4 ms·

The Beatles: Firstly, you don't know what I know from my youth. Please argue the point, not your presumption of my personality. He talks about them as the heros

The Beatles: Firstly, you don't know what I know from my youth. Please argue the point, not your presumption of my personality. He talks about them as the heros of "our generation". They weren't. The musical heros of that generation (in the sense of being the leaders of that time) included the ones I've mentioned. The tone is nostalgic and rockist, as dull and unimaginative as his tone when talking about coding. Every generation reinvents stuff, and adds new inventions of its own. People shouldn't just dismiss new creators as inferior out of some chronological quirk, just because those people were born at a later time, or because low-hanging fruit are gone. It's exactly the same condescending and arrogant tone that consigns all young creative people to being "unlucky" to have been born when they are. Ironically, the Beatles - and the tech wizards of the past never listened to that moaning nonsense either from their own older rose-tinted, time-locked colleagues, they just got on and changed the world.

coldtea 7y ago
>The Beatles: Firstly, you don't know what I know from my youth. Please argue the point, not your presumption of my personality. You wrote: "if you came of musical age in the early nineties it's spelt Nirvana", so one is entirely justified to argue based on that. >Every generation reinvents stuff, and adds new inventions of its own. Well, that's the "everything is always the same, just with different flavors" argument. I don't buy it. In history (of science, art, inventions, etc.) we can see that are long periods of stagnation, bursts of higher creativity, eras of repetition, eras of exponential growth, etc.
- mellosouls 7y ago
  >You wrote: "if you came of musical age in the early nineties it's spelt Nirvana", so one is entirely justified to argue based on that. Of course it isn't justified to make that assumption, here I'll show you: if you came of musical age in the 90s it's Nirvana, Wu Tang, whatever if you came of musical age in the 60s it's the Beatles, Motown, Rolling Stones, whatever if you came of musical age in the 80s it's NWA, the Smiths, Michael Jackson, whatever. You can surmise nothing about me except I have some understanding of pop history; you are also reading into my first comment a comparison of worth that is a separate discussion and not remotely connected to my original point. To repeat: argue the point, not your presumption of the person. As for the rest of your comment, I'd broadly agree with a suspicion of relativism and your summary; but you are leaping from that to an unhealthy dismissal of an entire generation - which attitude is generally associated with the sort of moribund conservatism that all great talents - of whichever decade or century - always fight against to the death.

coldtea 7y ago

>The Beatles: Firstly, you don't know what I know from my youth. Please argue the point, not your presumption of my personality. You wrote: "if you came of musical age in the early nineties it's spelt Nirvana", so one is entirely justified to argue based on that. >Every generation reinvents stuff, and adds new inventions of its own. Well, that's the "everything is always the same, just with different flavors" argument. I don't buy it. In history (of science, art, inventions, etc.) we can see that are long periods of stagnation, bursts of higher creativity, eras of repetition, eras of exponential growth, etc.

mellosouls 7y ago
>You wrote: "if you came of musical age in the early nineties it's spelt Nirvana", so one is entirely justified to argue based on that. Of course it isn't justified to make that assumption, here I'll show you: if you came of musical age in the 90s it's Nirvana, Wu Tang, whatever if you came of musical age in the 60s it's the Beatles, Motown, Rolling Stones, whatever if you came of musical age in the 80s it's NWA, the Smiths, Michael Jackson, whatever. You can surmise nothing about me except I have some understanding of pop history; you are also reading into my first comment a comparison of worth that is a separate discussion and not remotely connected to my original point. To repeat: argue the point, not your presumption of the person. As for the rest of your comment, I'd broadly agree with a suspicion of relativism and your summary; but you are leaping from that to an unhealthy dismissal of an entire generation - which attitude is generally associated with the sort of moribund conservatism that all great talents - of whichever decade or century - always fight against to the death.