The kids truly are all right
By Laura Sessions Stepp, Special to CNN
March 31, 2011 8:29 a.m. EDT
Editor's note: Laura Sessions Stepp is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, formerly with The Washington Post, who specializes in the coverage of young people. She has written two books: "Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both," and "Our Last Best Shot: Guiding Our Children through Early Adolescence."
(CNN) -- Stop anyone on the street who looks, say, older than 40, and ask whether teenagers are doing better or worse than a decade or two ago. Odds are she or he will say worse -- and be wrong.
Hollywood writer and director Lisa Cholodenko was correct: The kids are all right. In fact, according to a massive study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, teenagers are doing better on a bunch of important measures, even as they've increased in number and diversity.
Every time I talk to parents, I am moved by how few know this. Or, if they've read about it, how they don't believe it. Peter Benson, president of the Search Institute, a youth development think tank, also runs into this skepticism.
"If we did a poll of American parents," he says, "and asked, 'How many times have you seen research about adolescent pregnancy showing that kids are being more responsible?' the vast majority would say, 'I've never seen that.' But if you ask them how many times they've seen stories about kids sexting pornography, they'll say, 'I see something on that every day.' "
Few measures of teen well-being are as remarkable as the decline in teenage girls getting pregnant and giving birth. According to a newly released study by the National Center for Health Statistics, 39 of every 1,000 girls ages 15-19 gave birth in 2009, a historic low. Experts attribute this in large part to the wider availability of information about, and access to, reliable contraception as well as a small decline in the proportion of teens having sex.
Other positive markers are found in the CDC's 2010 report. Since 1990:
• The proportion of high school students who smoke has declined, and so has the proportion of those who drink.
• Fewer underage teenagers are driving. Fewer teenagers drive while drinking or ride with drivers who are drinking. More students report wearing seatbelts and significantly fewer are involved in fatal car crashes.
• Firearm-related deaths have declined. So has the percentage of high school students who fight or carry a weapon.
• The percent of high school students who have seriously considered suicide has declined. So has the proportion of suicides.
One serious problem, according to the CDC, is that more teens are getting fatter. A lot fatter. But aside from that, they appear to be taking better care of themselves than the generation that preceded them.
So why can't parents acknowledge this? Parenting experts will tell you that one of the most effective ways of raising a young child is to catch him or her "doing something right." Isn't it time we shifted our focus to what the older youth are doing right and encourage them to continue? As many teens lament, "Why is it that parents only pay attention to us when we get into trouble?"
A mother myself, I understand how easy it is to be discouraged by the almost daily news reports of youthful misbehavior. Journalists and TV hosts regularly interview social scientists on the problem du jour, and those experts reach back into their university training where they learned what amounts to a delinquency model of adolescence.
As Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, once said, successful adolescents are treated as "escape artists," who have managed to get away from the negative influences of their peers. So parents may think their kids are OK and still trash their kids' friends and classmates.
Parents also worry about other parents who, if you believe television, are either AWOL, morons, or, like the parents in Cholodenko's "Kids" movie, trapped in their own neuroses. Apparently a lot of grownups are worriers: A survey by Benson's Search Institute found that more than two out of three adults thought other parents were doing only a poor-to-fair job raising their children.
We've all heard that anti-parent litany: Other moms and dads don't spend time with their children; they don't set limits; they're friends, not parents, to their kids.
We may need to rethink that. If teens are doing better, and parents are, as the experts tell us, the biggest influence on their children, then many parents must be doing something right. Let's help parents understand this by reminding them that they are more influential than they think, that their influence has not been lost to peers and popular culture and almost any way you count it, the kids are all right and getting better.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Laura Stepp.
So, American teens are actually making great headways in many areas of responsibility, regardless of the news reports-- with the main problem of this day and age being that teens are increasingly overweight or obese. What's your opinion/reaction on this?
Not smoking as much because their hands are busy texting.
Suicide is down because even the most depressed teens can make friends on World of Warcraft and DakkaDakka.
So they are doing better on a few things. What about all the stuff they are doing bad? Depression and suicide may have been greater in my day, but we didn't backtalk out mothers.
You'll be saying the same things in 20-30 years. Don't worry, your time will come.
Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.
Lord Scythican wrote:Not smoking as much because their hands are busy texting.
Suicide is down because even the most depressed teens can make friends on World of Warcraft and DakkaDakka.
So they are doing better on a few things. What about all the stuff they are doing bad? Depression and suicide may have been greater in my day, but we didn't backtalk out mothers.
Hey I'll have you know I jump off roofs!
And yes my generation is better than most we are nicer. (Barely) And we respect eachother (barely even better than before), Its just bad times = rise of good people. Hell look what happened after the great depression the greatest generation of americans rise up. And fight in the world wars.
That might be it, alot of dramatic experiences have happened to my generation.
Lord Scythican wrote:Not smoking as much because their hands are busy texting.
Suicide is down because even the most depressed teens can make friends on World of Warcraft and DakkaDakka.
So they are doing better on a few things. What about all the stuff they are doing bad? Depression and suicide may have been greater in my day, but we didn't backtalk out mothers.
Hey I'll have you know I jump off roofs!
And yes my generation is better than most we are nicer. (Barely) And we respect eachother (barely even better than before), Its just bad times = rise of good people. Hell look what happened after the great depression the greatest generation of americans rise up. And fight in the world wars.
That might be it, alot of dramatic experiences have happened to my generation.
Did you know there is a bit of science that describes "The Good Ol' Days?" It turns out that positive information is retained better than negative information. Your brain actually creates better pathways to the good stuff. That is why people only remember the good ol' days.
Now it works in reverse too, especially if you are depressed. If you are depressed when something happens, you will remember the bad stuff more. So if you are trying to remember something, try and get your mood to match what you were feeling the day that it happened.
Lord Scythican wrote:Not smoking as much because their hands are busy texting.
Suicide is down because even the most depressed teens can make friends on World of Warcraft and DakkaDakka.
So they are doing better on a few things. What about all the stuff they are doing bad? Depression and suicide may have been greater in my day, but we didn't backtalk out mothers.
Hey I'll have you know I jump off roofs!
And yes my generation is better than most we are nicer. (Barely) And we respect eachother (barely even better than before), Its just bad times = rise of good people. Hell look what happened after the great depression the greatest generation of americans rise up. And fight in the world wars.
That might be it, alot of dramatic experiences have happened to my generation.
Did you know there is a bit of science that describes "The Good Ol' Days?" It turns out that positive information is retained better than negative information. Your brain actually creates better pathways to the good stuff. That is why people only remember the good ol' days.
Now it works in reverse too, especially if you are depressed. If you are depressed when something happens, you will remember the bad stuff more. So if you are trying to remember something, try and get your mood to match what you were feeling the day that it happened.
Lord Scythican wrote:Not smoking as much because their hands are busy texting.
Suicide is down because even the most depressed teens can make friends on World of Warcraft and DakkaDakka.
So they are doing better on a few things. What about all the stuff they are doing bad? Depression and suicide may have been greater in my day, but we didn't backtalk out mothers.
Hey I'll have you know I jump off roofs!
And yes my generation is better than most we are nicer. (Barely) And we respect eachother (barely even better than before), Its just bad times = rise of good people. Hell look what happened after the great depression the greatest generation of americans rise up. And fight in the world wars.
That might be it, alot of dramatic experiences have happened to my generation.
Did you know there is a bit of science that describes "The Good Ol' Days?" It turns out that positive information is retained better than negative information. Your brain actually creates better pathways to the good stuff. That is why people only remember the good ol' days.
Now it works in reverse too, especially if you are depressed. If you are depressed when something happens, you will remember the bad stuff more. So if you are trying to remember something, try and get your mood to match what you were feeling the day that it happened.
??? i am not depressed.
The first step is to admit you have a problem. It is the hardest though. I will help you through it.
Lord Scythican wrote:Not smoking as much because their hands are busy texting.
Suicide is down because even the most depressed teens can make friends on World of Warcraft and DakkaDakka.
So they are doing better on a few things. What about all the stuff they are doing bad? Depression and suicide may have been greater in my day, but we didn't backtalk out mothers.
Hey I'll have you know I jump off roofs! And yes my generation is better than most we are nicer. (Barely) And we respect eachother (barely even better than before), Its just bad times = rise of good people. Hell look what happened after the great depression the greatest generation of americans rise up. And fight in the world wars. That might be it, alot of dramatic experiences have happened to my generation.
Did you know there is a bit of science that describes "The Good Ol' Days?" It turns out that positive information is retained better than negative information. Your brain actually creates better pathways to the good stuff. That is why people only remember the good ol' days.
Now it works in reverse too, especially if you are depressed. If you are depressed when something happens, you will remember the bad stuff more. So if you are trying to remember something, try and get your mood to match what you were feeling the day that it happened.
??? i am not depressed.
