• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Me

Variform

Banned
Local time
Today 11:59 PM
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
809
---
I've heard that argument before. In fact I came across it recently in the form of pyrrhonism, which I had never heard of before this week. It's actually uncanny how closely you have echoed what I read:

Awesome! I never knew of this school of thought. I looked it up. It describes my position pretty well. That is what I like about these conversations. You get to learn a thing or two. Since I been a member I have had to look up many words and all sorts of concepts I wasn't aware of. :elephant:


On the other hand, I feel driven to denounce various models. While no one can ever quite be 100% sure of anything (maybe God is messing with the detectors at the LHC), I don't like the paralysis that comes of refusing to reject what seems ridiculous.

In all things you seek balance. I too denounce religion. But my denunciation is based on their modalities of thought about themselves. I lower myself to their standard reasoning but in my heart I will be the Pyrrhonist. E.g. I can go along fine with someone like Pat Condell, who is very outspoken about the folly of religion. But I make no mistake to think that this is my level of thought on these matters. The conclusion may sometimes be the same between him and I but my reasoning differs.

Hm, not sure if I got that very clear here.

Is astrology a model? If so, you and I must disagree. I could perhaps, if I really tried, write a nice thorough defense of astrology and make it sound pretty good, just like, I suppose, Ken Ham did about as good as a creationist could hope to do in his debate against Bill Nye. But maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Dunno these people. Is this similar to a discussion between a religious person and Richard Dawkins I once saw? Is astrology a model? Hmm. My inclination (is there a oun there?) is to say yes. It is a mode of thinking, it follows a type of reasoning, that is within itself consistent, yet maybe not logical. But logic and reason are two different things.

But my definition of a model my not be yours?


There are connections between religions because... how could there not be? On closer inspection, though, one finds that religions are not even slightly compatible. In fact most of them command that a person be killed for choosing a different one.

If you look at religions as complete concepts I see patterns between them. If you study details about what these people believe, there are differences. Religions are systems of thought that are driven by a human need for existential answers. Science does it another way, but that is only a few hundred years old. Before that science was still imbued with the idea that matter also had spirit in it, to summarize it. It was only with Descartes that matter and spirit became separated. And he got that from a dream in which an angel appeared to him :-)



Religion is about as correct as 2 + 2 = 5. I have a marked preference for 2 + 2 = 4, just like I have one for atheism.

But like I said in OP, I actually did used to be much more similar to you. I saw connections between religions as sure proof there must be something to them, and I indeed became a Zen Buddhist for roughly 5 years--full blown, too. I meditated daily, strict zazen style, and I would go to a Zen service every week for a while. Also read many books and watched hundreds of hours worth of teaching videos.

You amaze me with your discipline. I could never engage myself so fully. It must be rewarding and yet it seemed to have dissatisfied you in the long run. Maybe that is because any, ANY model one can follow ultimately falls before the Pyrrhonistic Persuasion? :-)

Because how do you balance one model out when you exclude all others? When you engage in one model deeply, it needs to be offset because the content of a model is only valid to itself, within that model.

Within that model there may be elegance and paradoxes and equilibrium, but as a whole, where do you place it?

For the sake of brevity I didn't mention any of that in the OP, but it was at the heart of everything. I was on the quest for enlightenment, which I increasingly saw as synonymous with God. What led to my great depression was, in fact, a total, all consuming effort toward constant meditation. I shut all externals out of my life. I even quit my job. I refused to even read or watch TV, and I wouldn't even speak to my family, let alone friends.

It is safe to say that I took Zen Buddhism to its full conclusion, and came up empty handed. If you're thinking about getting into it, I'd say don't bother. You're not going to get enlightened. You're not going to get anything. And I'm not even being elusive and paradoxical here. It's literally pointless. Far better to pursue something of this world.

That is why I don't bother too much with specifics and content. I still wonder what went wrong. Not all Zen people come to a conclusion like yours. Is it possible one reads and studies something deeply yet fails to see the point?

Are you certain you are not confusing your won conclusion :-) I'd day, if you come to realize that a system of knowledge is futile, you are quite wise to me. In the end it is about the process, not the specifics. A Zen Master would be proud you finally understood that the whole approach to enlightenment in the end is nothing but - insert farting sound here.

I have limited in-depth knowledge of Zen. Most of what I know comes from Alan Watts. Hours and hours of listening to mp3's.


Superstition will be the death of you. You're incredibly superstitious if you are even a tiny bit superstitious, it is an all-or-nothing sort of belief. That little seed could start a wild-fire, and do serious damage. I literally quit my career on superstition, and can't go back now. I spent 27 years being "a little superstitious." When it started to matter, though, I let myself fall off a cliff. It dominated my life. Almost killed me, too.

Ask your old Zen buddies if using your own experience as a measuring rod is wise. I am not afraid of wild fires of the imagination. I look at reality and I get a flash of derealization. It is all surrealistic to me. I am watching a play being all the actors. All the world is a stage, said Shakespeare, right?

Why feel bad about quitting a career? Is a career that wonderful? What value has a career? If you quit it to follow an interest, it cannot have been that special. Are you sure you are not in hindsight doing a revaluation?

I know how to see God. You go to Kroger's and get a bottle of Robitussin and chug it. Then you wait 2 hours and smoke some weed while lying down in a dark room. God will appear. Been there, seen it. It was undeniable, nothing else it could have been. Problem is, it was still just an experience of God. If God is just a headspace I can't get into while sober, I have little interest in it. I have seen the "spiritual" experiences of many psychedelics and I am interested for science to one day map them and open their doors.

I have no doubt that science will forever fail to map the psychedelic experience. You should not externalize god. You are god. Your human eyes are flawed. Hence, god is flawed, prone to our own misconceptions. Of course god is a headspace, but you make it sounds like that is a disappointment! HGow else with you come to go?

With angels singing, flapping their wings, heavenly choirs? :angel: lol! God both exists and he doesn't. That's how he likes it.

Do you really want to live in a cosmos where god is real? Where he is so provable and omni-present that wherever you go, you will 'feel' his presence?

