fasstrack Posted August 25, 2016 Report Share Posted August 25, 2016 Why are people having so much trouble getting my simple point? All I mean to say is if people aren't talking live to other people that's not interacting to me. Yes, listening to the same podcast puts people in a group of sorts. Until they meet and talk about it over a beer or something that's not a real 'community' to me. No thanks on the boom boxes. There's a guy in my 'hood who rides through the streets on a bike blasting Latin music. Amusing up to a point, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 25, 2016 Report Share Posted August 25, 2016 God, I'd hate to live in a town where you couldn't walk down the street without everybody endlessly gabbing, especially if they feel a need to include me because I look disengaged or something. I have a podcast to listen to, dammit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted August 25, 2016 Report Share Posted August 25, 2016 I get your point, Joel. Lotsa folks with iPods, phones, etc. walking around like zombies oblivious to everything and everyone around them. Annoys me too. And there are always going to be folks here who will argue about anything. Some of them must not have much else to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rostasi Posted August 25, 2016 Report Share Posted August 25, 2016 This iPod has been sitting here on my desk for a very long time without use. Walks and bike rides are opportunities to discover new combinations of sound and so I don't take any music (tho I may, at times, take the "opposite": a recorder). Driving inside the US, I'll play discs, but for overseas travel, I stopped taking any music at all beginning at least 10 years ago because I never felt the need to listen to anything other than my varied surroundings, so weeks can go by without intended recorded music. There's a set of earbuds around here somewhere, but they're used occasionally for things other than listening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 25, 2016 Report Share Posted August 25, 2016 4 hours ago, paul secor said: Some of them must not have much else to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted August 26, 2016 Report Share Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) On August 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, fasstrack said: Why are people having so much trouble getting my simple point? All I mean to say is if people aren't talking live to other people that's not interacting to me. Yes, listening to the same podcast puts people in a group of sorts. Until they meet and talk about it over a beer or something that's not a real 'community' to me. No thanks on the boom boxes. There's a guy in my 'hood who rides through the streets on a bike blasting Latin music. Amusing up to a point, but... I completely understand your point, which I already agreed with to a certain point. I was just offering some additional food for thought. But, I also have to ask, how much interacting was going on before the portable music player? I rode subways, buses, walked around many towns well before the iPod was a gleam in Steve Jobs' eye. People seemed to pretty much stay to themselves then, as well. Whether they were reading, (or later) working on a laptop, talking on a cell phone, or simply lost in their own thoughts. Edited August 26, 2016 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 26, 2016 Report Share Posted August 26, 2016 5 hours ago, Scott Dolan said: But, I also have to ask, how much interacting was going on before the portable music player? I rode subways, buses, walked around many towns well before the iPod was a gleam in Steve Jobs' eye. People seemed to pretty much stay to themselves then, as well. Whether they were reading, (or later) working on a laptop, talking on a cell phone, or simply lost in their own thoughts. That's the modern world. I guess I have to accept it, and adjust. There are great things about it, too. (The technology, not the disconnections). I'm kind of an idealist, and a bit old-school in some ways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted August 27, 2016 Report Share Posted August 27, 2016 Oh, I hear you. My wife has always said of me, "you've never met a stranger". And she's right, I'll strike up a conversation with anyone. But, I also get that people live incredibly busy lives these days, and sometimes in order for them to accomplish other things (i.e. family time) they have to squeeze in things like music or podcasts on the fly. I can dig that. I don't think, in most cases, they're intentionally shutting out the world around them, I just think they're maximizing their time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 27, 2016 Report Share Posted August 27, 2016 And in so many places there is no such thing as silence (or even quiet), so why not exert some choice over what noise you get bombarded with? Granted, that runs the risk of turning into a myopia of environmental entitlement but life is not without risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted August 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2016 2 hours ago, JSngry said: And in so many places there is no such thing as silence (or even quiet), so why not exert some choice over what noise you get bombarded with? Granted, that runs the risk of turning into a myopia of environmental entitlement but life is not without risk. Very true. When I'm in a town for a concert and want a pub or coffee shop to sit in between gigs, finding one without background music is very difficult. The iPod can (up to a point) shut that out. I suspect most of those people walking round with their earbuds in are perfectly adept at taking them out at the appropriate time. We probably all look a bit like sheep/zombies in the eyes of others (speaking as someone who always wears t-shirt/jeans/trainers [these days]). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 28, 2016 Report Share Posted August 28, 2016 16 hours ago, Scott Dolan said: But, I also get that people live incredibly busy lives these days, and sometimes in order for them to accomplish other things (i.e. family time) they have to squeeze in things like music or podcasts on the fly. I also find it rather sad that people can't (or won't) make an appropriate amount of time to properly take in these things. Being busy is a poor excuse for short-shrifting so many important parts of life. Sigh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted August 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2016 (edited) All very Bloomsbury Group. I think you'll find that 'people' make plenty of time for what they consider the 'important parts of life'. Edited August 28, 2016 by A Lark Ascending Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted August 28, 2016 Report Share Posted August 28, 2016 I agree. What's "important parts of life" is subjective, and only the individual can decide what those things are. They can't be dictated by others. That's just a wee bit presumptuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 29, 2016 Report Share Posted August 29, 2016 (edited) On 28/08/2016 at 10:31 PM, A Lark Ascending said: All very Bloomsbury Group. ? sorry, that reference sailed over my head... 9 hours ago, Scott Dolan said: I agree. What's "important parts of life" is subjective, and only the individual can decide what those things are. They can't be dictated by others. That's just a wee bit presumptuous. Maybe I should have said 'important to me'... Edited August 29, 2016 by fasstrack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted August 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, fasstrack said: ? sorry, that reference sailed over my head... Early 20thC aristocratic 'art for art's sake' crowd (Virginia Woolf etc) who looked down their noses at the 'common herd' for lacking their cultural taste and discrimination. They assumed the 'masses' had no independence of thought but merely copied others. They'd be apoplectic if they could see the world of iPods and mobile phones. Edited August 29, 2016 by A Lark Ascending Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 29, 2016 Report Share Posted August 29, 2016 7 hours ago, A Lark Ascending said: Early 20thC aristocratic 'art for art's sake' crowd (Virginia Woolf etc) who looked down their noses at the 'common herd' for lacking their cultural taste and discrimination. They assumed the 'masses' had no independence of thought but merely copied others. They'd be apoplectic if they could see the world of iPods and mobile phones. I don't fancy elitists. Not where I'm coming from at all. My beef is wholly with the 'disconnectedness'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted August 29, 2016 Report Share Posted August 29, 2016 Elitist would be too strong a word for you, IMO. But, idealist certainly seems to fit. I fully sympathize with the frustration you've noted, but I think there may be a bit of Golden Age Fallacy in your thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 29, 2016 Report Share Posted August 29, 2016 4 hours ago, Scott Dolan said: Elitist would be too strong a word for you, IMO. But, idealist certainly seems to fit... but I think there may be a bit of Golden Age Fallacy in your thinking. Yes, idealist for sure. Maybe I am a bit retro in some ways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtSalt Posted September 2, 2016 Report Share Posted September 2, 2016 Elitist, hell yes! All art is elitist. Who wants to be part of the herd? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted September 2, 2016 Report Share Posted September 2, 2016 I think you might want to double check the definition of elitist there, Art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted September 2, 2016 Report Share Posted September 2, 2016 4 hours ago, ArtSalt said: Who wants to be part of the herd? Woody's band? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted September 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2016 Wouldn't one simply DIE without 'Art'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted September 2, 2016 Report Share Posted September 2, 2016 Oh my! The sounds serious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted September 2, 2016 Report Share Posted September 2, 2016 7 hours ago, A Lark Ascending said: Wouldn't one simply DIE without 'Art'! I might. But then if it was never here I wouldn't know to miss it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 2, 2016 Report Share Posted September 2, 2016 We'd invent it even if it didn't exist. Or more to the point, I definitely believe in "art", it's "Artists" that I need some convincing about. Just because art is damn near everywhere does not mean that Artists are. Art is an outcome, a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.