John Wayne, Errol Flynn, Humphery Bogart

[AlexCraig]

This has kinda been bothering me for some time. In 60 years time, will these names be remembered? Once the Baby Boomers have all gone, will future generations recall these actors? Same with Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, and Bing Crosby. Will these singers be remembered? From what I have seen of this generation (and I know this is not true about everyone) it is unlikely. Kinda makes me sad, knowing that these famous names may go forgotten.

[Siertes]

John Wayne will probably last longer, or at least the longest. Sinatra will probably be remembered for a good while as well. You hear references to those two in all kinds of media these days. Not so much for the others.

But then again, in 60 years I bet the names of old actors and musicians will be the last thing on anyone's mind.

[AlexCraig]

Exactly, that is part of why they might get forgotten as well.

Even now, the jokes and sight gags of Looney Tunes are becoming forgotten or uninteresting.

[ABDUR101]

Hah, I made mention of BB King and my 17 year old nephew said "Who?" I said you silly fuck, you're at the ass-end of highschool and you don't even know who BB King is??

Oh well, thats how it goes. I'm sure this isn't the first time somebody important or had a pivotal role in cultural history was forgotten.

By the way, John Wayne liked teh mens; same with James Dean, Iggy Pop and quite afew others. Makes them win in my book. =]

[Siertes]

On 2007-09-02 10:15, ABDUR101 wrote:

By the way, John Wayne liked teh mens



Dang straight he liked teh mens...SIX FEET UNDER!!!!!

[Blitzkommando]

What about Chuck Berry, Chubby Checker, and Gary Lewis? Yeah, I've never been all that impressed with most modern musicians. Josh Groban is one of the few that sticks out in my mind. That's why I have the Rat Pack collection (They'll never be forgotten because of Las Vegas) and I'll take a good Glen Miller any day. What I'm hoping is that people will, as they grow up, realize that there were a lot of genuinely talented people in the 20th century, and that modern entertainment didn't just randomly start in 1990.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Norvekh on 2007-09-02 11:19 ]</font>

[AlexCraig]

Yeah. The early-mid 1900'd had some good actors and musicians. It would be a sad day these names are completely forgotten.

[Arcyon]

I can't forget them. I've never heard of them =]

[AlexCraig]

http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_eek.gif You have been missing out on a lot!

[DizzyDi]

Every generation has their own idols and such. I don't think this generation or the one coming up cares about some old dudes who acted as Cowboys or sang songs in a genre that no one really listens to anymore.
Not that I'm downing these people because I dig Frank Sinatra & Satchmo and all that but most peeps don't. And really I don't see why they should care, its not relevant to them.

[Sord]

I'm with Dizzy on this one. Plus there are plenty more important things I'd rather have people know and remember rather than some actor, singer, or writer.

[Airalean]

On 2007-09-02 09:35, AlexCraig wrote:
In 60 years time, will these names be remembered? Once the Baby Boomers have all gone, will future generations recall these actors?


Who?

[astuarlen]

Think of all the people who've been forgotten over the millennia.
Hey, maybe those dudes (and cultural icons of our times) will exist mainly in Trivial Pursuit questions and entertainment history texts in 50 years.
Those that care will remember; those that don't, won't. As Dizzy said, it's all about relevance--and, I submit, the "storage capacity" of the individual and collective consciousness plus the issue of changing perspective over time. If you graduated from highschool more than five years ago (and don't work in or study a related field), you probably don't remember how to take a derivative or integral, because you have scads more important bits of information and connections between them to keep track of.
Name a famous figure from the thirteenth century. The seventh? Sixth? I doubt many people can provide more than a few--optimistically--and while I guess you could blame that on a comparatively low quantity and quality of record-keeping, and we are talking about a much longer time lapse, my point (if I have one worth articulating, which is questionable) is the same: if knowledge doesn't "do anything" for an individual or group--and you can't convince them it will--they probably would rather use the nogginspace for people and things and processes that directly touch them.
Those guys (hey, where are the ladies? ;>) will probably exist mostly for people with a special interest in them in the future, such as music and film historians. I, for one, am pretty interested in art history, so I have a few mental compartments stuffed with names and styles and pieces and movements, but I don't think it's a terrible thing that most people's knowledge of art history goes little further than Michelangelo and Picasso. How many influential artists can you name from the past 60 years?

[/end nonsense post which mostly serves to give me a break from painting]



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astuarlen on 2007-09-02 13:45 ]</font>

[Blitzkommando]

Nobody listens to blues, jazz, or rock n' roll anymore? That's news to me.