The first step is to admit you have a problem. It is the hardest though. I will help you through it.
Wtf? Mate I don't have a problem, I have had a cold for the past few days, and I have had a fever for a few days as well, so my memory is like someone hitting me with a hammer. And I am historian mate so that might be the reason why I believe great people come from bad times. Because right now is a time to live. But anyway teens are doing well because of the places they are growing up. And parents are learning. Are you trolling me matE?
Maybe they are more responsible about some things because there's stuff like MTV 'reality' giving role models of teen moms and such and it isn't a hush hush thing to hide any more.
My take on teens is that I notice how DUMB they are though. I don't mean dumb like innately stupid, but the overall level of what I guess you could consider a "knowledge base" just doesn't exist the way it did when I was in high school. An education is no longer for the sake of education, but for the sake of a piece of paper that can be the ticket through the door to different jobs. The concept of a classical education has given way to getting a certificate from your high school that you are a "Web-Master" because you know how to make a webpage, books are only read if they are assigned, and then, just the assigned chapter. Knowledge as a personal reservoir has been made obsolete because and Iphone can just look up information on the internet when you need it. I see this in the cellphone generation, and the basic level of broad topics just doesn't exist like it did to the pre-internet/internet revolution generation - its as if its just taken for granted. Damn. I'm 36 and I sound like a grandpa or something.
Guitardian wrote:Maybe they are more responsible about some things because there's stuff like MTV 'reality' giving role models of teen moms and such and it isn't a hush hush thing to hide any more.
My take on teens is that I notice how DUMB they are though. I don't mean dumb like innately stupid, but the overall level of what I guess you could consider a "knowledge base" just doesn't exist the way it did when I was in high school. An education is no longer for the sake of education, but for the sake of a piece of paper that can be the ticket through the door to different jobs. The concept of a classical education has given way to getting a certificate from your high school that you are a "Web-Master" because you know how to make a webpage, books are only read if they are assigned, and then, just the assigned chapter. Knowledge as a personal reservoir has been made obsolete because and Iphone can just look up information on the internet when you need it. I see this in the cellphone generation, and the basic level of broad topics just doesn't exist like it did to the pre-internet/internet revolution generation - its as if its just taken for granted. Damn. I'm 36 and I sound like a grandpa or something.
I agree with this. its okay. I don't have a cellphone, or a iphone for that matter. I only use my ipod to listen to music when I am on Runs. And I read on a daily basis, I am a rare breed
Asherian Command wrote:Because right now is a time to live.
What? You have to back that one up. Things aren't what they were five years ago, but they could be, and have been, much worse.
And I agree challenging times CAN lead to people rising to the occassion. It can also lead to riots, rampant crime, societal collapse, mass fear, and horrible oppression.
This article takes five fairly superficial categories and simply says that teens have "improved", but doesn't say by how much or provide any meaninful historical data. It must have been a really slow news day. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Drug use, teen pregnancy, less violent deaths or deaths from stupid driving habits, and a lower rate of suicide are "superficial"?
While I understand your position on the article providing no historical basis for comparison, the assertion that these issues are "superficial" is nonsensical.
Melissia wrote:Drug use, teen pregnancy, less violent deaths or deaths from stupid driving habits, and a lower rate of suicide are "superficial"?
While I understand your position on the article providing no historical basis for comparison, the assertion that these issues are "superficial" is nonsensical.
Superficial has more to do with the notion that the decreases are meaningful in any sort of way.
Less driving deaths doesn't really speak to the quality of the teenagers so much as the safety of our vehicles. Less smoking and drinking is good but in reality not that big of a deal, especially if the ones that do are doing it more often and more vigorously than in the past. And a large segment that used to smoke may now be doing drugs instead.
Firearm related deaths could mean anything, and could be attributed to anything from gun safety to an increase in deaths from other weapons (when Boston cracked down on handguns stabbings in the city went up astronomically).
Seriously considered suicide, and teen pregnancy are all good, depending on how much they have really dropped. A drop from the early 90s isn't that great because a lot of these things, and crime in general, hit all time highs in the US at that time. They could still be significantly above 30, 40, and 50 year averages.
The article is a puff piece, don't take it seriously.
I'm suprised that there is a topic about "Hey, this generation is doing alright!", most threads I see like this are full of "Teenagers are worse than ever!"
Then again, how well a generation is doing is pretty much impossible to measure as a whole. Remember: it only takes one crazy person to do something awful.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Personally I would like to see some studys about how good parents are these days.
That would be bad. I cant stand the modern parenting method TBH. My parents raised us in the ol fashioned "you messed up Im kicking your ass" and all 3 of us turned out really good and well rounded. Its how I raise my children and my son is the student of the month at his school, and my daughter is tracking incredibly well, even though she finds fart jokes a little too funny
But to compare, my brothers, brother/sister in law. Neither of them discipline thier children and they are little gaks to put it mildly. They go through peoples bedrooms and dressers at get togethers, they steal things, they are brats and throw toys and COMPLETELY ignore their parents. My kids know that Ill let them goof off and ignore me once...but if I get the stern voice out, its time to cut it.
Modern parents are all about EVERYONE is equal and even if you fail, youll get a nice little ribbon for trying. I say, thats BS. There WILL be someone smarter and there CANNOT BE 15 1st place winners. Its ok to not be the best. As long as you showed up and showed everyone that you did the very best you can, thats what really matters. Not making sure the childrens feelings arnt hurt.
sillyboy wrote:We are better then our parent were and still they're complaining?
In what way are you better than your parents?
Eductaionally I was a lot better than my parents. But then Hitler wasn't dropping bombs on me during my time at school. And they wanted me to do well and better than they did.
Now my daughter is a teenager I want her to surpass my achievements, to live a good life and be happy.
In what way are we still complaining?
Of course I am dismayed by some of the behaviour I see. If someone is being anti social, sorry am not gonna say its only kids and they is all well mint. The report fails to offer any explainations as to why some of these trends are reversing. It samples only a snapshot in time, How do we know what the teenagers will be upto in a year or two?
So, what this study says is instead of going out and having fun (like we did in the good ol' days), kids are sitting around getting fat, and this is a good thing?
Pfft, I'd take being skinny and dead due to an overdose resulting in me shooting myself in the head while driving underaged due to my suicidal depression over being fat any day. Oh, to be young again.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Personally I would like to see some studys about how good parents are these days.
That would be bad. I cant stand the modern parenting method TBH. My parents raised us in the ol fashioned "you messed up Im kicking your ass" and all 3 of us turned out really good and well rounded. Its how I raise my children and my son is the student of the month at his school, and my daughter is tracking incredibly well, even though she finds fart jokes a little too funny
But to compare, my brothers, brother/sister in law. Neither of them discipline thier children and they are little gaks to put it mildly. They go through peoples bedrooms and dressers at get togethers, they steal things, they are brats and throw toys and COMPLETELY ignore their parents. My kids know that Ill let them goof off and ignore me once...but if I get the stern voice out, its time to cut it.
Modern parents are all about EVERYONE is equal and even if you fail, youll get a nice little ribbon for trying. I say, thats BS. There WILL be someone smarter and there CANNOT BE 15 1st place winners. Its ok to not be the best. As long as you showed up and showed everyone that you did the very best you can, thats what really matters. Not making sure the childrens feelings arnt hurt.
I second this, only difference is, most of my extended family was all "old fashioned" so, if one of us, my brother, cousins or myself acted too far out of line for a get together, any number of relatives could be whipping a belt off and onto one, or all of our backsides.. of course, now I'm in the army, have a kid of my own, and I can see first hand the effects of parents who don't discipline their children.
Pffff, I doubt that very much. You were either not raised that way and dont get the rationale, or you WERE but extremely bad and therefore hate the idea of disciplining a child
Guitardian wrote:Knowledge as a personal reservoir has been made obsolete because and Iphone can just look up information on the internet when you need it. I see this in the cellphone generation, and the basic level of broad topics just doesn't exist like it did to the pre-internet/internet revolution generation - its as if its just taken for granted.
Not just that, but the ability of people to read something critically and understand it has become near non-existent. I've met only a few people in my own classes who are capable of reading between the lines as it were. Anyone can tell you what a section of a piece is about and what it means at face value. I find few people are capable of exploring the deeper concepts or why they matter.
The newer generations have become generations of knowing facts and are less capable of using reason to solve problems.
And I agree with ArtcllyFlvrd to an extent. I wouldn't call these things superficial. They're important, but I think that claiming these things make the new generation "better" is a little bit of a logical leap depending on how we're defining better.
Melissia wrote:I never said it made the generation better, only that they're doing better behaviorally...
I still say the same thing. At best, all the article really concludes is that teens are being killed by bad choices in lower numbers and are getting knocked up less. Better in those areas yes. Better behaviorally no because behavior extends beyond drunk driving, shooting each other(or themselves), doing drugs, and getting knocked up.