Descartes and his kin worked really really hard to push god back out of matter into the unknown! Do you wanna bring him back here?

God would be like one of these cartoon mini rain clouds following you around. Or a sun, if you like. I want spirituality back in science. Not god. God is but a part of spirituality.

I think you need to give yourself a break. You are wiser than you think. You are bigger than the Zen model. Don't be dissapointed 'it didn't work out for you'. It did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Welcome to enlightenment! Is it everything you hoped for? What did you expect to achieve? Sit on a mountain in white robe with a glowing aura around you? Or were you secretly believing that you needed to study Zen until death? And then some?

Nah, some people never get where you are. People don't get what enlightenment is. It is not a state you reach, never to lose it again and no, you cannot levitate either.

I'll write about it, find that.
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." - Neitzsche
Freddie you aren't an INTP, are you? While convictions may restrict the paths one may take in that search, "reduction to an absurdity" always begins with a conviction which leads us down a path where the aim is to fall off a cliff. That is a path I'm very fond of, so don't block it Friedrich. You need to study logic Friedrich lest your conviction about convictions convict you.
 

Spocksleftball

not right
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
163
---
Location
earth's center mass
A few more things about me:

I don't believe in free will

These beliefs are similar to those of Sam Harris. What can I say, the guy is just right. He has excellent talks on youtube for both topics.


Well, after reading most of your posts, I would conclude that you are young --defined as knowing all the answers, but none of the questions -- and are emotionally dependent upon annoying others; you aren't alone there...seems an American pastime these days to be self assured with no basis other than emotional selfriotousness. I am also glad you found someone to follow in Sam Harris.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 8:59 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,252
---
Location
69S 69E
Freddie you aren't an INTP, are you? While convictions may restrict the paths one may take in that search, "reduction to an absurdity" always begins with a conviction which leads us down a path where the aim is to fall off a cliff. That is a path I'm very fond of, so don't block it Friedrich. You need to study logic Friedrich lest your conviction about convictions convict you.

I don't think the comment means one shouldn't make convictions, but that convictions are often just as if not more deceptive than lies. Both to ourselves and others.

An air of confidence can sway people to a point of view that possesses little merit of its own accord, and over-confidence in a viewpoint can bring stagnation to one's perceptions.
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Interesting statements. There is something I have never quite understood.
I don't think the comment means one shouldn't make convictions, but that convictions are often just as if not more deceptive than lies. Both to ourselves and others.
I always find convictions hide something, but I don't think in terms of lies. What lies? I can never quite figure convictions out. What? Is the person attached to something? I don't have convictions I'm aware of.


An air of confidence can sway people to a point of view that possess little merit of its own accord, and over-confidence in a viewpoint can bring stagnation to one's perceptions.
There it is again. Confidence is admirable if the person is admirable. I will admire the person. That tells me something is worth examining. If I don't admire the person, then it is to be questioned. Over-confidence yes.
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
My intro thread was finally Godwinned. Does this mean I win a prize?
 
Local time
Today 11:59 PM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
Only if I get a prize too for you Godwinning free will, compatibilism, and subjective morality. :D

(The 4=5 proof is prize-worthy on its own, imho... :p)
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
Only if I get a prize too for you Godwinning free will, compatibilism, and subjective morality. :D

(The 4=5 proof is prize-worthy on its own, imho... :p)

Ya but you can't take the square root of a negative number! 4 is still not 5. RIGHT AND WRONG for life.
 
Local time
Today 11:59 PM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
Ya but you can't take the square root of a negative number! 4 is still not 5. RIGHT AND WRONG for life.
*shrugs* So they were missing an i... Small discrepancy, amirite? :D

Another option would be 4/5=5 wherein 4 becomes a physical object cut into 5 pieces. Fuzzy logic ftw.
SXSRCqW.jpg
 

Variform

Banned
Local time
Today 11:59 PM
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
809
---
Technically that would be academic skepticism as done by Carneades. The difference between them? I guess the pyrrhonists are just more hardcore. To me it just seems like they obliterate thought. If you can't know anything, including not being able to know anything, then every thought you have might as well be pure delusion. No conclusion about anything can be drawn. As soon as you even begin any thought whatsoever, it is wrong.

That is quite true but in a different way. I am a solipsist. To me reality is a construct of my mind. Everything I see therefore is 'wrong'. And yet it is there, undeniably. Every thought I have about reality is embedded in this projection and therefore prone to all the factors that influence it. So my thoughts are imperfect. I cannot make conclusions based on what I see. And yet they give meaning to my life.

So Pyrrhonists approach solipsism from, I guess, epistemology. Whereas the solipsists approaches it from ontology. I prefer to go to the extreme root of All Things.
 

Variform

Banned
Local time
Today 11:59 PM
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
809
---
And.... how do you know that?

Actually, I take that back. I totally agree. Since there is no experience of nonexistence, there can be only consciousness and there is no death. But as far as I am concerned there is, because I would assume all memory is lost upon worldly death. It certainly is upon taking a big hit of salvia. I would rather stay alive on this planet and retain my memory than roll the dice.

Life is rolling dice. There is no point in safe betting. It would be boring and would have no point. There would be no personal development, not pleasure or pain. You know all that Zen Man.

Memory is not lost. There are options.

1: Indigo Girls:

I never should have read my horoscope
Or the fortune on the bubble gum strip
Saying what you think won't happen will
Great thing to read before a trip
On an airplane

If you truly enter death believing that there is nothing after it, that your memories will be lost, that will happen.

2: Your memories are non-local. Ask Rupert Sheldrake about this. Modern scientists will insist that memories are stored in the brain because we see neurons flickering in fMRI scanners. But if the brain is a receiver, we only see the result of what happens when memories are accessed. I've seen a thread here where people speak about how DNA can emit signals. How...funny... eh?

3: Our memories are stored in some collective (un)-consciousness.

4: The you remains in some form in another dimension retaining all memory. It is funny when you read about people who had a NDE. Some of them describe having a flashback of their lives, remembering everything. I wonder at that moment supreme how all these patterns that are said to contain the memory can be accessed so rapidly, bang, bang, one experiential moment after another, in succession upon the moment of death.

