I just read this wonderful article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/04/21/135508305/the-sad-beautiful-fact-that-were-all-going-to-miss-almost-everything
To give a brief summary of the article, it essentially talks about the idea of being "well-read" and how a person must choose between culling and surrendering the vast amount of culture that they will never be able to reach. Culling involves deciding not to do things because you deem them either unworthy or uninteresting, for example, "I do not like rap so I will not listen to rap" or more specifically "I did not like one Stephen King book, so I will never read another one of his books." Surrender involves realizing that you lack the time to find the good things, so you do not bother. You end up in the same situation with surrender as with culling, not listening to rap and not reading Stephen King, but there is a recognition that perhaps there are good parts to those that would take you too much time to find. The article makes a credible case that surrender is the preferable mindset to culling, but that culling is easier emotionally/psychologically.
Personally, I do not really care either way. Culling and surrender both amount to the same problem: lack of time. The article makes the point that it is a great thing that one person cannot consume all of creativity and intellectual efforts of humanity, otherwise we would not have accomplished much. I agree with that sentiment, but that doesn't mean that I am not angry and sad about it. I want to consume it all. I want to taste every food, read every book, watch every movie, listen to every combination of sounds. But I cannot, so where does that leave me?
It leaves me feeling the way I have felt on and off again for years now, in that I just do not care to waste my time. I have so little time with which to live my life (an unknowable amount of time for that matter, which just makes it worse), and I am angry that I have to waste some of it unnecessary things. I do not want to be nice to people I do not like, and I do not want to hold back from telling pretty girls I think they are pretty, just so I can hold true to social mores that make society function better. I understand the principle of society functioning, and I understand that lying and being nice help people coexist better, but I find it all a huge waste of time. It reminds me of another article sent to me by a friend that feels the same way I do, this one by the onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/openminded-man-grimly-realizes-how-much-life-hes-w,19273/
Time and time again I find myself doing what is better for everyone rather than what is better for me. I understand that it might be better for me in the long run to be nice to people I do not like, but the long run is an unknowable sacrifice, similar in principle to an unknowable afterlife. Must I sacrifice my short term time (or life?) on a vague set of future circumstances that I have no logical way of approximating? It seems that that is what is expected of me (and everyone).
I do it, but I worry because I feel like I am getting increasingly bitter and angry towards people that waste my time, and towards myself for letting them waste my time. It actively makes me unhappy by making me angry, and then I feel guilty that I may not be being nice enough. And the few times when I tell someone off, I rarely feel better since I realize that I ruined their day for no little total benefit of my own, as I will just have to deal with someone else's bullshit.
I feel trapped by time. This has had positive benefits for me at times, as I find myself having romantic and passionate tendencies, since those usually involve the importance of the now, of today. To be trapped by time, means to constantly focus on maximizing your time now, whether it be in pleasure or work, whether it be procrastinating or finishing something as soon as possible, it always has an urgency to it. I want to see this episode now!, or I will lose it to time. I want to kiss you now!, or I will lose you to time. It has had its positive effects.
But I still feel trapped.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Musical Nostalgia and Why It Is Stupid
I am getting really sick and tired of nostalgia over the past, especially in relation to music. All the time online on forums and youtube comments, and sometimes in real life as well, I hear kids and older people talking about how much better music was in the 90s or the 80s or the 70s. They then go on to trash music of today, and talk about how all of it sucks and they wish they were back in the past.
That is a stupid and illogical position and I will prove it. First of all, I will assume that these people are correct. All music after the 90s (you can insert your own decade here) sucks. Every single song after 1999 is terrible and does not deserve to be listened. So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with a bunch of terrible new songs, and all of the old songs that people still enjoy. It's not like musicians in the 2000s are going around burning old songs so that no one can listen to them ever again. You can still listen to all of the old songs, no one is stopping you. So to point out that new songs suck right now is pointless since you do not have to listen to them. So even if these people are 100% correct, their position is illogical since old music has not stopped existing.
But they are not 100% correct. They are completely ignoring the fact that they only remember the songs that they like. It's not like only their 5 favorite bands and 100 favorite songs existed in the 90s. There were many, many bands in the past that just plain sucked, and many songs that were terrible, and many people complaining about those songs. Nothing has changed in that regard. Of course in the present you are going to be noticing more bad songs; when you go to listen to songs from the past, you are not being bombarded by random songs. You go to search for past songs that you liked, thus giving you an inherent bias when considering the past.
I don't even believe that these people hate all modern music. I have yet to meet a person that hates every single song in the last decade. In today's internet driven world, we have access to more bands than anyone has ever had access to in history. There might not be more bands than there were in the past, but the internet allows you to listen to a small, local indie band from a different country that you would never have been able to listen to before. I highly doubt that you cannot find something you like today that is new if you take the time to look rather than just listening to the radio. The real issue here is that most people are lazy and it is easier for them to listen to the top40 and complain, rather than take an hour out of their day to look for music they like. Never mind that is insanely easy to hook up an ipod to your car so you never have to even listen to the radio.
The issue is not even one of "you don't have to listen to what you don't like" although it is true to an extent (it is sometimes difficult to avoid bad music in say grocery stores). It is an issue of "your position is illogical because you have not been prevented from listening to music you do like."
That is a stupid and illogical position and I will prove it. First of all, I will assume that these people are correct. All music after the 90s (you can insert your own decade here) sucks. Every single song after 1999 is terrible and does not deserve to be listened. So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with a bunch of terrible new songs, and all of the old songs that people still enjoy. It's not like musicians in the 2000s are going around burning old songs so that no one can listen to them ever again. You can still listen to all of the old songs, no one is stopping you. So to point out that new songs suck right now is pointless since you do not have to listen to them. So even if these people are 100% correct, their position is illogical since old music has not stopped existing.
But they are not 100% correct. They are completely ignoring the fact that they only remember the songs that they like. It's not like only their 5 favorite bands and 100 favorite songs existed in the 90s. There were many, many bands in the past that just plain sucked, and many songs that were terrible, and many people complaining about those songs. Nothing has changed in that regard. Of course in the present you are going to be noticing more bad songs; when you go to listen to songs from the past, you are not being bombarded by random songs. You go to search for past songs that you liked, thus giving you an inherent bias when considering the past.
I don't even believe that these people hate all modern music. I have yet to meet a person that hates every single song in the last decade. In today's internet driven world, we have access to more bands than anyone has ever had access to in history. There might not be more bands than there were in the past, but the internet allows you to listen to a small, local indie band from a different country that you would never have been able to listen to before. I highly doubt that you cannot find something you like today that is new if you take the time to look rather than just listening to the radio. The real issue here is that most people are lazy and it is easier for them to listen to the top40 and complain, rather than take an hour out of their day to look for music they like. Never mind that is insanely easy to hook up an ipod to your car so you never have to even listen to the radio.
The issue is not even one of "you don't have to listen to what you don't like" although it is true to an extent (it is sometimes difficult to avoid bad music in say grocery stores). It is an issue of "your position is illogical because you have not been prevented from listening to music you do like."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)