Discussion in 'General Chat' started by tiecollector, Jul 3, 2009.
Oh, and one more thing:
Who were all no longer popular at the time of the British invasion because the only white boys who were still listening to and being influenced by the Blues, and getting airplay were in England. The only one of the guys you mentioned who was charting at the time was Elvis and he was doing it with stupid beach blanket bingo movie pop crap like Good Luck Charm.
The top selling artist in 1962 was Aker Bilk fa fuk sake. Ray Charles had gone Country and the next most popular black singer was fucking Chubby Checker or maybe the Shirelles or someone like that.
Look, everybody knows the blues started with Wicked Wisdom in the nation of Africa.
Most of them weren't doing so hot by the time of the British Invasion, certainly not as well as they did in they heyday. I agree with that. My point was just that we wouldn't have been listening to something so awful as Pat Boone, given all the people I listed were already in existence by the time the British Invasion happened (indeed, they influenced it).
Also, I like to think I'd have been listening to Waylon Jennings, Johnny Cash, and the like. I recognize his contributions to music, but I can't stand Elvis, pop crap era or otherwise.
Yes, those people you listed plus many more black artists influenced the British invasion but by that time they were done and dusted and American radio stations were not giving fair airplay to black artists and to an extent black influenced music unless it was safe pop crap like Chubby Checker. You might have been listening to decent music, but "you lot" AKA the general American public probably would not have been because you didn't have access to it. Hendrix had to go to England to find an audience. When the British invasion came it was a reintroduction to America of what had once been a uniquely American genre. Radio stations played British music because it was one more step removed from its black roots.
Waylon Jennings, Johnny Cash etc are a different story though because country and country influenced music was still quite healthy at the time, I think that's a different topic however.
Wikipedia. Specifically my reaction to it.
I have two papers to write tonight, one on Shintoism (which know nothing about and care nothing for) and one that is more or less the same as my senior honors thesis, which is broadly on Germanic literary traditions and the changes they underwent under the eye of the church.
At any rate, I was reading a source for the first paper, saw a term I didn't really "get" and looked it up on wiki sometime around seven pm. I just looked at the bar on my browser. I have 32 tabs open and I'm halfway done reading a very interesting article on the possible relation between the supposed Basque and Etruscan isolates and the Uralic languages, that debates whether or not they were regional dialects of a pre-PIE Eurasian language family, and if so, whether the regional dialects formed substrate that were responsible for the rapid diversion of the various "centum" dialects that later became what we think of as Germanic, Celtic, Italic/Romance, and Balto-Slavic languages.
I have no idea how I got here, I have no memory of clicking links, and only one tab was even tangentially related to either of the papers I was writing. Every time I wind up on wiki it turns into massive amounts of lost time, about 300 bookmarks, and on one occasion, a 15 hour reading binge I have little to no memory of.
Does this happen to other people?
Wow, yes. It was the excellence of their musical traditions that first sparked my interest in Germanic civilization in the first place. I really love the subject, ancient to contemporary, and wikipedia has improved greatly within that sphere. It used to be that wikipedia featured openly Germanophobic entries. Now it is, for the most part, pretty straight and wiki functions as a great source for a suspiciously neglected subject. I can sit on it for hours and hours, and spin off into directions that seem so far off the path after the fact. Its usually a catalyst for googling more scholarly writing, though.
Feel free to post more about that paper.
My battery died and now I can't find it... Which sucks, because I had a strong prior interest in the subject. I'll be combing JSTOR for it after tomorrow, because I just realized a week from friday I NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO JSTOR AND MY LIFE IS OVER.
I'll link it if I find it again
237ml cans of pop. you drink one and go back for another.
are you kidding...?? pretty much every time I'm on it. reading something, oh what's that? click. read something else... oh what's THAT? click. wash, rinse, repeat! wiki = information crack.
Heh. Keep us posted.
How accurate is wikipedia? I remember in H.S. my teachers not wanting me to use wikipedia for sources of information because they were "unreliable"
And your teacher be right.
yes. so many times. it's unbelievable. especially when you start reading the source material
i remember a study showing that wikipedia was as accurate as brittanica. encyclopedias in general are not very good to use as source material but they're great ways to find source material. i feel like teachers dont like wikipedia citing because it's lazy and it looks bad
Separate names with a comma.