5: Your memories become part of a sort of database equivalent in the core of who I am. That is right. Me. You become part of me. I am a solipsist. Therefore your memories are mine. In this way some people can have memories of places they have never been to. That happens you know, quite well documented.

They access me. The real me. I am god, I exist in a non-local, non-existing 'space' and reality is a projection by me to have a canvas on which I created reality. I am a constant flow out to this canvas, think of it as a light within a sphere and the inside of this sphere is part of me. That is what solipsism is. And I stream myself onto the canvas and am reality. And then it bounces back and every 'foton' that bounces back is the experience of a lifetime that someone lived. But it is all me!

In that way you will live forever. Nothing that you experienced is ever lost.
:angel:

You know the beauty of this is...we are all solipsist beings. What I just claimed? You can claim it too. It makes no difference. I am you, you are me.

Who am I but you and the sun?
A sad reflection of everyone
Was it me who let you walk away?
Were you the one or is it we're the same?

What are we in time going by?
The simple story of a younger life
Happy dreams and somehow through the day
We haven't come so far to lose our way

Look at me
I believe it's true
You're a part of me
I'm a part of you

Love is only what we come to knew
The waking, breathing and all with you
A crystal passing reflected in our eyes
Eclipsing all the jealousy and lies

Look at me
Can't you see it's true
You're a part of me
I'm a part of you

Quiet as the voices in a dream
Without two shadows the things I've seen
Remember the evening I let you walk away
Were you the one or is it we're the same?

Look at me
I believe it's true
You're a part of me
I'm a part of you

Mountain - For Yasgur's Farm


However, there are tons of reasons why immortality will pose no problem whatsoever to the world, the first of which is that population growth slows to barely above replacement rate in developed countries.

That is the problem. Our birthrate is low. In poor nations it is very high. For every western child using resources, you can get a complete village of children in Bangladesh.

Beyond that, the technological increase we will soon see will usher in an age not just of total abundance, but also total resilience. Nanotechnology will clean up pollution, reverse global warming, and make sea water drinkable. No longer will we need to harvest animals to eat meat, we will grow it in vitro. Solar power is doubling in efficiency every 2 years, meaning that within 15 years the current energy use of the whole globe will be achieved by solar alone, easily. I don't even think we will need fusion.

No! I do NOT believe in techno-optimism. Too many believe wrongly that 'they' will fix it for us'. 'They' being engineers, technologists, scientists...INTP's? Technology is not a solution to problems, rather, it creates problems that then require fixing with a new technology.

I prefer technorealism. The gap between immortality and finding technological answers will be too great. Before a man can solve fundamental problems in a society that is getting out of control real quick, he needs time to study for many decades, possibly hundreds of years. Longevity holds no guarantee for problem solving.

So that is a sort of temporal optimism. The idea that it just takes time to solve an issue.

Technology and science do not solve problems at all. What is the major problem mankind faces? As mortal beings we have no answer to the question 'how to be in the world'. When I take a pill now and become immortal, I will not have an answer. I will still need to base my actions on ethics, values and norms. People would still have their biological urge to reproduce.

Recent research shows that when a man has kids after the age of about 40, the chances of certain conditions rises rapidly. Errors in DNA cause the sperm to become of bad quality over time.

People would infect the world with many sorts of mental health problems. They don't care. I saw a man on tv who had a 1 year old. He would not have changed his mind, knowing his kid had a higher chance of ADHD, suicide, bipolar disorder etc. His need for a kid meant more than the happiness of said kid.

Mind you! Solar energy is the result of the fact we used another, older technology to screw things up. All of society is based on cheap and abundant energy. We used coal, then oil. Our climate changes because of our conduct, which is based on ourselves not asking the right questions about what we are and supposed to be doing with self-awareness.

And as people become aware of these issues, they buy LED lighting. They save energy. And then think that because they are saving energy, they can get away with buying that extra energy consuming toy for their home.

That is what people do. They 'fill themselves out'. Any saving achieved will be an excuse to consumer more of something else. Even with energy saving measures and awareness of climate issues, we use more and more energy.

Now we introduce immortality and we will forever be using energy. More and more.

Now think! Since we live forever, we have ample time to destroy our world. We can install laws that regulate how and when people can have children, trampling that human right away under the pressure of a rising population, because, we have infinite time, so even if you increase the population with one child a month, the exponential function, in a timeframe of infinity, will be exponential just the same.

Immortality should not be attempted in a world that is a sphere, that is finite. And certainly not while mankind is still in a state of not understanding wtf we are.

I think as a solipsist I arranged it reasonably neat. I allow people a lifetime in a finite environment. Their lives are finite too. When they die, they come to me, the Source. In me they will be eternal. Not in my projection. See? As a solipsist you understand what god is. It is no wonder that these religions came up wit such phrases. 'Through me thou shalt find eternity'.


That's only the beginning. The world is becoming an easier place for tons of people to live, not harder. For half the pop. to die off would be an epic tragedy and would do great harm.

No it would not. Immediately nature will grow back over villages and cities. Animal populations will rise, wobble because of the niches being refilled but after some time there will be a new more natural equilibrium.
Our climate will repair itself.

Human lives will be harder, because production of material goods wills eize and since we live our lives by working to produce goods and services, we are out of work. But behold! Less people, less cities, people clint together, leaving vast swaths of land ready for farming.

We will go back to nature. We will plow our fields and not be an IT specialist anymore. And you know? It will be great. It will be harder, with less needless luxuries. But it will be purer and with more respect for each other, because more than before we will need each other. Help me plow the fields, I help you grow your corn.

I don't have any feeling for people dying. And I am not so selfish as to think it matters if I am one of them. I am a solipsist. When I die, reality seizes to exist. I too will flow back to the central universal core of being, that I am myself. I will make room.

Not all life that potentially can exist, necessarily has to exist. This is religious thinking: a person against abortion insists that all potential life must be born because it has the right to. But there is no life yet , so it has no right. Religious idiots extend the right to live as a human right projecting it so deep into a woman's womb, that it passes the border between life and non-existence. A bit of sperm has no rights.


