
We are grateful, not have been colonized by the French.
King Arthur : I am your king.We are grateful, not have been colonized by the French.

"Nobody recognized me," he recalled. "People were kind of pushing past me, not being nice. Nobody said, ‘I love you.’ I had to wait in line to, I don’t know, buy a f---ing coffee or whatever. I was like, ‘This sucks. I want to go back to being famous.'"
“We’re not sure why melodic complexity is decreasing in the most popular songs,” she said. “We would need to conduct another scientific study to say for sure. The most probable theory is that complexity is leaving melody and going somewhere else in the song.
I haven't read the article, but even so I can't help but wonder on what basis they claim that the complexity is most probably going somewhere else in the song? Is there some conservation of complexity law for music?I have a theory: People are gradually losing interest in intelligent and elaborated tunes. And this because our culture is becoming more shallow each generation.
“We’re not sure why melodic complexity is decreasing in the most popular songs,” she said. “We would need to conduct another scientific study to say for sure. The most probable theory is that complexity is leaving melody and going somewhere else in the song.
“We’re not sure why melodic complexity is decreasing in the most popular songs...”I have a theory: People are gradually losing interest in intelligent and elaborated tunes. And this because our culture is becoming more shallow each generation.
My opinion is that, with the arrival of MTV and the like, visual stimulation became as important (if not more) as aural. And with that, an emphasis of presentation over substance was made.I haven't read the article, but even so I can't help but wonder on what basis they claim that the complexity is most probably going somewhere else in the song? Is there some conservation of complexity law for music?
I would say that the complexity is simply leaving because the purpose it served has been replaced by something else -- namely visual stimulation. Before music videos (and for a long time after they were introduced, as well), most people only got to hear the music they listened to, so artists had to use the sound itself to grab their attention and make them want to listen to it over and over. Relatively few people went to concerts, so most concerts didn't have a lot of visual add-ons (there were certainly exceptions) because the music was the focus because the music had to stand on its own the vast majority of the time. But with the advent of music videos, artists had to start incorporating visual appeal, too. The early music videos were usually just like concerts -- recordings of artists playing their songs. But as some artists starting adding visual eye candy to the videos, viewers were naturally attracted to those videos because they offered a fuller experience, and everyone else had to follow suit or be left behind. Now we are in an age where it is relatively rare for someone to just listen to music, except when they can't watch the video (such when driving or jogging). Because we are much more influenced by sight than sound, artists have learned that catchy visuals are far more important than the music, and that it doesn't require complex or subtle visuals, just flashy and eye-catching visuals. If anything, music complexity probably detracts from the visual emersion. So the sound of the music now only servers to being the visual of the video or the splashy concert performance back to mind.
So I think that it is a natural progression due to the marrying of visual content, either in video recordings or live performances, with music. As for its relationship with cultural shallowness -- assuming that the culture is, indeed, becoming shallower -- it is correlation or causation? If it's causation, is the shallower culture resulting in the loss of melodic complexity in our music? Or is the loss of complexity helping to drive the growing shallowness of our culture?
Very interesting:https://thecausalfallacy.com/p/grants-pass-isnt-about-housing-its
Grants Pass Isn't About Housing. It's About Camping.
What people aren't getting about the camping ban case
That dichotomy—between an individual’s right to be deviant and the community’s right to be free from the harms of systematic deviance—is, I think, central to the dispute here, and indeed to many disputes about social policy governing deviance.
...
But the reason that progressive cities like San Francisco, Phoenix, and Los Angeles asked the Supreme Court to overturn Martin is not because they wanted to rough up a single homeless guy. It’s because they wanted the power to clear tens, or hundreds, or thousands of people who had set up their own community within, but not fully bound by the rules of, the city around them.
They see no evidence of displacement. Take apart the camp, and violence, theft, and disorder decline—implying the camps don’t just concentrate, but cause social problems.
She's smart with physics.Very interesting exposition ... and I'd say it doesn't apply only to Germany: