Originally Posted by Rocketdog2000 (Post 11758959)

Which is kind of ironic, as anytime someone posts a new thread here (or any forum, for that matter) about any band/album, they are essentially doing rather the same thing as your example. You're throwing something out there into a large group of people and hoping someone else responds to it. Not really all that different when you think about it.

In regards to your edit, it should never stop you from trying. After all, isn't the whole point of forums to try find and engage conversation with (hopefully) like minded individuals? If you don't put it out there, you'll never know for sure one way or the other.

Originally Posted by CRM114 (Post 11759080)

Please, I was watching Black Flag in a room with 40 people when you were buying Wham! 12".

Originally Posted by CRM114 (Post 11759098)

And you just casually dismiss the instigating remark. I see how you work, man.

I was merely illustrating the ignorance of the guy's comment - implying that my breadth of knowledge of music is limited to FM radio. It's hilarious. If only he knew.

Originally Posted by CRM114 (Post 11759129)

Wilco and Foxygen are popular and well-known? To a certain extent, maybe? Well, whatever. I don't need to get suspended over something I didn't start and don't care to continue.

Originally Posted by Rockmjd23 (Post 11759147)

Music hasn't been good since [insert decade I graduated high school].

Originally Posted by The Bus (Post 11759061)

Music has not been diluted or relegated. Music, as an art, has been as healthy as ever. Media, however, has been fragmented. There are less communal media experiences (where you can talk with strangers). The chance of any one person having had the same pop culture / media experience as you the night before is much lower now than it was in the 70s.

And that's fine. That lets you pursue what you want, and I can pursue what I want, instead of having both of us be subject to something that is merely OK. I don't want to go back to the days of there being three channels of content and I have to make do with something mediocre just for the sake of being able to discuss it with a coworker the next day.

Same with music.

But once you go into the listener level of measuring "coverage", we're looking at individual measurements: You have 24 hours in a day now, same as you did (if you were alive) in the 70s.

In the 70s, the Stones coverage would have captured the majority of my attention, simply because it was on the front page of the newspaper and that would have been one of the few media outlets I would have had access to.

Cut to now. I get my news from a pretty wide variety of sources, and they rarely overlap. Sometimes, two or three places will talk about a story, but it doesn't go beyond that. Until recently, with the release of <i>Yeezus</i> when there was an article or viewpoint in every one of these sources.

And out of the six (or so), only one of them is even a pure music site.

So there are still stories and albums and events that can capture someone's attention or time. It just doesn't mean it will capture your neighbors.

(And for the sake of this argument, how many articles/reviews of that album were you exposed to?)

Originally Posted by arminius (Post 11759265)

Not sure if you meant what I wrote about The Stones. It wasn't an album it was the 72 tour. And it wasn't reviews so much as front page coverage of the entire tour.

Originally Posted by The Bus (Post 11759284)

But you are talking about a single event. Not every tour of every band was written about, right?

Originally Posted by bunkaroo (Post 11759085)

I agree here, except that the constant churn due to things like the umpteenth thread about what the Beatles ate during the Abbey Road sessions makes it harder to connect with like-minded individuals. Also, sometimes you don't go somewhere to specifically talk about something, but rather just see what the conversations are and jump in when interested. That's where the Hoffman forums are mostly useless me. Even I liked the Beatles or the Monkees, I sure as hell wouldn't need to post a new thread about them every week.

I know doing genre subforums is a slippery slope, but I think that place could really use some more organization.

Originally Posted by cungar (Post 11759339)

Funny that a thread making fun of the SHF has turned into a "I'm a bigger music snob than you" thread.

Originally Posted by CRM114 (Post 11758762)

Well, everything great in music did happen before 1980. ;) Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by CRM114 (Post 11758827)

I also believe the 1970's was the greatest era for filmmaking as well.

Originally Posted by The Bus (Post 11759182)

So is your statement:

<ul><li> Nothing great in music happened after 1980.
<li> Nothing new in music happened after 1980.
</ul>

Either of those statements seem patently false. Did you mean to say, "I don't like any music after 1980"?

Originally Posted by printerati (Post 11759893)

So, basically, the Blaxploitation, pre-Rap era. I see where you're going with this, racist!

Originally Posted by bunkaroo (Post 11759954)

I guess it would be one thing if say the first 5 pages there of threads were all different topics of which I a had little interest. The problem is a significant amount of threads are about a handful of artists. Maybe they should just create a Beatles/Wings/solo works subforum and a Monkees subforum. :D