Did I mention space colonies? With nanotech, megascale engineering will become possible. O'Neil colonies made with material from the asteroid belt could hold literally quadrillions of people.

To what purpose do we need so many people?

Assume technological change. By the 2030s we will have advanced nanotechnology. It's gonna be beyond what you could ever imagine. And then the 2040s will come.

No, nanotech will be another asbestos in society. We are introducing it as the big next thing and afrter a few decades we will all have auto-immune diseases ebcause these stray nano-particles and buckyballs are bouncing around in our bodies causing havoc. And then we need another technology or refinement to combat this.

And so we repeat the same mistake over and over again.

We need less tech in the world, not more. More tech means not a better world, or easier lives or happier lives. Happiness comes from an understanding of how to be in the world. Not because you can hold a job, earn a wage and buy junk for eternity.


Do you also hope the black death returns? And small pox? Do you think that none of those things should have been cured? Not cholera, the disease people got because there was human shit in their water? Not dengue "bone crushing" fever? Not malaria?

There is no relationship between these diseases and happy living or having a meaningful life. Happiness will flow from the understanding of yourself in nature. It is a surrender, whereas we inwq estern society will fight to the death for an extra second. If you know who you are, what you are, why you are and live among your family and friends, die of a disease, it will be okay. Too bad I got only to 40. But those 40 years were blessed and that is all I can ask for, 'now hold me once more my love before I go and I will see you in the next phase.'

We are too afraid of death. All of our society is a reaction to our fear of death, so we are afraid to live. Because to live is to be dying. We die all the time, all of our lives death approaches. We deny it with all our spiritual strength.

And I say this as a man who turns in bed many nights thinking about dying. Realizing it is going to come. It scares me still. But I refuse to let myself be prone to thoughts about what to consume next , to still my fear. See?

I will realize it, then type usless lengthy posts here and muddle along like the rest of us. I can never let myselg go as you did, into a model, to avoid realization. I seek only tuth and understanding and damn myself if something in the void stares back at me. I will look at it and it will flee. Or I will die trying and live unhappily. I cannot deny what I am. I am a mortal man of Earth, knowing fuck all. But I will watch. I will think. I will be aware. And live a life only I could. Laugh at your own death and you will not be ready to immerse yourself so fully that you need patchwork consumerism to uphold the house of cards that is your psyche.





If you don't care about life or death, why care if the world is overpopulated? What's the difference between starvation and cancer? There really isn't one, especially if you view them as population control. From your standpoint, I don't think it is possible to believe the world is overpopulated. But like I said, it's not. It just seems that way.

I made this canvas as a place for people to have experience. That is the answer to All Things. To be sitting there in my non-existing space, overthinking infinite possibilities makes no sense.

McKenna understood.

It is about how things must 'undergo the formality of occurring.' In my god-like Source-form I can overview all possibilities, but they haven't happened yet. So I created a spacetime continuum, created dimensions, created the universe. Then I let it evolve. And I knew worlds would arise and on those worlds there would be life and it would evolve and it would develop consciousness. And then all these myriad people started living lives. Each living one as only they could. And they went the underwent the formality of occurring.

It is a perfect system. Every experience will come back to me. I will remember it all. And then you read the book of Dzyan.

Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here?
Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?
The Gods themselves came later into being --
Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
That, whence all this great creation came,
Whether Its will created or was mute,
The Most High Seer that is in highest heaven,
He knows it -- or perchance even He knows not."

I tell you, these Buddhists talked about me, a solipsist. A solipsist is something you are but also a role you adopt. Anyone may claim it and there will be room for it in reality. They joke that only one solipsist can exist. But it is folly. We are all solipsists.

We are all part of the whole and each of us that single Source that existed before the 'gods'.


Slow progress is not the same as no progress. Living 60 healthy years is twice as good as living 30 healthy years. In a few decades, there will be no withering 90 year olds, but ones who have the healthy bodies of mood-enhanced 25 year olds.

I hope not. It will be the end of the bittersweet decay that gives meaning to life. There will be no 25 year old perect body or beaty of there is no old bat with hanging tits and drooping face. It is our elderly that make you validate and appreciate the beauty of youth. You live in a sad marketing industry world, I bet you buy Axe deodorant too, because you believe it will help you have more sex.


Plus, you underestimate the brutal realities of the past. Yes, a man in a primitive society can live a happy life, but it sure isn't as easy. Especially if he, you know, had to have his leg amputated because it got infected or something. Would you rather live in the past, when such a procedure would have been done fully conscious? And you probably still would have died after? This is barely the beginning, though, of all the ridiculous physical hardship people used to face. I gotta believe that's why everyone was so damn religious. Because life sucked so much they couldn't not believe that garbage..

No one said life should be easy. That is a marketing trick. Buy this! More sex and your life will be easier using this spcial ear-hair trimmer!

Yes, sounds good. I will die. No matter what I buy. And it is nonsense. We cannot judge how happy people were in hindsight. In medieval times we think that people were dragging themselves through the mud of existence, plagued by disease and what not. But they didn't have to worry about traffic jams. They didn't have a lot of meaningless junk. You cant miss what you don;'t know you miss.

That is marketing and advertising. Which is the message that you need something you were unaware of that you missed it.
 

Spocksleftball

not right
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
163
---
Location
earth's center mass
My intro thread was finally Godwinned. Does this mean I win a prize?

Perhaps if you were the recipient, which you were not. I was adding to pi above. Should I have to quote for every reply so other can follow? The prize goes to he/it.

Do intp covet prizes? Are you looking for recognition perhaps? You can have the Prester John prize.