Riddle me this then. If these people that were so formative in their genres aren't important to remember then why do kids today seem to love The Beatles, Queen, Elvis, Bob Marley, and the like? Those bands and people are equally old yet are still part of this generation of listeners. Old Blue Eyes and Satchmo had their share of awesome music too. The problem is that they aren't 'hip' enough to be talked about anymore. Beethoven, Mozart, Dvorak amongst dozens of other artists from centuries ago are better known than most of the musicians and actors mentioned here.

Hell, I've even had to explain who Queen was to some people. Why? You talk to them and they'll say silly things like, "I don't listen to old bands because they all suck." "But you listen to Green Day and Bob Marley, right? They're pretty old now." "But that's different! They're cool!" Kids so often have this moronic idea that, "If my parents liked to it, it's got to suck."

I guess my reason for not 'getting' that mentality is that I never had it. I remember a CD my parents had in the early-90s called something like "1966 Greatest Hits". I absolutely loved it, and still do. My point is that kids get so hung up on the whole, "Shit, they lived 25 years before I was born! That's so ancient it can't be cool!" jive and it makes me sick and tired to hear that. Genuinely listen to it and then decide whether or not you don't like it.

[AlexCraig]

On 2007-09-02 13:45, Norvekh wrote:
I guess my reason for not 'getting' that mentality is that I never had it. I remember a CD my parents had in the early-90s called something like "1966 Greatest Hits". I absolutely loved it, and still do. My point is that kids get so hung up on the whole, "Shit, they lived 25 years before I was born! That's so ancient it can't be cool!" jive and it makes me sick and tired to hear that. Genuinely listen to it and then decide whether or not you don't like it.



Same here. I know a lot more music from over 30 years ago than current day music because I tend to listen to what my mom plays more that what the radio plays.

[DizzyDi]

On 2007-09-02 13:44, astuarlen wrote:
Think of all the people who've been forgotten over the millennia.
Hey, maybe those dudes (and cultural icons of our times) will exist mainly in Trivial Pursuit questions and entertainment history texts in 50 years.
Those that care will remember; those that don't, won't. As Dizzy said, it's all about relevance--and, I submit, the "storage capacity" of the individual and collective consciousness plus the issue of changing perspective over time. If you graduated from highschool more than five years ago (and don't work in or study a related field), you probably don't remember how to take a derivative or integral, because you have scads more important bits of information and connections between them to keep track of.
Name a famous figure from the thirteenth century. The seventh? Sixth? I doubt many people can provide more than a few--optimistically--and while I guess you could blame that on a comparatively low quantity and quality of record-keeping, and we are talking about a much longer time lapse, my point (if I have one worth articulating, which is questionable) is the same: if knowledge doesn't "do anything" for an individual or group--and you can't convince them it will--they probably would rather use the nogginspace for people and things and processes that directly touch them.
Those guys (hey, where are the ladies? ;>) will probably exist mostly for people with a special interest in them in the future, such as music and film historians. I, for one, am pretty interested in art history, so I have a few mental compartments stuffed with names and styles and pieces and movements, but I don't think it's a terrible thing that most people's knowledge of art history goes little further than Michelangelo and Picasso. How many influential artists can you name from the past 60 years?

[/end nonsense post which mostly serves to give me a break from painting]



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astuarlen on 2007-09-02 13:45 ]</font>


I was originally going to make a post similar to this but couldn't find the right words for it.
AST,TO THE RESCUE.

And yes Norvekeh, most people don't listen to blues or jazz. They're two of the lowest selling genres today.
I do agree with you though that people only listen to Bob Marley, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc. only cause its the cool thing to do.
Why? Hell if I know.

[Sinue_v2]

My impression is that these people will never be forgotten in history, but they will become icons and fall for the most part from everyday view, much like Charlie Chaplin, Clark Gabel, and Perry Como did in the generation before the baby boomers. But some legends have endured and stayed popular, even today. The Three Stooges (for example) have become almost a pre-requisite for men to enjoy these days, while Larel & Hardy and Abbot & Costello fade.

So I wouldn't worry about history forgetting the artists and great minds of yesteryear. We always have. And we always have a few icons of their time rise above and become remembered for all time. The real question is, how will our current generation of icons live up to the legacy of those who came before?


I made mention of BB King and my 17 year old nephew said "Who?" I said you silly fuck, you're at the ass-end of highschool and you don't even know who BB King is??

Edit: BB King is the shit. I don't listen to him much, but I did get a chance to catch him in concert a few years ago. I mean... it's BB King! How often do you get a chance to see a legend in person? He played Deer Creek a few weeks after Bob Dylan (who I also saw) and I couldn't believe how vibrant and energetic both of them are, despite their old age. The amount of passion and soul they can pour out through their instruments... you don't hear it often in todays modern music, and you just can't fully appreciate it listening on a CD.


Kids so often have this moronic idea that, "If my parents liked to it, it's got to suck."

I suppose that's true in a broad sense, but I've known quite a few who get into the classics. When I was working at Stumps, we had a guy join on to work the Die-Cutter. He was like 20 years old, and looked like a little wigger. Gold chain, cap on backwards and cocked, jersey shirt, and pants hanging half-off his ass. So I was a bit shocked when we came back from break one night and he was already at his machine working and jamming out to oldies like Bill Hailey, Dion & the Belmonts, Fats Domino, The Righteous Brothers, Shirelles, etc. Which was completely fucking awesome, since I love the old 50's Malt-Shop and early 60's rock.


Old Blue Eyes and Satchmo had their share of awesome music too. The problem is that they aren't 'hip' enough to be talked about anymore.

http://img.snlarc.jt.org/arc/imp/PhHa-Frank%20Sinatra.jpg

Hip? Kids today don't know what hip is. I invented hip! Lemmie tell you something, sweetheart, I shit little chunks of hip in my stool! Ain't that right Steve and Eydie?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2007-09-02 15:56 ]</font>

[Sekani]

Sixty years from now people will look at the names of those mentioned here and wonder why everyone thought they were so great.

Personally, I'm familiar with just about every name dropped so far, and the only ones I care to remember are Charlie Chaplin and Louis Armstrong. The rest are highly overrated.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

On 2007-09-02 09:35, AlexCraig wrote:
...Frank Sinatra...



John Wayne wasn't fond of Frank Sinatra. Legend has it, that on one occasion, John Wayne was staying at a hotel in Vegas while shooting a film. Sinatra had the suite directly beneath his. While Wayne was trying to get some sleep before getting up at 5 in the morning for filming, Sinatra was having a party below him. He called down there several times to complain about the noise, and it would quiet down for a few minutes, but invariably, the decibels would raise again. When he decided that he'd had enough, John Wayne went down there in person.

He told Frank Sinatra, "You cut the noise out, dammit!"

One of the great musician's bodyguards stepped between them, and said, "Nobody speaks to the Sinatra like that!"

John Wayne humbly nodded, and started to turn away, but abruptly turned and rammed his epic fist into the bodyguard's jaw, sending the man staggering. He then proceeded to K-O the hired brute by breaking a chair over him.

Turning to leave, the American film hero gave Frank an angry look, and exited without a word. He had no more problems with party noise for the rest of the night.

[DurakkenX]

Most of today's music is disposable at best. They aren't written by the the singers/performers and even when they are most of them haven't had any real life experience to draw from to make worthwhile while the writers that write most of the music are forced to pump out track after track that it tends to become the same crap, but on the rare occasion it isn't crap it's poorly performed or misunderstood.

it's the same problem with just about everything else in the world today. There is very little soul in it. The people that do the work aren't doing it because they love it or want to tell a message. They just want the money or to be famous. And hell, if you think about it that's reflective of society in america anyways. Not many people have much experience or live much at all so you cant expect the entertainment to be that lively either.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

I am exceptionally upset with the music industry, Durakken. It is as you say-- the industry is more interested in making money than in making music. The vast majority of what gets produced is meant to be "marketable"-- meaning that there's no experimentation, merely repetition of what has worked before. They try to produce only the sorts of works that will appeal to the widest possible demographic. Most of so-called "popular music" is paper-thin, and a damned waste of storage media. Mostly, performers are chosen for looks, rather than talent. CDs are sold on sex appeal, rather than quality of music.

I am particularly upset over what they've done to Michelle Branch. She was a young woman with a pure and unadulterated love of music. All she wanted was to write and perform music, but the music industry did with her what they do with all attractive young women they encounter-- everything short of whoring her out on a corner. She was once an incredibly talented musician, and a song writer the likes of which we may not see again for decades, but now she's just tired and bitter about what she's been put through.

The industry is corrupt, and it's not allowing the music to grow. It's going downhill, and something's gotta change.