Melissia wrote:But those are still the biggest objective indicators that can be recorded, unless you have something else in mind?
You can objectively record any human behavior. It's just a matter of how troublesome it will be to record it. The numbers given in the above article just cover the hot button topics all the parent's groups seem to enjoy complaining about and the ones everyone keeps an eye on.
Just because there's improvement on hot button topics doesn't make you're behavior better. You can still be a lazy, undisciplined, disrespectful brat. You're just a lazy, undisciplined, disrespectful brat who isn't driving drunk, getting shot, or getting pregnant. Improvement in some areas can go along with being worse in others. Lots of fuss about bullying these days for example, is that worse than it used to be? Not that I know how these things stack up one generation to another. I disagree with the conclusion that these five things can be determined to make one generation better behaviorally or otherwise. That I think my generation is a crappy generation is another matter entirely. As you can probably guess by now, I have a rather low opinion of my peers .
As do I, I'm a generation or so behind the one talked about in the article. I actually think that they are behaving better, myself, but maybe that's just me... I remember gang wars in the parking lot of the middle school for example.
biccat wrote:You'll be saying the same things in 20-30 years. Don't worry, your time will come.
Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.
Melissia wrote:As do I, I'm a generation or so behind the one talked about in the article. I actually think that they are behaving better, myself, but maybe that's just me... I remember gang wars in the parking lot of the middle school for example.
I can happily say I never saw any gang wars. The big problems I've noticed ever since middle school is how poorly groups of kids treat others. Bullying was a huge problem (you can probably guess which end of it I was on ). I have plenty of reservations about my generation besides the lack of respect, discipline, and general laziness, but most of it's really subjective (even those three are probably subjective... except for laziness. I can't imagine anyone thinking laziness is good ). I think it really comes down to defining better and picking which things are to be considered less important than others. I just don't find these five things given in the article definitive of anything other than what they are. Would be interesting to see what the other positives are though.
Swiftblade wrote:I'm suprised that there is a topic about "Hey, this generation is doing alright!", most threads I see like this are full of "Teenagers are worse than ever!"
Then again, how well a generation is doing is pretty much impossible to measure as a whole. Remember: it only takes one crazy person to do something awful.
This.
It took Columbine to stereotype teenagers as FPS-crazed violence freaks, sexting to stereotype us as sex-crazed voueyrs, etc, etc.
It's going to have to wait until the next generation, to see how we really affected everything.
Guitardian wrote:Maybe they are more responsible about some things because there's stuff like MTV 'reality' giving role models of teen moms and such and it isn't a hush hush thing to hide any more.
My take on teens is that I notice how DUMB they are though. I don't mean dumb like innately stupid, but the overall level of what I guess you could consider a "knowledge base" just doesn't exist the way it did when I was in high school. An education is no longer for the sake of education, but for the sake of a piece of paper that can be the ticket through the door to different jobs. The concept of a classical education has given way to getting a certificate from your high school that you are a "Web-Master" because you know how to make a webpage, books are only read if they are assigned, and then, just the assigned chapter. Knowledge as a personal reservoir has been made obsolete because and Iphone can just look up information on the internet when you need it. I see this in the cellphone generation, and the basic level of broad topics just doesn't exist like it did to the pre-internet/internet revolution generation - its as if its just taken for granted. Damn. I'm 36 and I sound like a grandpa or something.
I agree with this.
its okay. I don't have a cellphone, or a iphone for that matter. I only use my ipod to listen to music when I am on Runs. And I read on a daily basis, I am a rare breed
A true occurrence that saddens me greatly. 98% of a high school's population will complain about having to go to school and not being able to wait for when they get their "freedom", while millions of children the world over would do anything to get an education. Try to talk to member of the current high school generation about a current event, and they'll either repeat some passionate stance on whatever tragedy/scandal they know of or just say "I don't care about politics/Kenya/Germany/local news". It's sad, to see their apathetic, self-absorbed views. Let's hope life takes 'em for a loop post-high school, and they gain some perspective.
As much the teacher's fault as the student's. Controlling the class is a core part of being a teacher.
I would agree with you if we could paddle these kids. As is, there isn't much you can do to control a kid these days.
Well if its a bunch of high school girls throw a signed Twlight book on the ground and then it will cause a fight. Thats just my experience, oh wait calm teenage girls, oh then I don't know. I do know for guys though.
For guys say they will get 10$ for whoever can shut-up and not do anything except act like a good student.
That usually works.
Though it may or maynot sometimes work.
Asherian Command cannot be held responisable if someone actually pulls this off financially
Guitardian wrote:Maybe they are more responsible about some things because there's stuff like MTV 'reality' giving role models of teen moms and such and it isn't a hush hush thing to hide any more.
My take on teens is that I notice how DUMB they are though. I don't mean dumb like innately stupid, but the overall level of what I guess you could consider a "knowledge base" just doesn't exist the way it did when I was in high school. An education is no longer for the sake of education, but for the sake of a piece of paper that can be the ticket through the door to different jobs. The concept of a classical education has given way to getting a certificate from your high school that you are a "Web-Master" because you know how to make a webpage, books are only read if they are assigned, and then, just the assigned chapter. Knowledge as a personal reservoir has been made obsolete because and Iphone can just look up information on the internet when you need it. I see this in the cellphone generation, and the basic level of broad topics just doesn't exist like it did to the pre-internet/internet revolution generation - its as if its just taken for granted. Damn. I'm 36 and I sound like a grandpa or something.
I agree with this.
its okay. I don't have a cellphone, or a iphone for that matter. I only use my ipod to listen to music when I am on Runs. And I read on a daily basis, I am a rare breed
A true occurrence that saddens me greatly. 98% of a high school's population will complain about having to go to school and not being able to wait for when they get their "freedom", while millions of children the world over would do anything to get an education. Try to talk to member of the current high school generation about a current event, and they'll either repeat some passionate stance on whatever tragedy/scandal they know of or just say "I don't care about politics/Kenya/Germany/local news". It's sad, to see their apathetic, self-absorbed views. Let's hope life takes 'em for a loop post-high school, and they gain some perspective.
Is that somehow exclusive to this generation? I'm sure if you'd asked high schoolers from the 1960s onwards, most of them would have parroted very similar answers to what you see now.
Apathy and self-absorption, by the by, are far from being exclusive to teenagers.
I've met plenty of people several decades older than I am who are just as self-absorbed and uncaring about matters that don't directly impact them.
micahaphone wrote:A true occurrence that saddens me greatly. 98% of a high school's population will complain about having to go to school and not being able to wait for when they get their "freedom",
It's also moronic when you consider that the "freedom" they refer to is either more school or a job and bills.
Guitardian wrote:Maybe they are more responsible about some things because there's stuff like MTV 'reality' giving role models of teen moms and such and it isn't a hush hush thing to hide any more.
My take on teens is that I notice how DUMB they are though. I don't mean dumb like innately stupid, but the overall level of what I guess you could consider a "knowledge base" just doesn't exist the way it did when I was in high school. An education is no longer for the sake of education, but for the sake of a piece of paper that can be the ticket through the door to different jobs. The concept of a classical education has given way to getting a certificate from your high school that you are a "Web-Master" because you know how to make a webpage, books are only read if they are assigned, and then, just the assigned chapter. Knowledge as a personal reservoir has been made obsolete because and Iphone can just look up information on the internet when you need it. I see this in the cellphone generation, and the basic level of broad topics just doesn't exist like it did to the pre-internet/internet revolution generation - its as if its just taken for granted. Damn. I'm 36 and I sound like a grandpa or something.
I agree with this.
its okay. I don't have a cellphone, or a iphone for that matter. I only use my ipod to listen to music when I am on Runs. And I read on a daily basis, I am a rare breed
A true occurrence that saddens me greatly. 98% of a high school's population will complain about having to go to school and not being able to wait for when they get their "freedom", while millions of children the world over would do anything to get an education. Try to talk to member of the current high school generation about a current event, and they'll either repeat some passionate stance on whatever tragedy/scandal they know of or just say "I don't care about politics/Kenya/Germany/local news". It's sad, to see their apathetic, self-absorbed views. Let's hope life takes 'em for a loop post-high school, and they gain some perspective.
Is that somehow exclusive to this generation? I'm sure if you'd asked high schoolers from the 1960s onwards, most of them would have parroted very similar answers to what you see now.
Apathy and self-absorption, by the by, are far from being exclusive to teenagers.
I've met plenty of people several decades older than I am who are just as self-absorbed and uncaring about matters that don't directly impact them.
Back in the 60s kids were quite passionate about global politics, as I recall this culminated in much of a highschool getting suspended for wearing black armbands (a sign of Vietnam protest). Which probably has something to do with why kids stopped caring.