On to the real topic, the enthusiasm of youth will soon be tempered by reality for you ribald. You just haven't been exposed to enough SJ people; they run the place btw, and the last person they will let on the techno-utopian love train is an intp. They don't like any np types at all. They will let you develop theories, sure, then use your flesh to grease their own wheels.
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
---
Location
Charn
True, but I say Teenage Dream is a better song, especially as a candidate for a "best of the century" listing. For some reason I still feel, and always did feel like Gangnam Style is a joke, like people don't seriously listen to it and deeply love it and get any meaning from it. It would be like saying the Macarena was the best song of the 90s or something. I figure once a song hits ubiquity, popularity ceases to matter and it is up to the list compiler. Teenage Dream is just huge. Every line is something you can resonate with. It's almost like the perfect pop/love song, reminiscent of "Can't Hurry Love" by the Supremes, and that's also a personal favorite of mine. Or perhaps "Something" by the Beatles. These songs are the essence of simplicity, but done perfectly. No nonsense but not too serious, powerful pop songs that just leave you thinking, now that's how a 3 minute song is done. Everything is just right.

I think Katy Perry's actually talented in terms of knowing how to write a song with a hook -- for what it does, the song is pretty excellent. She gets people to play her music and go to her concerts.

I guess I just have different criteria for "best song of the century" though. To whit, I think in 100 years, no one will even remember "Teenage Dream" and people might not even remember her in the music industry.
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
I think Katy Perry's actually talented in terms of knowing how to write a song with a hook -- for what it does, the song is pretty excellent. She gets people to play her music and go to her concerts.

I guess I just have different criteria for "best song of the century" though. To whit, I think in 100 years, no one will even remember "Teenage Dream" and people might not even remember her in the music industry.

There's a big difference between century so far and century. Also I don't think "century" will be of much significance in 2100 because by then every minute will be like a subjective century is now. But let's say that's not the case. If the Beatles had never written Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road, Revolver, White Album, Rubber Soul, etc. I don't think anyone would have wound up giving a shit about "Can't Buy Me Love" or "Hold Your Hand" and they would not have made any best of century lists. Nonetheless, because those later smash-hit albums were made, those songs almost certainly would make many critics' Best of 1900s lists now.

As I believe that popularity is currently necessary to make a best-of list of such scope, the same will be the case by 2100. If Katy Perry doesn't continue to produce smash hits, she will be forgotten, and I will cease to believe that Teenage Dream would deserve a spot on the list. Madonna, whatever you'll say about her, certainly had some of the best songs of the 1900s and that is partly because she was able to hang in there forever and remain popular.

Anyone who makes such a list in 2100 will have to have to do a spectacular job of putting everything in perspective, anyway. It would be hard for songs from the beginning of the century to make the list because, yes, even if they deserve spots, people have forgotten them and music will have probably changed to the point of being almost unrecognizable (apart from it actually being music) in a century, as it most certainly did in the 1900s. Honestly I would be quite hard pressed to tell you what was popular in the very early 1900s, other than like.... Scott Joplin?!?!?! I guess?????? I see every reason to believe even more drastic changes will have happened 85 years from now.
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
BTW, this made me look up the Songs of the 1900s on Wikipedia and Joplin made #10. Not bad. It's weird to see a lot of those songs next to each other, and I certainly disagree with quite a few, but overall an interesting read.
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
---
Location
Charn
There's a big difference between century so far and century.
 
I think due to the onset of vast technological changes in the last century, everything else has changed accordingly. Music is one of those things. As soon as it was possible to RECORD music, a market was opened up... and as soon as it was possible to promote music (via radio) and distribute music (via transportation), more and more markets opened up. Music was about more than just live performance.
 
Also, a wider distribution allowed for more accessibility to new musical styles and techniques. And as more instruments become available and more opportunities to perform without having to be a virtuoso, you again see changes in music style. Then of course we had the additional of electric instruments (electric guitar, synth) to the possibilities, as well as new materials used to construct instruments.
 
I think the largest jumps happened in music styles probably when recording became widespread (via the LP), and then in the 50's-60's (Beatles, Rolling Stones, Jethrol Tull, etc.)... and then in the late 70's- early 80's when electronics moved from quirky musicians in their homes with expensive equipment to something that was affordable and portable from stage to stage. The 90's were interesting because everyone became sick of the over-polished sound, so punk and grunge -> alternative... but even soon that became a cliche. However, style-wise, it's not as drastic a shift because all of those instruments were around before. And with sampling affordable, now you have a bunch of people who might not be super-talented musically but who can still tap into a market for particular sounds; nowadays it seems much more about marketing than necessarily musical skill at least in the mainstream music industry.
 
Nowadays there's a lot of musical styles available and it's more about synthesizing styles together vs inventing a style that is completely new. I have a hard time imagining what instruments could be created that would be significantly different than what we already know, it would all be something synthesized from what already exists.
 
Also I don't think "century" will be of much significance in 2100 because by then every minute will be like a subjective century is now.
 
Right. I think "century" is far TOO broad a period of time. Times change much faster than that. And how can you compare a song from one style against a song from another style?
 
But let's say that's not the case. If the Beatles had never written Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road, Revolver, White Album, Rubber Soul, etc. I don't think anyone would have wound up giving a shit about "Can't Buy Me Love" or "Hold Your Hand" and they would not have made any best of century lists. Nonetheless, because those later smash-hit albums were made, those songs almost certainly would make many critics' Best of 1900s lists now.

As I believe that popularity is currently necessary to make a best-of list of such scope, the same will be the case by 2100. If Katy Perry doesn't continue to produce smash hits, she will be forgotten, and I will cease to believe that Teenage Dream would deserve a spot on the list.

Well, to get back to the topic in question, you called it "The song of the century." Are you downgrading your argument now to just suggest it is a valuable addition to a large range of popular music but is no longer the "best" song in 100 years of music recordings?
 
Madonna, whatever you'll say about her, certainly had some of the best songs of the 1900s and that is partly because she was able to hang in there forever and remain popular.

Well, Madonna and Michael Jackson are the music of my generation (I came of age in the early/mid 80's), and I think they were both profoundly influential in the music industry. While she is an adequate performer, Madonna's skill came from marketing and SETTING the trends vs following them, and she knew how to run a stage show. Michael Jackson was more musically talented IMO, but he had the same -- he had charisma, and he knew how to throw a show and entertain people, and he set the trends of that time period.

I remember when Whitney Houston moved from modeling into singing, and she was the first real "big name" of that style of singing (with a huge range and such versatility in the SOUND of her voice as well as being able to sing cascades of notes quickly), triggering a number of talented black women to also eventually become big (like Mariah Carey) and even white women (Christina Aguilara) in the same style. I think she helped set a huge trend... so yeah, she was pop-mainstream but also very influential.

Lots of folks like that.

I think Katy Perry helped make music fun again, vs a "seer-i-us biznuss." She writes a mean hook. And she's also got some depth to her lyrics, for being pop-40 fluff. "The Pearl" and "Firework" obviously strike a chord with some, she tells off a guy she loved and was dedicated to because she's realized he's just a loser in "Down the Drain," and even "Teenage Dream" kind of hits the older market of people who feel they are aging but inside still feel young or want to. And then she's got just amusing shock lyrics like "Peacock" -- I mean, she just knows how to get people's attention without getting too serious about stuff. I wouldn't put her on the same level as Madonna or Michael Jackson or Whitney in terms of her influence on the industry, but she's good enough to make a living and be known by name.

Anyone who makes such a list in 2100 will have to have to do a spectacular job of putting everything in perspective, anyway. It would be hard for songs from the beginning of the century to make the list because, yes, even if they deserve spots, people have forgotten them and music will have probably changed to the point of being almost unrecognizable (apart from it actually being music) in a century, as it most certainly did in the 1900s. Honestly I would be quite hard pressed to tell you what was popular in the very early 1900s, other than like.... Scott Joplin?!?!?! I guess?????? I see every reason to believe even more drastic changes will have happened 85 years from now.

I think it makes more sense to break things down into 5-10 year increments and pick the most influential performers and songs of that time.
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
The parts of your post I don't quote I agree with. I thought it was a good post. Below are just my minor objections.

Right. I think "century" is far TOO broad a period of time. Times change much faster than that. And how can you compare a song from one style against a song from another style?

It is possible to some extent. I mean, the whole concept of making lists like this is just for fun anyway, being that there could be no absolute. But of course, the list from Wiki had "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" and "Good Vibrations" (for instance), 2 songs that simply don't compare.

If I made a "Best of the Millenium" list, would I have to put "Smells Like Teen Spirit" somewhere near the Moonlight Sonata and a Gregorian chant? It's kind of ridiculous, but nothing is holding anyone back.
 
Well, to get back to the topic in question, you called it "The song of the century." Are you downgrading your argument now to just suggest it is a valuable addition to a large range of popular music but is no longer the "best" song in 100 years of music recordings?

The exact quote was "I think Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream" might be the best song of the 21st century so far."

I'm not downgrading that statement. If somewhere I said "Teenage Dream is the song of the 21st century" then yes I am downgrading that statement.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 8:59 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,252
---
Location
69S 69E
The only people who I can see purporting the music created by the Katy Perry's of the world as being great music, are people devoid of musical ability themselves. The reason people enjoy music by these artists, isn't because of the music they write - it's that they write concepts that are generically appealing to a wide range of people, even without the music attached.

Katy Perry and other popstars aren't selling music, they're selling entertainment. It's like the WWE and other wrestling programmes - it's entertainment packaged alongside muscular/attractive men and women for greater appeal. Then there's a few quirky personalities that make it in to spice things up. But it's not wrestling. It's entertainment masquerading as wrestling.

In popular music it's the same, except the entertainment gets packaged alongside some young, out there entertainer instead - but it's no different to wrestling. It's entertainment masquerading as music.

Teenage Dream is a fine piece of entertainment. It's not even a footnote as a musical score.

And there's nothing wrong with that - but let's not confuse talented entertainers with talented musicians.
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
---
Location
Charn
It is possible to some extent. I mean, the whole concept of making lists like this is just for fun anyway, being that there could be no absolute. But of course, the list from Wiki had "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" and "Good Vibrations" (for instance), 2 songs that simply don't compare.

I'm not sure why we would want to debate obvious mismatches in genre and song quality. The understanding is that it's difficult to compare two songs in the same "quality" bracket of their respective genres, depending on the genres being discussed.

If I made a "Best of the Millenium" list, would I have to put "Smells Like Teen Spirit" somewhere near the Moonlight Sonata and a Gregorian chant? It's kind of ridiculous, but nothing is holding anyone back.

Well, I'd consider all three to be decent songs/types of songs. But they're so different in style and mood and purpose that it's hard to say one is "better" than the other. Probably it took the least amount of musical skill for Smells like Teen Spirit, but the song is still an archetype within its genre, and something doesn't necessarily have to be complex to be effective.
 
The exact quote was "I think Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream" might be the best song of the 21st century so far."

Well, I disagree with that too, that seems a rather silly argument to make. I could see you saying, "I really enjoy Katy Perry's 'Teenage Dream' and it resonates with me" -- heck, it resonates with me too, and the solo version done on the show "Glee" was a tearjerker -- but best? On what criteria besides the paragraph I was originally responding to? There wasn't much there that seems like a basic, solid, agreed-up criteria to designate this song out of the thousands and tens of thousands released in the last 14 years as the "best song" and aside from some 13 year old girls who are Katy Perry fans, I honestly doubt it would show up consistently on people's "top ten" list.

The only people who I can see purporting the music created by the Katy Perry's of the world as being great music, are people devoid of musical ability themselves. The reason people enjoy music by these artists, isn't because of the music they write - it's that they write concepts that are generically appealing to a wide range of people, even without the music attached.

Katy Perry and other popstars aren't selling music, they're sellingentertainment. It's like the WWE and other wrestling programmes - it's entertainment packaged alongside muscular/attractive men and women for greater appeal. Then there's a few quirky personalities that make it in to spice things up. But it's not wrestling. It's entertainment masquerading as wrestling.

In popular music it's the same, except the entertainment gets packaged alongside some young, out there entertainer instead - but it's no different to wrestling. It's entertainment masquerading as music.

Teenage Dream is a fine piece of entertainment. It's not even a footnote as a musical score.

And there's nothing wrong with that - but let's not confuse talented entertainers with talented musicians.

highlighted the points that I really really agree with it.

