Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Then  (Read 6621 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Then
« on: September 26, 2016, 06:33:33 am »

Today, this seems both improbable and impossible. Only it wasn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJOA_vLwevA

Rob

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Then
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2016, 08:57:46 am »

What a time that truly was...

Thanks Rob,

Peter

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Then
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2016, 10:04:41 am »

Yep, and this was always in the background, riding hard even if not always charting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggnfOWbgw9g

Rob

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Then
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2016, 11:52:33 am »

I was born in 46, so this resonates.  Every generation thinks their music was the best. The thing is; for us, it's true.
Logged

Redcrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 507
Re: Then
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2016, 01:26:07 pm »

I've been wondering... is there a correlation between the quality of the younger generation's music and their inability to speak a complete sentence without inserting "like", "ya know", "actually" or "basically" as every other word?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Then
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2016, 02:26:06 pm »

Probably, Red. The stuff in the first link is the kind of thing that makes them mostly deaf. If you're mostly deaf it's hard to learn to speak properly.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Then
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2016, 03:23:43 pm »

Probably, Red. The stuff in the first link is the kind of thing that makes them mostly deaf. If you're mostly deaf it's hard to learn to speak properly.


Russ, the young generation never heard that music!

Rob

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Then
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2016, 03:25:19 pm »

No. It was the boomers. I've got a ton of that stuff on CD's. The really heavy stuff got going around the time I shot this picture in downtown San Francisco. (I've posted it before.) That music was all around me and driving me nuts last time I was in Southeast Asia. That was early 73 to early 74. Then, at the beginning of the 80's I built the software for an outfit that was going to let you make your own rock music tapes. When the project crashed because of unbelievably inept marketing. I was given a complete set of the stuff they had on CD's. I also downloaded a bunch of it before the music companies went to court and shut down the free downloaders. Credence was my favorite group from that period. But I still crack up when I hear "Vehicle" by The Ides of March.

I was around at the start of all that stuff. Stan Kenton was the guy who actually started it, though there were a lot of others working at it.

This morning though I get deafened a bit by the tympanists favorite composer: Sibelius. "Finlandia." Now that's truly splendid stuff, especially if you're a tympanist. Then there's gentle "Valse Triste," which in the early thirties was the theme for a radio serial called "Follow the Moon," as well as for several later ones. Then there's "The Swan of Tuonela," beautiful. And Sibelius isn't even my favorite. Just one of them.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 04:10:42 pm by RSL »
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Then
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2016, 04:09:27 pm »

I've been wondering... is there a correlation between the quality of the younger generation's music and their inability to speak a complete sentence without inserting "like", "ya know", "actually" or "basically" as every other word?

Didn't we have much the same thing with "groovy, man" & "far out" & etc? I have a cassette of my friends & I talking while sitting around a campfire, c. 1974, and our speech is full of what now sound like verbal tics. It's hilarious. :D

-Dave-
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Then
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2016, 10:26:12 am »

Didn't we have much the same thing with "groovy, man" & "far out" & etc? I have a cassette of my friends & I talking while sitting around a campfire, c. 1974, and our speech is full of what now sound like verbal tics. It's hilarious. :D

-Dave-

There is no new thing under the sun. Including the older generation not understanding the following generations' manner of speaking or music. "Get off my lawn....."
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Then
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2016, 03:30:44 pm »

Let's not forget that a lot of slang (?) goes right back to the days of early jazz; even further, when you consider that addressing someone with whom you speak as 'man' is but a straight translation of the ubiquitous Spanish hombre used everywhere and every day in Spain, even by women referring to one another in all-female conversation. As, strangely enough, is the epìthet coño, a direct reference to an intimate part of their anatomy considered a bit OTT in most anglophone conversation, and a definite no-no in mixed company...

So really, some slang sticks - has the power and the just rightness, whereas some has not and is doomed to temporary currency.

