This is how everyone perceives it, but is it true?
The Beatles were active from 1960 until their break-up in 1970 while Elvis worked from 1953 until his death in 1977. His international hit "In the Ghetto" was released in 1969, a time when the Beatles were already divided and their break-up was imminent. In reality the Beatles and Elvis were very much contemporaries.
And as an aside: It always amused me that Tarentino got that right in the "Beatles people vs Elvis people" scene. Beatles and Stones are compared all the time because they are perceived to be from the same generation. Except for the Tarentino scene I have never heard a comparison like that between the Beatles and Elvis - it is always just Elvis before, Beatles after.
> Mia Wallace: "There are only two kinds of people in the world, Beatles people and Elvis people. Now Beatles people can like Elvis and Elvis people can like the Beatles, but nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice. And that choice, tells you who you are."
there are beatle groups - some just focus on music, some do the theatrical angle (suits/accents/etc). there's not as many partially because it's hard to be just a 'ringo' on your own - you need the group (I guess that goes just as well for real life, not just the imitators!)
The Beatles, meanwhile, were constantly evolving and their style changed with the times, so they were able to stick around a bit longer.
Col Parker was a shady character, and I think he really hosed up Elvis' career in a lot of ways, and Elvis wasn't capable of pushing back.
> I imagine a college classroom in 300 years, in which a hip instructor is leading a tutorial filled with students. These students relate to rock music with no more fluency than they do the music of Mesopotamia: It’s a style they’ve learned to recognize, but just barely (and only because they’ve taken this specific class). Nobody in the room can name more than two rock songs, except the professor. He explains the sonic structure of rock, its origins, the way it served as cultural currency and how it shaped and defined three generations of a global superpower. He shows the class a photo, or perhaps a hologram, of an artist who has been intentionally selected to epitomize the entire concept. For these future students, that singular image defines what rock was.
> So what’s the image?
>And new mediums like TikTok, a kind of Twitter for videos, are great for creative expression. People are doing amazing little performance skits on TikTok.
Tiktok I see is just another trend, like Vines, Yikyak, possibly even Snapchat in the near future.
There are already plenty of platforms for creative expression, the problem is that young people cannot afford to express themselves, whether it's the digital paper trail that comes back to haunt them, being buried beneath other 'shock' and clickbait content, and the real-life pressures and expectations.
You don't see any social or political commentary on these platforms unless it's the latest "beef" between internet personalities. This is all for our amusement and docile nature.
Funny, I had completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it even though it was popular at my university.
In relation to trends, TikTok itself only became popular in the West when it merged with musical.ly, a very similar app.
Those annoying YouTube ads for TikTok you might see replaced musical.ly ads. I remember wondering if they were the same product rebranded.
People make mistakes, we are fallible. Unless it’s a felony, these things should not haunt people who have learned and matured enough to have not made the mistakes recently (and thus recorded/indexed and available)
Do you have a personal philosophical justification for stating that a felony should continue to haunt people who have learned and matured enough not to do them again? If so, why? (or is this more of a practical "well we don't have a chance in Hell of getting the Justice system on board to forget felonies" type of exclusion)
Also, things you say and do at 14, 15, 16, should not follow you and often, in the justice system, they don’t (depending on severity) but on the internet immature age makes no difference.
In other words, the defining characteristic of a felony is that it's the kind of crime that's so serious that it can't just be forgotten and moved past. Sadly our legislatures are rather daft sometimes, so many lesser crimes are legally classified as felonies.
I thought the defining characteristic was the extent to which it is pursued and punished by the law. Off the top of my head I can think of one or two felonious charges that at least "arguably" don't satisfy your definition.
Law often follows morality but one should be wary of mistaking them for the same thing.
EDIT sorry I read through your comment again and realised you pretty much end up in agreement, though we perhaps start at different points.
I mean, some people like it and some people even love it, but lots of people also think it's bloody awful, and awful on many different levels too.
However, philosophically, the lyrics of the song boils down to "What if we could all just get along?", which is an even weaker message than "Why can't we all just get along?", which is already a sentiment so childish that I never deploy it as anything other than an example of something so hopelessly naive that it can't be taken seriously by any adult.
I mean, a lot of todays Western culture is derived from ideals promoted and promulgated by said military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex. A lot of peoples livelihoods depend on the export of death and destruction to the world. It follows that Lennon would be being written out of history by such culture ... and that there would be an effort to replace his ideals with those more aligned with the very real social goals of the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex running the West...
He is fading because his late music wasn't very good and the generation that loved him is dying. The deep state, powers-that-be are the ones who will mourn him, because as an impotent fantasist, he was no threat to them at all while playing the perfect appearance of one.
I still prefer it to the original, but do you think it's as boring or facile as the original?
Enjoy if you still “get it”. It’s a “classic”: https://youtu.be/rLDy4Glw9cY
I'm from Germany, not the US and the first time I watched it as a teen I only got the obvious references. Each time I rewatched it, I found more and more references to US history, which just made the movie even better for me.
Thankfully they didn't film Forrest going to space that was in the book .
I see this happening with collector cars, too. The interest in Model T's has really dissipated, and the muscle cars are starting to fade, too.
I didn't watch the later ones.