Personally, I still consider it "music," but if you read my prior posts about this from this morning, in general I agree with you and said that Katy is selling "entertainment" using music as a channel. It's a versatile tool, and she is able to help people feel good about their lives using it.
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
The only people who I can see purporting the music created by the Katy Perry's of the world as being great music, are people devoid of musical ability themselves. The reason people enjoy music by these artists, isn't because of the music they write - it's that they write concepts that are generically appealing to a wide range of people, even without the music attached.

Katy Perry and other popstars aren't selling music, they're sellingentertainment. It's like the WWE and other wrestling programmes - it's entertainment packaged alongside muscular/attractive men and women for greater appeal. Then there's a few quirky personalities that make it in to spice things up. But it's not wrestling. It's entertainment masquerading as wrestling.

In popular music it's the same, except the entertainment gets packaged alongside some young, out there entertainer instead - but it's no different to wrestling. It's entertainment masquerading as music.

Teenage Dream is a fine piece of entertainment. It's not even a footnote as a musical score.

And there's nothing wrong with that - but let's not confuse talented entertainers with talented musicians.

Your analogy falls apart because music is meant for entertainment while wrestling at its heart is not.

I mean, how far do you want to take it? Everything has rules, and you have to work within the rules. I could also very easily claim that "pure" wrestling isn't real fighting.

Why split hairs? Just go with the assumptions of the discussion.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 8:59 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,252
---
Location
69S 69E
Ribald said:
Your analogy falls apart because music is meant for entertainment while wrestling at its heart is not.

At heart, music is meant as a means for self-expression.
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
---
Location
Charn
Your analogy falls apart because music is meant for entertainment while wrestling at its heart is not.

Really? Where did you arrive at that?
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 8:59 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,252
---
Location
69S 69E
Highlighted the points that I really really agree with it.

Personally, I still consider it "music," but if you read my prior posts about this from this morning, in general I agree with you and said that Katy is selling "entertainment" using music as a channel. It's a versatile tool, and she is able to help people feel good about their lives using it.

Yeah, I replied to Ribald before I read your post. I do also agree with your sentiment. The devoid of musical talent comment wasn't really meant to be inflammatory either - some people have never really picked up and dedicated large amounts of time to the mastery of an instrument, and that's fine with me.

I do believe that it does often make a big difference to the level of appreciation for certain pieces of music within people, having or not having had that experience. Though it's not a finality, I'm pretty certain there's no drummers out there going, "Damn, these Katy Perry songs have great rhythm!".
 

Spocksleftball

not right
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
163
---
Location
earth's center mass
Your analogy falls apart because music is meant for entertainment while wrestling at its heart is not.


People attend wrestling matches to be...what?



I have been an musician since I was 12 years old. I played in many bands, and have composed a number of songs. Not once did I say "I want to entertain people". I don't know of any artist that does. Peole who develop any artistic talent typically are trying to express themselves in a way that they cannot do otherwise.


When I listen to music I am obviously entertained by something different than you. That is, I contest, why there are so many types of music. Just because the bell curve shows your preference to be in the majority doesn't make it any different that tribal drum music, thumb piano duets, or Zamfir's pan flute tunes--all have their followers as ardent as you.
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
---
Location
Charn
@redbaron: Yeah, my opinions on it (and as music being more than just entertainment in nature) are no doubt likely impacted by the reality I (1) was raised by a band director who loved opera, (2) I can play a variety of music instruments and started by the time I was five, (3) I've composed music and did some home recording and public performance, although nothing I was completely happy with, and (4) music to me is far more "just" entertainment, it kept me alive through many dark years of depression and has always been a transcendental experience for me... or at least the music I consider to be top-notch in some way.

(EDIT: Saw your comment about "self-expression" -- yes, for many years that's what music was for me, it was my voice when I felt like I had none. When I was a teenager, I used to just go sit in a windowless room with a piano and the lights off, and play in the dark. It was all I had.)

All that aside, I still can appreciate music in more banal venues or that offers just temporary pleasure. (I think MIKA is pretty talented musically, and I enjoy listening to him sometimes, as an example; but I just don't find a lot of depth lyrically.) My iPod has entries from classical / soundtrack / choir to 80's pop/rock, British invasion, 70's rock, alternative, CCM, rhythm, dance tracks, video game music, etc.

That's kind of another area of music, especially with vocal music -- you can have a musical component and a lyrical component that might not match in quality or depth. Still, there's a lot of music that can be enjoyable depending on context and sometimes it can serve the purpose of mere entertainment.
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
Well, I'd consider all three to be decent songs/types of songs. But they're so different in style and mood and purpose that it's hard to say one is "better" than the other. Probably it took the least amount of musical skill for Smells like Teen Spirit, but the song is still an archetype within its genre, and something doesn't necessarily have to be complex to be effective.

Once you get to a certain point of stylistic difference between songs, there really is no subjective way to compare them and you pretty much have to go with popularity and impact. That's a point I've made all along. "Teenage Dream" is a song I love and all, but it is definitely not in my personal top 10 for the century so far.

Well, I disagree with that too, that seems a rather silly argument to make. I could see you saying, "I really enjoy Katy Perry's 'Teenage Dream' and it resonates with me" -- heck, it resonates with me too, and the solo version done on the show "Glee" was a tearjerker -- but best? On what criteria besides the paragraph I was originally responding to? There wasn't much there that seems like a basic, solid, agreed-up criteria to designate this song out of the thousands and tens of thousands released in the last 14 years as the "best song" and aside from some 13 year old girls who are Katy Perry fans, I honestly doubt it would show up consistently on people's "top ten" list.
I think, again, that to call "Teenage Dream" the best out of those 10s of thousands of songs released in the last 14 years would be ridiculous. Wanting my list to actually mean something to a number of people, though, I wouldn't include anything that most people hadn't heard of. If I did, it would look very different. Oh, and I have not heard all of those 10s of thousands of songs. So popularity is kind of essential.

The entire point of my making the statement to begin with, though, was to make the point that I may be unconventional for believing what I believe. I agree, I don't think many critics would put 'Teenage Dream' at the top of their century-so-far lists. 'Teenage Dream' is a song that I personally love. That + popularity is all I need. It is my list, after all. I am trying to balance the subjective and objective.
 

Methodician

clever spec of dust
Local time
Today 3:59 PM
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
196
---
Location
SoCal
After the first half-page I realized there was WAY more material here than I should be reading at work and it was probably going to lose my interest intermittently anyway.

What I got though is that you're interested in transhumanism, singularity, and controversial technological/social topics. I'm sure your suspicions have already been confirmed: this is an excellent place to talk about those things. That's probably my main reason for joining too.

Might I suggest joining www.intjforum.com as well? It's a little more active and the members are just about as stimulating. There are quite a few INTP's there as well as INTJ's, but I do like INTJ's... they make for good conversation and are perhaps a little better than us at actually completing objectives.

BTW: My avatar is actually me.
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
---
Location
Charn
Once you get to a certain point of stylistic difference between songs, there really is no subjective way to compare them and you pretty much have to go with popularity and impact. That's a point I've made all along. "Teenage Dream" is a song I love and all, but it is definitely not in my personal top 10 for the century so far.

You seem to qualify/shift your stance with every exchange.

So it's not your personal top 10, it's just what you think is popularly the best song of the first 14 years? (That's probably debatable too, although I haven't looked at the numbers.)

The entire point of my making the statement to begin with, though, was to make the point that I may be unconventional for believing what I believe. I agree, I don't think many critics would put 'Teenage Dream' at the top of their century-so-far lists. 'Teenage Dream' is a song that I personally love. That + popularity is all I need. It is my list, after all. I am trying to balance the subjective and objective.

Well, it goes back to what I said in my last post or two -- I think it's perfectly sensible to say it's a song that resonates with you. It resonates with me as well. I wouldn't classify it as high art, but it serves its purpose. katy's a little deeper than her public image might suggest, IMO. (As an aside, did you know she started out as a CCM artist but the Christians didn't know what to do with her, so she went secular and made it big? Kind of funny. Her dad was a pastor.)
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
After the first half-page I realized there was WAY more material here than I should be reading at work and it was probably going to lose my interest intermittently anyway.

What I got though is that you're interested in transhumanism, singularity, and controversial technological/social topics. I'm sure your suspicions have already been confirmed: this is an excellent place to talk about those things. That's probably my main reason for joining too.

Might I suggest joining www.intjforum.com as well? It's a little more active and the members are just about as stimulating. There are quite a few INTP's there as well as INTJ's, but I do like INTJ's... they make for good conversation and are perhaps a little better than us at actually completing objectives.

BTW: My avatar is actually me.

I may register there. Sounds intriguing.

I also am kinda overwhelmed by this thread. Too much to reply to, so I have missed a lot. I did read it all though.
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
I am currently writing the lyrics for a tune I've created. It will be a take off on combined and smoothly integrated with a hard-to-describe hypnotic rhythm. It will cause girls to swoon and men to conceive long and hard. I anticipate without hesitation it will become the song of the summer of 2014. It has the unpresuming title, "Moving from the 70's into the 80's." Whether it will become the song of the century no one can tell but it sure is good.

It is 6:07". Do you think that too long?
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
I agree. A good show of strength. Impressive. What I feel missing is drama or story. My 6:07 tells a story. Think of this one but only 1/3 the length. And not so invariant in its theme:
Mine has the drama and unfathomable sexuality of this (which I've posted more than once before) but is more spiral in drama, up and down with surprises not easily repeated. Hard to express without hearing it:

ONE: TONIGHT I'LL FALL
Tonight I'll fall, looking for something wonderful yet casual
Extraordinarily temporal, and there you are - let's go

You hooked me on the dance floor
So here I am, back for more

You seem experienced, just an inch too keen on getting exposed
Having your face in every magazine
You're far from being unique but you still look pristine
Mundanely exotic, like the french cuisine

My Disco Queen - let's disco...

TWO: A CHEAP SELLOUT DRUG
You're a cheap sellout drug on everyone's lips
Covered every day, done every way, a whole world at your hips

A bar to fit, the beats you take
Another hit and you will break

Undressed in front of me, all glistening ebony
You're still so young, but I will show you vintage 33
I lay you on your back - inviting curves of black
Making little noises as my needle finds your track

My Disco Queen - let's disco
Disco Queen - let's disco...

THREE: A TIGHTER GROOVE
You leave me wanting more, panting on all four
I know there's more to pluck, and so I go for the encore
I am turning you around, to play your other side
A tighter groove, I want it but I tremble, slip and slide

Baby, you're just what I need
You purr when I make you bleed

I pump you till you cry - feel so alive
I crank you up and switch to 45

A screaming climax chord, I give you all I've stored
A moment's silence and you're filled up, yet emptier than before
Oh - that subtle little sound as I am pulling out
A finished dish upon my plate is what it's all about

A square round of greed
You surrendered to the rhythm, spinning around your hole
Disco made you famous but tonight you tasted soul

I pumped you till you cried - felt so alive
I cranked you up and switched to 45
You are just begging for more
But I unlock the door (tonight I'll fall...)
You're old news now and so I leave you trembling on the floor...

FOUR: MY DISCO QUEEN
My Disco Queen...
My Disco Queen - let's disco...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrHVmksnV9k&feature=kp
I don't know when I'm going to release my gem. The lyrics are difficult.
 

Variform

Banned
Local time
Today 11:59 PM
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
809
---
BTW, this made me look up the Songs of the 1900s on Wikipedia and Joplin made #10. Not bad. It's weird to see a lot of those songs next to each other, and I certainly disagree with quite a few, but overall an interesting read.

Only american artists though. Amero-centrism at its best.
 

Ribald

Banned
Local time
Today 6:59 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
221
---
Only american artists though. Amero-centrism at its best.

Well, America was certainly the country of the 1900s. I do think it is ridiculous that there is no Beatles on the list. I dunno.

Edit: that list isn't all Americans.
 
Top Bottom