(TV) .: Is music less precious?

["Scott Simpson" <SSimpson@nyc.rr.com>]

.
>So, has this almost universal availability made music less important to 
>the populace at large, simply because, like Starbucks, it's everywhere?
>Discuss.


Mike, Keith,

I have to agree.  First off, why does everyone who owns a cellphone have to
be on it constantly?  What can they possibly have to say?  "I'm out of the
subway, I'll be home in five minutes."?  Who cares?  I am reminded of the
couple interviewed in Annie Hall.  She -- I'm basically empty and shallow,
and don't have much to say.  He -- And I'm pretty much the same way.

As for availability of music, yes I remember waiting anxiously until the
next Elton John or Pink Floyd album was released.  Everyone had to own their
own copy.  I was at a Pedro the Lion concert and someone from the audience
asked the guy about napster and his response was along the lines --  if
music has no value to you, if you make no investment in owning it, then
music will eventually become valueless.  Taken for granted like the air we
breathe.

The kids these days no longer have the concept of the concept album.  They
have no patience for black and white movies.  It is a shame.  Maybe it's
something like sitting on the front porch with a glass of lemonade.  Lost to
time and mourned only by those codgers who "remember back in the day."

BTW, I think that's the reason why James never made it big in the States.
Their albums are just too damn good and require too much of an investment in
"listening."

Scott, NYC
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"