Rob

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Then
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2016, 04:26:03 pm »

My friend Jeanne and her two best gal pals have been calling each other dude in casual conversation for as long as I've known them (nearly 20 years). They do not call me dude, ever. I'm merely "a guy."  ;D

-Dave-
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Then
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2016, 05:26:47 pm »

My wife stresses about the degradation of the English language as we know it. She is a journalist/writer/legal assistant so proper English, at least when written and spoken formally is important to her. It does not bother me all that much. I'm an avid reader and enjoy etymology and accept that language is changing all the time. What we think of as formal English used to be slang, even semi-sacrelegious slang like 'good-bye' which derived from 'god be with you' and was considered a flippant use of God's name. This was in the 1700s maybe?

One that used to get to me was "irregardless". For some reason this was popular in the military. Now it is in the dictionary as an irregular use of regardless.

The one that still gets to me is the millennials use of the word "random" which to them only means odd or unusual.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Then
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2016, 05:48:14 pm »

I'm on your wife's side, George. Yes, language changes and it's a good thing that it does. English constantly is picking up technical terms. It also adopts words from the French (the French won't reciprocate), German, etc., etc. With all the troops who've spent time in Asia, myself among them, we've also picked up a lot of GI slang with an Asian slant.

But that's not the same thing as the kind of ignorance that's growing and that's bugging your wife. Teachers nowadays don't know proper English, so they can't teach it to kids. One example is the widespread ignorance of the difference between the verbs "to lie" and "to lay." Even some of the best recent novelists have people laying in bed. They never explain what they're laying because they don't know the difference.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Edward Starkie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: Then
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2016, 04:33:45 pm »

But that's not the same thing as the kind of ignorance that's growing and that's bugging your wife. Teachers nowadays don't know proper English, so they can't teach it to kids. One example is the widespread ignorance of the difference between the verbs "to lie" and "to lay."

Sadly, as a seventh grader in 1961, I had an English (subject not nationality) teacher who insisted that the word "gnat" was pronounced "gat" completely ignoring the fact of the silent g. On the other hand, my daughter's teachers were all of them better than the teachers I had and her grasp of language and literature is consequently better than mine. She is 24 now.

That said, I am a curmudgeon about some things. Don't write lead when you mean the past tense of lead (led). I am now seeing that everywhere in sentences that are often unintentionally funny. I have seen it on this site. An example:"I was lead to my wife after dating other women." :)
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Then
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2016, 04:52:21 pm »

Language is always morphing from this into that. The rules and features that work survive & thrive while those that don't don't. Thinking the rules should be frozen in place at any particular time is conceit. Attempting to freeze them in place is futile.

I enjoyed my Chaucer class in college. The professor even taught us to read the Canterbury Tales aloud in something like the pronunciation of Chaucer's time. The Tales date to the late 1300s, just over 600 years ago, and are barely recognizable on the page or to the ear as being in the English language.

-Dave-
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Then
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2016, 04:57:55 pm »

"I was lead to my wife after dating other women." :)

Good one!  :)  Quite understandable too, considering.

-Dave-
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Then
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2016, 05:36:29 pm »

Language is always morphing from this into that. The rules and features that work survive & thrive while those that don't don't. Thinking the rules should be frozen in place at any particular time is conceit. Attempting to freeze them in place is futile.

I enjoyed my Chaucer class in college. The professor even taught us to read the Canterbury Tales aloud in something like the pronunciation of Chaucer's time. The Tales date to the late 1300s, just over 600 years ago, and are barely recognizable on the page or to the ear as being in the English language.

-Dave-


I cheated: Coghill.

;-)

Rob

P.S. Regarding lead and led: I have just blacked out and panicked, not remembering if I've fallen into that trap or not! But laying and lying are not my shibboleths; I do, however, try not to split those pesky infinitives!

There was always colloquial as well as written English, and people understood the difference, also where and when you might get away with using the former form. On the whole, I don't really like the goalposts moving.

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Then
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2016, 05:59:58 pm »

.
 Even some of the best recent novelists have people laying in bed. They never explain what they're laying because they don't know the difference.

True, but if that gets printed, It's on the editor...Not that they would know the difference.

Peter

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Then
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2016, 07:57:56 pm »

Exactly, Peter. The editors went to the same schools the novelists went to.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up