50 years ago. Then a bus driver with a wife and 2 kids could buy a house on his salary alone, there was no social media corrupting kids, you could see a GP the same day, you had a Bank Manager who knew you by name, there was no tsunami of mental health issues (aspergers, ADHD, the spectrum, transgender etc etc.). I'd be interested to see why you believe life is better today. Better for who exactly? Better for the women who were LEGALLY beaten and raped by their husbands? Women couldn't even get a mortgage or a loan unless a man countersigned for it 50 years ago! Was it better for women, homosexuals, the disabled, non-white people... who could be legally discriminated against in the work place? How about "working class" kids, do you think many of them went to university 50 years ago? Would you rather have had cancer, heart disease, or a serious health problem 50 years ago? lol. Did you go on foreign holidays 50 years ago, or did you spend a week at some shite UK seaside town? lol. Quite frankly, you are historically illiterate for even suggesting life was better 50 years ago. |
|
