posted
Does anyone know how long it takes before a yahoo mail account goes inactive? I wonder because I just created one for my child and I want to know how often we need to make sure he checks it. I lost a yahoo address once, I forget when or why really.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh! thanks. I just went and logged in to my free yahoo account (which is basically a junk mail account). It had been about 3 months since I attempted to log in--and when I did, I was unable to, which I'd forgotten all about. So I wrote to yahoo, still wasn't able to get in, and then forgot all about it. So when I did tonight, there were about 20 messages saying "Yahoo wants your feedback on test case # . . ." Oh well. My feedback is they were too slow in getting it fixed back when I wanted to get in for whatever reason! ;-)
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kind of artistic contribution has America made to the world? Jazz - the only legitimate art form to be purely American in its origin, and a great one it is!
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jazz - the only legitimate art form to be purely American in its origin, and a great one it is!
That's not exactly true; the negro spiritual originated in America. From there, jazz, blues, and rock-and-roll were born.
America puts out lots of film, lots of books, lots of music every year. We're a very heavy contributor to the world's artistic supply.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Depends. People of East Asian descent (particularly Han Chinese and Korean ancestry) typically have earwax that doesn't contain cerumen. It is dry and flaky as opposed to moister earwax enjoyed by much of the rest of the world. In terms of composition, dry wax is 20% lipid, whereas wet wax is 50% lipid. In both cases, the lipids are of a relatively long chained variety. I'm not sure of the percentages for the other ingredients, but dead skin cells and sebum are the other two primary ingredients.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do speakers have headphones for both sides -- and what is the difference between a left headphone and a right?
What, and hear the bass viols on the left of the orchestra. That just wouldn't be right. Shame on you for even thinking.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I'm not sure of the percentages for the other ingredients, but dead skin cells and sebum are the other two primary ingredients.
Ooooo, it also has antifungal and antibacterial properties. Great stuff.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: -) Why do speakers have headphones for both sides -- and what is the difference between a left headphone and a right?
i do believe that is because one ear picks up higher frequencies and one picks up lower and they make one that plays better higher and one that plays better lower frequencies.
thats how it was explained to me a while ago, i never checked its validity since it isnt a question that seems to hold much value to me.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Scott R: "America puts out lots of film, lots of books, lots of music every year. We're a very heavy contributor to the world's artistic supply."
That's true, but America didn't invent any of those (and it's highly debatable if many of them, movies at least, qualify as art anyway). America did invent jazz. Sure it has African and European roots, but it is purely American in its gestation and birth (and it is far more of an art form than Die-Hard 2!) It has also now become an international art, from Europe, to Japan, to Africa, to the Caribbean, to the Pacific. But it is America's, and the only real art form that couldn't exist without America.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A meaningless statement. If music itself is an art form, then rock and roll is as well. Just because one person can listen to it and not find beauty in it does not mean that it is excluded from the world of art.
I happen to despise everything Jackson Pollock ever painted, but if I were to declare it "not art", I would be laughed out of any gallery in the modern world. And I would have a stronger case, since at least rock and roll music has form and structure. Just because it's form and structure you happen not to appreciate doesn't make it less valid.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the contrary. I love rock and roll, and rock music. But just because music is an art form doesn't mean that all forms of it are. Finding beauty in something does not necessarily make it an art form. Up until the 1940s jazz was a "music of the masses", tied mainly to entertainment, dancing, etc, much as rock and roll, etc has been since the 50s. In the 40s the development of bebop marked the point at which both the musicians and their audience became widely conscious that jazz was an art form. For the first time serious listening to the music, especially the improvised solos, became primary. The musicians concerned themselves, for the most part, more with developing the technical aspects of the music and increasing its aesthetic qualities, rather than just creating something that would enlarge their audience, and therefore their wallets. By that definition, despite the efforts of some, rock and roll and its descendants have never been an art form, much more of a commercial business. I'll give you that there have been artists working in a rock and roll medium, like Frank Zappa for instance, but the form itself isn't art, imoh.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agree to disagree, I guess. It seems that your definition of an 'art form' is something with an established technique that practitioners develop and use within the form (from what I can gather about what you said about jazz, anyway). Rock has an established technique as well, and good rock musicians tend to practice their technical aspects, therefore rock and roll is an artform.
I hate the idea that just because something is popular and/or commercial, it is not art. Just because people like it doesn't make it wrong. I do see your point about a lot of blatantly commercial products -- Thomas Kinkaid, anyone? -- but I like to think the majority of rock musicians are such because they love the music. Saying that all rock music produced is an attempt to "enlarge their audience, and therefore their wallets" seems a tad generalizing.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What kind of artistic contribution has America made to the world?
I think I'm going to say postmodernism. Its origins were post WWII Europe, but while they were in Europe it was still modernism. It wasn't until the New York School (Jasper Johns, etc.) and then Andy Warhol that it became postmodern.
Not that that's neccessarily a contribution, mind you.
And while country music/cowboy culture has deep roots somewhere in Scotland, I think you could call it a pretty distinctly American invention.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rap, I think. Hip hop in general. Bluegrass. Cowboy poetry.
However, I think it is a meaningless conversation. What is it - writing about music is like dancing about architecture? As if any music were made better or worse by an argument over who came up with it first.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I'm not sure of the percentages for the other ingredients, but dead skin cells and sebum are the other two primary ingredients.
Ooooo, it also has antifungal and antibacterial properties.
And is considered tasty by many cats. At least cat earwax is.
You know, I wonder how earwax composition varies from species to species, and whether non-mammals produce it. I also wonder if there are any speices that produce earwax-like substances for purposes other than keeping their ears healthy and free of (non-earwax) gunk.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally said by sarcasticmuppet: "Saying that all rock music produced is an attempt to "enlarge their audience, and therefore their wallets" seems a tad generalizing."
Well, I didn't say that about rock music, the comment was made about the jazz style that preceded bebop. But, while I agree that many rock musicians would consider themselves, and qualify, as artists (Zappa, Clapton, Roger Waters, Pete Townshend - sorry, showing my age here, younger hatrackers can add newer names), the fact that the popular music business (BUSINESS) is so market-driven and that many bands were and are manufactured, make it difficult to define popular music as an art-form.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I still don't agree. But I do appreciate having an explanation of your reasoning. Usually when I hear someone say something like "rock ain't art" or "rap isn't music", the reasoning turns out to be an empty "It's not art [or music] because it's crap." And aside from the fact that no such statement could ever be objective, there's still the point that "art" and "crap" are not mutually exclusive; there's nothing in the word "art" that means that all art must be good art.
And while I agree that it is harder to argue that music that is specifically manufactured to enrich people in the music industry is art, I also deny that that's what rock and roll is. Or at least, there's nothing inherently manufactured about rock and roll. Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys may or may not be involved in the production of "art", but then I don't count their genre as rock and roll, either. To me, the phrase "rock and roll" brings to mind the Beatles and the Buffalo Springfield, the Moody Blues and the Dire Straits, David Bowie and Neil Young, and even They Might Be Giants. And I would argue that every one of them was/is working within an art form. Some of them have gotten fabulously wealthy by doing it . . . but then, so did Pablo Picasso, as I recall.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