Guitardian wrote:Maybe they are more responsible about some things because there's stuff like MTV 'reality' giving role models of teen moms and such and it isn't a hush hush thing to hide any more.
My take on teens is that I notice how DUMB they are though. I don't mean dumb like innately stupid, but the overall level of what I guess you could consider a "knowledge base" just doesn't exist the way it did when I was in high school. An education is no longer for the sake of education, but for the sake of a piece of paper that can be the ticket through the door to different jobs. The concept of a classical education has given way to getting a certificate from your high school that you are a "Web-Master" because you know how to make a webpage, books are only read if they are assigned, and then, just the assigned chapter. Knowledge as a personal reservoir has been made obsolete because and Iphone can just look up information on the internet when you need it. I see this in the cellphone generation, and the basic level of broad topics just doesn't exist like it did to the pre-internet/internet revolution generation - its as if its just taken for granted. Damn. I'm 36 and I sound like a grandpa or something.
I agree with this.
its okay. I don't have a cellphone, or a iphone for that matter. I only use my ipod to listen to music when I am on Runs. And I read on a daily basis, I am a rare breed
A true occurrence that saddens me greatly. 98% of a high school's population will complain about having to go to school and not being able to wait for when they get their "freedom", while millions of children the world over would do anything to get an education. Try to talk to member of the current high school generation about a current event, and they'll either repeat some passionate stance on whatever tragedy/scandal they know of or just say "I don't care about politics/Kenya/Germany/local news". It's sad, to see their apathetic, self-absorbed views. Let's hope life takes 'em for a loop post-high school, and they gain some perspective.
Is that somehow exclusive to this generation? I'm sure if you'd asked high schoolers from the 1960s onwards, most of them would have parroted very similar answers to what you see now.
Apathy and self-absorption, by the by, are far from being exclusive to teenagers.
I've met plenty of people several decades older than I am who are just as self-absorbed and uncaring about matters that don't directly impact them.
Back in the 60s kids were quite passionate about global politics, as I recall this culminated in much of a highschool getting suspended for wearing black armbands (a sign of Vietnam protest). Which probably has something to do with why kids stopped caring.
You're referring to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, right?
That was three kids, all from the same family.
With Vietnam, many of the protests can easily be tied to self-absorption. Who would have wanted to be drafted?
Kanluwen wrote:Apathy and self-absorption, by the by, are far from being exclusive to teenagers.
I've met plenty of people several decades older than I am who are just as self-absorbed and uncaring about matters that don't directly impact them.
so... the moral is that humans are fundamentally donkey caves?
I hate my generation, they can all go zog off. The kids seem all right but their music taste is terrible. Its either about drugs, hookers, and money or Fridays, nap time, and unicorns.
Ultrafool wrote:I hate my generation, they can all go zog off. The kids seem all right but their music taste is terrible. Its either about drugs, hookers, and money or Fridays, nap time, and unicorns.
Uhhh. My school has an army of people who like alternative, hard rock, and other good music. WE all hate that other s
Ultrafool wrote:I hate my generation, they can all go zog off. The kids seem all right but their music taste is terrible. Its either about drugs, hookers, and money or Fridays, nap time, and unicorns.
Uhhh. My school has an army of people who like alternative, hard rock, and other good music. WE all hate that other s
@Asherian Command- well you're a lucky one Mister. I hate my school and teenagers, now I understand where my grandfather is coming from. Old man lives of the land and provides for himself, that is man I respect 100%, hell I even respect adults who have to put up with teens and their hooplah.
So wait, kids aren't smoking, drinking, driving under age or knockin' each other up anymore? And they're getting fatter. That sounds pretty lame to me. Reminds me of this.
It's pretty much the same argument about traveling by plane vs. traveling by car. Generally people are a lot more afraid of flying than driving a car, which makes no sense since cars have by an order of magnitudes higher body-count than planes in accidents. Like how the news sensationalizes planes to the degree that they're all an aileron failure waiting to happen, the media focuses on the stories of teens going on school rampages and gang fights when the future prospects of kids these days have never been better.
micahaphone wrote:A true occurrence that saddens me greatly. 98% of a high school's population will complain about having to go to school and not being able to wait for when they get their "freedom",
It's also moronic when you consider that the "freedom" they refer to is either more school or a job and bills.
You must know an odd bunch of kids, I think. Well, either that, or me and my friends are freakishly unusual in this respect... probably the latter, come to think of it. Either way, Britain's a different kettle of fish, really - I've heard your American schools are somewhat of a different situation.
micahaphone wrote:A true occurrence that saddens me greatly. 98% of a high school's population will complain about having to go to school and not being able to wait for when they get their "freedom",
It's also moronic when you consider that the "freedom" they refer to is either more school or a job and bills.
You must know an odd bunch of kids, I think. Well, either that, or me and my friends are freakishly unusual in this respect... probably the latter, come to think of it. Either way, Britain's a different kettle of fish, really - I've heard your American schools are somewhat of a different situation.
99% of the people I knew when I went to school were exactly like micahphone described.
micahaphone wrote:Gorskar, would you perhaps enlighten us on what a british school is like?
Teaching wise it's pretty much the same as the states.
Primary school is ages 5 to 11 and secondary is 11 to 16.
Years 1 to 9 (ages 6 to 14) are general education while years 10 and 11 keep the core subjects (English, maths and science) and you choose a few courses to take at GCSE level.
micahaphone wrote:Gorskar, would you perhaps enlighten us on what a british school is like?
Odd, I think is as close as I can come to it. There's no real stereotypes, other than Comprehensives are perceived, somewhat unfairly, as "chavvy," and Grammar schools are "middle-class." There's the typical "man I hate school" crap, but to be honest kids have been saying that since time immemorial - the Beano comic got great mileage out of this joke for a hell of a long time.
Sounds very similar to the school system here in the states. By "no stereotypes", do you mean that the terms "nerd", "jock", "tool", "geek", "stoner", "ganster", ect don't get tossed around?
micahaphone wrote:Sounds very similar to the school system here in the states. By "no stereotypes", do you mean that the terms "nerd", "jock", "tool", "geek", "stoner", "ganster", ect don't get tossed around?
Well, they do, but they're less pronounced. Actually, I'd argue inadvertent homophobia is a bigger issue in British schools, really, but that's opening one hell of a kettle of fish.
I don't see obvious cliques over here, save two:
-the "tools/ d-bags", or guys in striped polo shirts and designer jeans who party every weekend and know that they'll get whatever they want with daddy's money. (I can't wait for them to get to college/real world and see how much the family name counts for out there)
- Crazy stoner/creepers who claim to be nerds or counterculture, but just wear dark clothes, large coats, hats that would normally be classy in the 1920s but look to small for their head, long hair, lack of hygene, ect and don't get good grades or do anything to show care over their future.
micahaphone wrote:I don't see obvious cliques over here, save two:
-the "tools/ d-bags", or guys in striped polo shirts and designer jeans who party every weekend and know that they'll get whatever they want with daddy's money. (I can't wait for them to get to college/real world and see how much the family name counts for out there)
- Crazy stoner/creepers who claim to be nerds or counterculture, but just wear dark clothes, large coats, hats that would normally be classy in the 1920s but look to small for their head, long hair, lack of hygene, ect and don't get good grades or do anything to show care over their future.
Okay, that last sounds pretty disgusting. Eh, what the hell, they're both irritating. We have them over here too, they're just more varied in their appearances/general irritation factor.
And you commented about a hotbed of homophobia over in the UK ( I'm NOT trying to argue for/against gay marriage or whatnot, just comparing cultures). I thought that EU was supposed to be more tolerant than the US?
I wouldn't say it was out-and-out homophobia, as much as it was childish scorn of "odd" things. You know, "Are you gay?" "Ugh, you're gay" - that sort of thing. Nothing huge, but it is annoying, especially when it's 16+ year olds who should know better.
It's like being in a room with a bunch of Eli Roths.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I wouldn't say it was out-and-out homophobia, as much as it was childish scorn of "odd" things. You know, "Are you gay?" "Ugh, you're gay" - that sort of thing. Nothing huge, but it is annoying, especially when it's 16+ year olds who should know better.
It's like being in a room with a bunch of Eli Roths.
Well, you're only REQUIRED to stay in high school until you're 16, but only a crazy idiot would get out without a high school diploma. The school system goes: Kindergarten (Not sure if required), then 1st-6th grade is elementary school, 7th-8th grade (sometimes including 6th and 9th) is middle school, aka combining the worst parts of elementary and high school, then 9th-12th grade is high school. When you graduate from high school, you're 17 or 18, depending on your birthday.
micahaphone wrote:Well, you're only REQUIRED to stay in high school until you're 16, but only a crazy idiot would get out without a high school diploma. The school system goes: Kindergarten (Not sure if required), then 1st-6th grade is elementary school, 7th-8th grade (sometimes including 6th and 9th) is middle school, aka combining the worst parts of elementary and high school, then 9th-12th grade is high school. When you graduate from high school, you're 17 or 18, depending on your birthday.
Ah, I see. And I presume High School diplomas are the key to university, as A-Levels/equivalent qualifications are here, judging by the importance you put on 'em?
Now, as a teen, I take pride in my nody and in fitness. However; I'm really lucky in that I have enough money for decent athletic programs and healthy food. Many teens today don't have those; and thus a large portion of obese teens is because of these reasons.
micahaphone wrote:Well, you're only REQUIRED to stay in high school until you're 16, but only a crazy idiot would get out without a high school diploma. The school system goes: Kindergarten (Not sure if required), then 1st-6th grade is elementary school, 7th-8th grade (sometimes including 6th and 9th) is middle school, aka combining the worst parts of elementary and high school, then 9th-12th grade is high school. When you graduate from high school, you're 17 or 18, depending on your birthday.
Pretty much the same breakdown we have here in NZ.
Kindergarten isn't compulsory, it's just pre-school, also called daycare and they really only exist to take care of young children whose parents both work.
Primary school is your elementary school and once you turn 5 you have to receive some sort of recognized education even it's homeschooling.
Middle school is close to what is called Intermediate, what used to be forms 1 and 2 (11-12 year olds). Sometimes these two years are included at primary school and sometimes they're included at a college, normally they have their own schools though.
Secondary school is either called a College or a High School. We don't use the term college to refer to university.
The system used to be based on the British one but is a bit more international now I believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:Now, as a teen, I take pride in my nody and in fitness. However; I'm really lucky in that I have enough money for decent athletic programs and healthy food. Many teens today don't have those; and thus a large portion of obese teens is because of these reasons.
micahaphone wrote:Well, you're only REQUIRED to stay in high school until you're 16, but only a crazy idiot would get out without a high school diploma. The school system goes: Kindergarten (Not sure if required), then 1st-6th grade is elementary school, 7th-8th grade (sometimes including 6th and 9th) is middle school, aka combining the worst parts of elementary and high school, then 9th-12th grade is high school. When you graduate from high school, you're 17 or 18, depending on your birthday.
Ah, I see. And I presume High School diplomas are the key to university, as A-Levels/equivalent qualifications are here, judging by the importance you put on 'em?
Not just that. Over here, there is much competition to get into college, as you cannot get a decent job without a degree. So you need to have good grades on your transcript, and participation in various clubs or activities if you want a shot at being accepted into a good school. Also, most places will not hire you if you don't have a high school diploma, or maybe a GED.
A GED is a test that you can take to get out of high school early but still look as if you've put some thought towards your future.
micahaphone wrote:Well, you're only REQUIRED to stay in high school until you're 16, but only a crazy idiot would get out without a high school diploma. The school system goes: Kindergarten (Not sure if required), then 1st-6th grade is elementary school, 7th-8th grade (sometimes including 6th and 9th) is middle school, aka combining the worst parts of elementary and high school, then 9th-12th grade is high school. When you graduate from high school, you're 17 or 18, depending on your birthday.
Ah, I see. And I presume High School diplomas are the key to university, as A-Levels/equivalent qualifications are here, judging by the importance you put on 'em?
Not just that. Over here, there is much competition to get into college, as you cannot get a decent job without a degree. So you need to have good grades on your transcript, and participation in various clubs or activities if you want a shot at being accepted into a good school. Also, most places will not hire you if you don't have a high school diploma, or maybe a GED.
A GED is a test that you can take to get out of high school early but still look as if you've put some thought towards your future.
Additionally, and this is no problem for some elements of American youths, is that if you do not have a H.S. Diploma, you may be automatically disqualified from voluntary military service. This is partially dependent on the recruiting situation. During the peak of Iraq/Afghanistan, they were letting just about anyone who had all their limbs in somewhat working order. Not having a diploma also hurts what jobs people can do within the military, as some do actually require some brain power.
Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
They listen to gak music, because its popular, like Lil Wayne, Drake, Gucci Mane. Honestly, I am glad I wasn't born 10 years ago, I would murder these kids for the disrespect they show for the legends of Hip-Hop.
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
They listen to gak music, because its popular, like Lil Wayne, Drake, Gucci Mane. Honestly, I am glad I wasn't born 10 years ago, I would murder these kids for the disrespect they show for the legends of Hip-Hop.
Its more a disrespect as a whole. I was raised in such a manner that anyone older than me, or in an authority position is addressed as Sir, or Ma'am. If you did not use those 2 terms, you would use their proper title, Coach, Mister, Missus, Professor, Sergeant, etc. Proper answers to questions from them are "Yes sir" or "No sir" (obviously ma'am if it applies), not "yeah" or "nah"
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
They listen to gak music, because its popular, like Lil Wayne, Drake, Gucci Mane. Honestly, I am glad I wasn't born 10 years ago, I would murder these kids for the disrespect they show for the legends of Hip-Hop.
I know!! And all people aged older than 18 directly contributed to the global financial crisis, because they're of an age that they could be a banker!!
And you do understand the concept of "popular" music, right?
There is actually a chance that it can be popular, and good.
We don't "sag our pants". A certain sub-group of teens may sag their pants, just the same as there are groups of 20-25 year olds that get stoned every weekend because it's supposedly cool.
PEOPLE CANNOT BE SHOEHORNED INTO GROUPS. HAVE YOU HEARD OF SOMETHING CALLED "PERSONALITY"?
Also, don't make such sweeping generalisations about an age group, it makes adults today come across as a bunch of tools.
Never smoked, never drunk, never had unprotected sex, never get into a car without wearing a seatbelt, never been overweight, never gotten into a fight, don't cyber bully, don't IRL bully, never broken a girls heart without repairing it, never killed anyone, never killed an animal, never been racist, never failed a class that wasn't an elective, never vandilized anything other than the back of textbooks on middle school
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
They listen to gak music, because its popular, like Lil Wayne, Drake, Gucci Mane. Honestly, I am glad I wasn't born 10 years ago, I would murder these kids for the disrespect they show for the legends of Hip-Hop.
I know!! And all people aged older than 18 directly contributed to the global financial crisis, because they're of an age that they could be a banker!!
And you do understand the concept of "popular" music, right?
There is actually a chance that it can be popular, and good.
We don't "sag our pants". A certain sub-group of teens may sag their pants, just the same as there are groups of 20-25 year olds that get stoned every weekend because it's supposedly cool.
PEOPLE CANNOT BE SHOEHORNED INTO GROUPS. HAVE YOU HEARD OF SOMETHING CALLED "PERSONALITY"?
Also, don't make such sweeping generalisations about an age group, it makes adults today come across as a bunch of tools.
I thought skinny jeans was the "in" thing theses days.
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
They listen to gak music, because its popular, like Lil Wayne, Drake, Gucci Mane. Honestly, I am glad I wasn't born 10 years ago, I would murder these kids for the disrespect they show for the legends of Hip-Hop.
They do. You're quite right. Individuality is gone, simply because it isn't cool. I'm just about the only person I can think of that isn't a complete tool or poser.
I wear whatever I like, because I feel cool wearing it. I don't care what other people think. But no. Being a hipster and listening to MGMT is cool, so maybe I should wear loafers, corduroys and flanel shirts, hurr.
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
That was also true 12 years ago when I was 16. No new generation is uniquely 'bad'. Kids throughout the ages have irritated older generations. You can read 200 year old news reports of roaming teenage gangs in London that sound remarkably similar to modern-day papers reporting similar stories.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I believe it. Mainly because I'm part of it.
Never smoked, never drunk, never had unprotected sex, never get into a car without wearing a seatbelt, never been overweight, never gotten into a fight, don't cyber bully, don't IRL bully, never broken a girls heart without repairing it, never killed anyone, never killed an animal, never been racist, never failed a class that wasn't an elective, never vandilized anything other than the back of textbooks on middle school
Most people my age are basically the same ;3
I think I have done all of those other than killed someone and I wear skinny jeans.
Karon wrote:I know I'm right, though. I've visited highschool classrooms as part of my college, oh two years ago. I had to go there for weeks and observe.
And, keep in mind I am talking about the United States. I wouldn't expect it to be the same in the U.K.
I seriously doubt you went to enough classes in enough schools to get a representative sample, but whatever. As to the whole "disrespect" issue, times have moved on from when lads wore short trousers 'til the age of 16. I think applying old-fashioned values to new situations, however easy it might be, is probably a futile endeavor.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I believe it. Mainly because I'm part of it.
Never smoked, never drunk, never had unprotected sex, never get into a car without wearing a seatbelt, never been overweight, never gotten into a fight, don't cyber bully, don't IRL bully, never broken a girls heart without repairing it, never killed anyone, never killed an animal, never been racist, never failed a class that wasn't an elective, never vandilized anything other than the back of textbooks on middle school
Most people my age are basically the same ;3
I think I have done all of those other than killed someone and I wear skinny jeans.
Does this make me a bad person ? :(
No, it makes you not as good as me
KIDDING
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melkhiordarkblade wrote:I don't know about teens in the US.
But in Ireland,they are all still a bunch of damn "punks" (I mean a much worse word)
Seriously,everywhere,it's just damn "punks".
Punk kids? That'd be better than the idiots we have over here who listen to the ramones and seem to think that's the extent of 'punk'
micahaphone wrote:Well, you're only REQUIRED to stay in high school until you're 16, but only a crazy idiot would get out without a high school diploma. The school system goes: Kindergarten (Not sure if required), then 1st-6th grade is elementary school, 7th-8th grade (sometimes including 6th and 9th) is middle school, aka combining the worst parts of elementary and high school, then 9th-12th grade is high school. When you graduate from high school, you're 17 or 18, depending on your birthday.
Ah, I see. And I presume High School diplomas are the key to university, as A-Levels/equivalent qualifications are here, judging by the importance you put on 'em?
Not just that. Over here, there is much competition to get into college, as you cannot get a decent job without a degree. So you need to have good grades on your transcript, and participation in various clubs or activities if you want a shot at being accepted into a good school. Also, most places will not hire you if you don't have a high school diploma, or maybe a GED.
A GED is a test that you can take to get out of high school early but still look as if you've put some thought towards your future.
Hell it hard to get a job period if you don't have some postsecondary education, at least one third of all college graduates are working in jobs that don't even require college education
Lol that's just stereotypes, there are plentyy of fine teens who no the difference between right and wrong. Im turning 13 in three days and so far life has been alright.
biccat wrote:
You've probably got a biased sample size
Most GEDs are for people who are over 18 and dropped out of high school.
Probably. I went to public school, but it was a really good one (top 5% in state when I was there), and that colors my perception.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:I believe it. Mainly because I'm part of it.
Never smoked, never drunk, never had unprotected sex, never get into a car without wearing a seatbelt, never been overweight, never gotten into a fight, don't cyber bully, don't IRL bully, never broken a girls heart without repairing it, never killed anyone, never killed an animal, never been racist, never failed a class that wasn't an elective, never vandilized anything other than the back of textbooks on middle school
Most people my age are basically the same ;3
Funny thing is that I've done all of those things (except killing people and behaving in a racist fashion), and my profession makes most people consider me a fine, upstanding member of society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
micahaphone wrote:
Not just that. Over here, there is much competition to get into college, as you cannot get a decent job without a degree.
There are also a ton of colleges, including JuCos that basically can't turn you away. There is a lot of competition to get into good colleges, but if you want a degree in say, accounting, you will get one; provided, anyway, that you have a C average in high school (not very good by any standard).
biccat wrote:You'll be saying the same things in 20-30 years. Don't worry, your time will come.
Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.
Seriously, biccat gave the perfect response to this topic on the first page. People have been pissing and moaning about the next generation for centuries, yet the new generation that comes along shows itself to be at least as capable, and often more capable than the one before, only for that generation to then turn around and piss and moan about the next generation after them.
I think this is probably due to a few things. Negative predictions tend to gain more attention, and be assumed more "realistic". If there are two people debating, and one is saying that an issue is getting better, and the other is saying that it's a disaster and we're just about to tip off a cliff into anarchy, most people will consider the second guy more grounded and sensible. I don't know why, people just seem to assume bad news is more realistic.
There's also the problem with people seeing the next generation and seeing how they act rudely and generally don't know very much, and somehow assuming that that's how they'll be like that forever. They somehow miss the idea that they're not rude and ignorant because of something inherent in their generation, they're rude and ignorant because they're still young. Just like every generation before them, they'll grow up, move into adulthood and smarter and more respectful.
The last point is that good news isn't news, if teen pregnancy is growing you'll see story afer story on the issue, but if we get control of the problem and teen pregnancy starts dropping then you just won't see it reported, instead they'll move onto the next issue. When we come to terms with obesity you won't see stories on obesity reducing, instead you'll just stop seeing stories about obesity.
The result of this is people believing, generation after generation, that society is facing inevitable decline in the next generation, despite generations marking a steady incline in social progress.
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
That was also true 12 years ago when I was 16. No new generation is uniquely 'bad'. Kids throughout the ages have irritated older generations. You can read 200 year old news reports of roaming teenage gangs in London that sound remarkably similar to modern-day papers reporting similar stories.
Indeed, the difference is 12 years ago (I was 12) real music was popping that led my life (DMX). Everyone understood what sagging your pants meant, its that you payed attention and understood Hip-Hop, at least where I grew up (east side of Chicago). I also was like one of around 100 white kids in a predominantly black school, which may change my perception on a lot of these things.
Today, all kids listen to is bs.
200 years ago....early 1800's, yummy industrial revolution.
well if the kids really get better generation by generation, then let the older generations keep pissing and moaning about it because in the end its only positive progress. Or so the stats say
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
That was also true 12 years ago when I was 16. No new generation is uniquely 'bad'. Kids throughout the ages have irritated older generations. You can read 200 year old news reports of roaming teenage gangs in London that sound remarkably similar to modern-day papers reporting similar stories.
Indeed, the difference is 12 years ago (I was 12) real music was popping that led my life (DMX). Everyone understood what sagging your pants meant, its that you payed attention and understood Hip-Hop, at least where I grew up (east side of Chicago). I also was like one of around 100 white kids in a predominantly black school, which may change my perception on a lot of these things.
Today, all kids listen to is bs.
Yeah, today it's all terrible. But 12 years ago music was incredible. Let's just look at the five biggest singles of 1999 to see how awesome music and authentic music was back then.
1. Britney Spears "...Baby One More Time"
2. Lou Bega "Mambo No 5 (A Little Bit of ...)"
3. Eiffel 65 "Blue (Da Ba Dee)"
4. TLC "No Scrubs"
5.Backstreet Boys "I Want It That Way"
Those songs suck utterly and completely. 1999 was not some magic year where people had taste, only to see it disappear all of a sudden. When you're a teenager you spend the time to go and find good music that doesn't played on the radio, you listen to that stuff to death and years later you think that was the music of that time. It wasn't, the music getting played was Cher's Life After Love, which was also released in 1999, same year as those shitbombs above.
Right now there's kids listening to great current music, great stuff that isn't getting played on the radio, who in twelve years time will be complaining about music just the same as you are.
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
That was also true 12 years ago when I was 16. No new generation is uniquely 'bad'. Kids throughout the ages have irritated older generations. You can read 200 year old news reports of roaming teenage gangs in London that sound remarkably similar to modern-day papers reporting similar stories.
Indeed, the difference is 12 years ago (I was 12) real music was popping that led my life (DMX). Everyone understood what sagging your pants meant, its that you payed attention and understood Hip-Hop, at least where I grew up (east side of Chicago). I also was like one of around 100 white kids in a predominantly black school, which may change my perception on a lot of these things.
Today, all kids listen to is bs.
Yeah, today it's all terrible. But 12 years ago music was incredible. Let's just look at the five biggest singles of 1999 to see how awesome music and authentic music was back then.
1. Britney Spears "...Baby One More Time"
2. Lou Bega "Mambo No 5 (A Little Bit of ...)"
3. Eiffel 65 "Blue (Da Ba Dee)"
4. TLC "No Scrubs"
5.Backstreet Boys "I Want It That Way"
Those songs suck utterly and completely. 1999 was not some magic year where people had taste, only to see it disappear all of a sudden. When you're a teenager you spend the time to go and find good music that doesn't played on the radio, you listen to that stuff to death and years later you think that was the music of that time. It wasn't, the music getting played was Cher's Life After Love, which was also released in 1999, same year as those shitbombs above.
Right now there's kids listening to great current music, great stuff that isn't getting played on the radio, who in twelve years time will be complaining about music just the same as you are.
Indeed. I actually tend to like modern alternative rock better than '90s and early '00s alternative rock anyway, I think that particular genre has improved...
Karon wrote:Kids today are a bunch of tools. They all sag their pants, and don't even realize where it came from. They do it because its the "cool thing" to do, it is unbelievable.
That was also true 12 years ago when I was 16. No new generation is uniquely 'bad'. Kids throughout the ages have irritated older generations. You can read 200 year old news reports of roaming teenage gangs in London that sound remarkably similar to modern-day papers reporting similar stories.
Indeed, the difference is 12 years ago (I was 12) real music was popping that led my life (DMX). Everyone understood what sagging your pants meant, its that you payed attention and understood Hip-Hop, at least where I grew up (east side of Chicago). I also was like one of around 100 white kids in a predominantly black school, which may change my perception on a lot of these things.
Today, all kids listen to is bs.
Yeah, today it's all terrible. But 12 years ago music was incredible. Let's just look at the five biggest singles of 1999 to see how awesome music and authentic music was back then.
1. Britney Spears "...Baby One More Time"
2. Lou Bega "Mambo No 5 (A Little Bit of ...)"
3. Eiffel 65 "Blue (Da Ba Dee)"
4. TLC "No Scrubs"
5.Backstreet Boys "I Want It That Way"
Those songs suck utterly and completely. 1999 was not some magic year where people had taste, only to see it disappear all of a sudden. When you're a teenager you spend the time to go and find good music that doesn't played on the radio, you listen to that stuff to death and years later you think that was the music of that time. It wasn't, the music getting played was Cher's Life After Love, which was also released in 1999, same year as those shitbombs above.
Right now there's kids listening to great current music, great stuff that isn't getting played on the radio, who in twelve years time will be complaining about music just the same as you are.
#2 is a classic ^.^
I was more thinking on the lines of....
It's Dark and Hell Is Hot - DMX
Flesh of My Flesh, Blood of My Blood - DMX
...And Then There Was X - DMX
Ryde or Die Vol. 1 - Ruff Ryders
Blackout - Method Man & Redman
The Slim Shady - Eminem
Still I Rise - Posthumous Tupac (the last good one)
I am.... - Nas
Nastradamus - Nas
Master - Rakim
When you compare that pure Hip-Hop to the gak that is called "Rap" today, which is nothing more than pop music, I think you can see my point.
After I posted that I was going through year by year, I actually got lucky that you said 12 years before, because 1999 was a particularly gak tastic list of five tracks. Most other years had one good song, a couple of years even had two. But 1999, man...
When you compare that pure Hip-Hop to the gak that is called "Rap" today, which is nothing more than pop music, I think you can see my point.
But you can pick the great stuff released in any year, forget about all the crap that came out that same year, then compare it to the crap that's on the radio now, see the first list is much better than the second list and conclude music isn't what it used to be. People have been doing that for a long time. They were doing it in 1999.
Thing is, you aren't comparing apples with apples. You need to let time work it's magic and sift away all the crap.
Karon wrote:I see what you are saying sebster, and you are correct. My parents do the same thing I am saying here, they hate my "taste" in music.
Its not necessarily 1999, I started listening to this music in 1998, when DMX exploded.
Hell in 1969 when abbey road, led zeppelin I and II, and the rolling stones let it bleed were released do you know what the top single in the country was.
Sugar Sugar by the Archies.
Whats popular is in no way representative of whats good
Worst part? The Beatles' most popular year in music, when they released their best album, you know what the number one song was? "Sugar Sugar", by the Archies. Popular music is almost never good music.
Karon wrote:
When you compare that pure Hip-Hop to the gak that is called "Rap" today, which is nothing more than pop music, I think you can see my point.
You're putting DMX on a list with Nas, Tupac (overrated as he is), and Rakim? That's damn near blasphemy.
Anyway, what you're seeing now is the massive popularity of crunk hip-hop, mostly because its great stuff to play at college/high school parties, meaning that it appeals to the group that basically drives popular music.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
But you can pick the great stuff released in any year, forget about all the crap that came out that same year, then compare it to the crap that's on the radio now, see the first list is much better than the second list and conclude music isn't what it used to be. People have been doing that for a long time. They were doing it in 1999.
Thing is, you aren't comparing apples with apples. You need to let time work it's magic and sift away all the crap.
Lest we all forget that Big Willie Style came out in '97.
youbedead wrote:Hell in 1969 when abbey road, led zeppelin I and II, and the rolling stones let it bleed were released do you know what the top single in the country was.
Sugar Sugar by the Archies.
Whats popular is in no way representative of whats good
Somebody reads Cracked
Automatically Appended Next Post:
micahaphone wrote:Worst part? The Beatles' most popular year in music, when they released their best album, you know what the number one song was? "Sugar Sugar", by the Archies. Popular music is almost never good music.
The kids truly are all right
By Laura Sessions Stepp, Special to CNN
March 31, 2011 8:29 a.m. EDT
Editor's note: Laura Sessions Stepp is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, formerly with The Washington Post, who specializes in the coverage of young people. She has written two books: "Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both," and "Our Last Best Shot: Guiding Our Children through Early Adolescence."
(CNN) -- Stop anyone on the street who looks, say, older than 40, and ask whether teenagers are doing better or worse than a decade or two ago. Odds are she or he will say worse -- and be wrong.
Hollywood writer and director Lisa Cholodenko was correct: The kids are all right. In fact, according to a massive study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, teenagers are doing better on a bunch of important measures, even as they've increased in number and diversity.
Every time I talk to parents, I am moved by how few know this. Or, if they've read about it, how they don't believe it. Peter Benson, president of the Search Institute, a youth development think tank, also runs into this skepticism.
"If we did a poll of American parents," he says, "and asked, 'How many times have you seen research about adolescent pregnancy showing that kids are being more responsible?' the vast majority would say, 'I've never seen that.' But if you ask them how many times they've seen stories about kids sexting pornography, they'll say, 'I see something on that every day.' "
Few measures of teen well-being are as remarkable as the decline in teenage girls getting pregnant and giving birth. According to a newly released study by the National Center for Health Statistics, 39 of every 1,000 girls ages 15-19 gave birth in 2009, a historic low. Experts attribute this in large part to the wider availability of information about, and access to, reliable contraception as well as a small decline in the proportion of teens having sex.
Other positive markers are found in the CDC's 2010 report. Since 1990:
• The proportion of high school students who smoke has declined, and so has the proportion of those who drink.
• Fewer underage teenagers are driving. Fewer teenagers drive while drinking or ride with drivers who are drinking. More students report wearing seatbelts and significantly fewer are involved in fatal car crashes.
• Firearm-related deaths have declined. So has the percentage of high school students who fight or carry a weapon.
• The percent of high school students who have seriously considered suicide has declined. So has the proportion of suicides.
One serious problem, according to the CDC, is that more teens are getting fatter. A lot fatter. But aside from that, they appear to be taking better care of themselves than the generation that preceded them.
So why can't parents acknowledge this? Parenting experts will tell you that one of the most effective ways of raising a young child is to catch him or her "doing something right." Isn't it time we shifted our focus to what the older youth are doing right and encourage them to continue? As many teens lament, "Why is it that parents only pay attention to us when we get into trouble?"
A mother myself, I understand how easy it is to be discouraged by the almost daily news reports of youthful misbehavior. Journalists and TV hosts regularly interview social scientists on the problem du jour, and those experts reach back into their university training where they learned what amounts to a delinquency model of adolescence.
As Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, once said, successful adolescents are treated as "escape artists," who have managed to get away from the negative influences of their peers. So parents may think their kids are OK and still trash their kids' friends and classmates.
Parents also worry about other parents who, if you believe television, are either AWOL, morons, or, like the parents in Cholodenko's "Kids" movie, trapped in their own neuroses. Apparently a lot of grownups are worriers: A survey by Benson's Search Institute found that more than two out of three adults thought other parents were doing only a poor-to-fair job raising their children.
We've all heard that anti-parent litany: Other moms and dads don't spend time with their children; they don't set limits; they're friends, not parents, to their kids.
We may need to rethink that. If teens are doing better, and parents are, as the experts tell us, the biggest influence on their children, then many parents must be doing something right. Let's help parents understand this by reminding them that they are more influential than they think, that their influence has not been lost to peers and popular culture and almost any way you count it, the kids are all right and getting better.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Laura Stepp.
So, American teens are actually making great headways in many areas of responsibility, regardless of the news reports-- with the main problem of this day and age being that teens are increasingly overweight or obese. What's your opinion/reaction on this?
People should stop eating at fething mcdonalds for every damn meal, stop cramming down sugar, and go do something outside for at least 2 fething hours a week. FAT PEOPLE ARE FAT!!!!
It has something to do with a certain user who is no longer with us saying 'Blame the victim' repeatedly several times with some other very colorful language.
halonachos wrote:It has something to do with a certain user who is no longer with us saying 'Blame the victim' repeatedly several times with some other very colorful language.
halonachos wrote:It has something to do with a certain user who is no longer with us saying 'Blame the victim' repeatedly several times with some other very colorful language.
Must of missed that one. Anyone I didn't like?
Gailbraithe...the thread itself is burried somewhere in the OT...but it was quite entertaining..
halonachos wrote:It has something to do with a certain user who is no longer with us saying 'Blame the victim' repeatedly several times with some other very colorful language.
Must of missed that one. Anyone I didn't like?
Gailbraithe...the thread itself is burried somewhere in the OT...but it was quite entertaining..
Dogma must have baked himself a cake. When I get the boot I doubt it will be so illustrious.
halonachos wrote:It has something to do with a certain user who is no longer with us saying 'Blame the victim' repeatedly several times with some other very colorful language.
Must of missed that one. Anyone I didn't like?
Gailbraithe...the thread itself is burried somewhere in the OT...but it was quite entertaining..
Dogma must have baked himself a cake. When I get the boot I doubt it will be so illustrious.
The trick with Dogma is to not think when you argue against him. If you just repeat the same inane stance he'll eventually get tired and give up, or the thread will get locked.
halonachos wrote:The trick with Dogma is to not think when you argue against him. If you just repeat the same inane stance he'll eventually get tired and give up, or the thread will get locked.
If you catch me near midterms or finals the former is pretty easy to induce.
halonachos wrote:The trick with Dogma is to not think when you argue against him. If you just repeat the same inane stance he'll eventually get tired and give up, or the thread will get locked.
I, and I think a lot of other posters besides, have noticed you doing this, by the way
halonachos wrote:It has something to do with a certain user who is no longer with us saying 'Blame the victim' repeatedly several times with some other very colorful language.
Must of missed that one. Anyone I didn't like?
I think there's a decent probability that most people would fit that description...
That's only because he is dead. Dead musicians are always "overrated".
Anyway, I think there is still some good rap, but a lot of the people you think of as rap, really aren't. As Karon said in another thread, they are more pop.
Mike Noble wrote:Anyway, I think there is still some good rap, but a lot of the people you think of as rap, really aren't. As Karon said in another thread, they are more pop.
Mike Noble wrote:Anyway, I think there is still some good rap, but a lot of the people you think of as rap, really aren't. As Karon said in another thread, they are more pop.
Mike Noble wrote:Anyway, I think there is still some good rap, but a lot of the people you think of as rap, really aren't. As Karon said in another thread, they are more pop.
I would put DMX on their level, yes. DMX is one of the most underrated artists I have seen, along with Rakim.
Yeah, I think I've made my point here. I might not seem to know anything on here, but I sure as hell know my Hip-Hop more than anything.
Tupac is indeed overrated, while B.I.G is underrated. It happens when people who don't know what they're talking about, talk about them. The two of them are still the best, and which one is #1 is a matter of opinion, I prefer B.I.G.
Karon wrote:I would put DMX on their level, yes. DMX is one of the most underrated artists I have seen, along with Rakim.
Yeah, I think I've made my point here. I might not seem to know anything on here, but I sure as hell know my Hip-Hop more than anything.
Sorry man but your argument boils down to the "kids these days" with a side helping of nostalgia, your parents probably complained about how kids these days listen to DMX and not whatever they used to listen to.
Karon wrote:I would put DMX on their level, yes. DMX is one of the most underrated artists I have seen, along with Rakim.
Yeah, I think I've made my point here. I might not seem to know anything on here, but I sure as hell know my Hip-Hop more than anything.
Sorry man but your argument boils down to the "kids these days" with a side helping of nostalgia, your parents probably complained about how kids these days listen to DMX and not whatever they used to listen to.
What is my argument? Kids DON'T listen to DMX these days. I wouldn't complain if my kids were listening to that, I'd be proud as hell.
Most kids today listen to bs pop music that means nothing at all. They wrongly label it as Hip-Hop and Rap. Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, Drake, all are pop artists, that gak they make isn't Hip-Hop.
Karon wrote:I would put DMX on their level, yes. DMX is one of the most underrated artists I have seen, along with Rakim.
Yeah, I think I've made my point here. I might not seem to know anything on here, but I sure as hell know my Hip-Hop more than anything.
Sorry man but your argument boils down to the "kids these days" with a side helping of nostalgia, your parents probably complained about how kids these days listen to DMX and not whatever they used to listen to.
I belive (though of course I may be wrong),that Karon was attempting to comment on the idea that Hip-Hop has become "Watered down and co-opted" over the decades..which I can partly agree with.but of course...this happens with all forms of "rebelious" music once it begins to gain some commercial success ...(see Hippy.Punk,Metal for details .. )....
....I however have to admit that I'm not seeing where it pertains to the topic though.
Karon wrote:I would put DMX on their level, yes. DMX is one of the most underrated artists I have seen, along with Rakim.
Yeah, I think I've made my point here. I might not seem to know anything on here, but I sure as hell know my Hip-Hop more than anything.
Sorry man but your argument boils down to the "kids these days" with a side helping of nostalgia, your parents probably complained about how kids these days listen to DMX and not whatever they used to listen to.
What is my argument? Kids DON'T listen to DMX these days. I wouldn't complain if my kids were listening to that, I'd be proud as hell.
Most kids today listen to bs pop music that means nothing at all. They wrongly label it as Hip-Hop and Rap. Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, Drake, all are pop artists, that gak they make isn't Hip-Hop.
That is the point.
Your parents probably complained about DMX just as you complain about what kids listen to now.
I'm not defending hip-pop (however Lil wayne did feature on no love with eminem which wasn't bad at all), I'm just saying that there will always be music that the previous generation doesn't like.
Karon wrote:I would put DMX on their level, yes. DMX is one of the most underrated artists I have seen, along with Rakim.
Yeah, I think I've made my point here. I might not seem to know anything on here, but I sure as hell know my Hip-Hop more than anything.
Sorry man but your argument boils down to the "kids these days" with a side helping of nostalgia, your parents probably complained about how kids these days listen to DMX and not whatever they used to listen to.
What is my argument? Kids DON'T listen to DMX these days. I wouldn't complain if my kids were listening to that, I'd be proud as hell.
Most kids today listen to bs pop music that means nothing at all. They wrongly label it as Hip-Hop and Rap. Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, Drake, all are pop artists, that gak they make isn't Hip-Hop.
Thats all pretty "get off my lawn". I grew up in the 80's and 90's and I didn't listen to that stuff. I still don't. Most of it's awful from an objective lyrical and musical standpoint. DMX has aged about as well as a tumor to me and in general the 90's were pretty weak musically. Eminem proved the best rapper alive didn't have to rap about himself (constantly), Radiohead released OK computer and the grunge movement came and went. Little is still hugely relevant. You should probably not fault a generation of people for not enjoying your subjective music tastes, especially when they weren't dominant in their prime.
Exactly Fitzz, watered down is the word. Its no longer Hip Hop.
Not just DMX, they hated the whole "East Coast West Coast Feud" in general. But that goes back to me growing up, and they had reason to not like that culture.
Don't get me on started with the new Eminem, but you're right.
As Fitzz said, I am angry that this new music is recognized as Rap and Hip-Hop. Its not a new genre of music, people have the nerve to say these new rappers are anywhere near the legends.
Lil Wayne the best rapper alive...last I checked, Ice Cube, Nas, DMX, etc etc, are still alive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Karon wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Karon wrote:I would put DMX on their level, yes. DMX is one of the most underrated artists I have seen, along with Rakim.
Yeah, I think I've made my point here. I might not seem to know anything on here, but I sure as hell know my Hip-Hop more than anything.
Sorry man but your argument boils down to the "kids these days" with a side helping of nostalgia, your parents probably complained about how kids these days listen to DMX and not whatever they used to listen to.
What is my argument? Kids DON'T listen to DMX these days. I wouldn't complain if my kids were listening to that, I'd be proud as hell.
Most kids today listen to bs pop music that means nothing at all. They wrongly label it as Hip-Hop and Rap. Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, Drake, all are pop artists, that gak they make isn't Hip-Hop.
Thats all pretty "get off my lawn". I grew up in the 80's and 90's and I didn't listen to that stuff. I still don't. Most of it's awful from an objective lyrical and musical standpoint. DMX has aged about as well as a tumor to me. You should probably not fault a generation of people for not enjoying your subjective music tastes, especially when they weren't dominant in their prime.
You don't know what you're talking about. Hip-Hop goes much deeper than diss tracks against each other. For example.......
Exactly Fitzz, watered down is the word. Its no longer Hip Hop.
I think thats what NWA and public enemy said about the 90's. Hip Hop is a pretty broad and ill defined category of music.
As Fitzz said, I am angry that this new music is recognized as Rap and Hip-Hop. Its not a new genre of music, people have the nerve to say these new rappers are anywhere near the legends.
People say that about the pokemon from the new pokemon game too.
Lil Wayne the best rapper alive...last I checked, Ice Cube, Nas, DMX, etc etc, are still alive.
Yep.
You don't know what you're talking about. Hip-Hop goes much deeper than diss tracks against each other. For example.......
Providing an exception to argue against scale isn't really a functional rebuttal. I didn't say all. I said "most", and if you grab any random wu tang, tupac, biggie, DMX, NWA, Public enemy, etc song you're likely to find self aggrandizement and lyrical laziness overlaying the incredibly weak musicality that runs through ought the genre. Rap is a musical form that stresses image and setting, not one that relies on the laurels of skilfull prose or virtuosic musical skill. The best rapper in the biz, del the funkee homosapian didn't even get big until he hitched onto the gorillaz in 2001, which alone throws out your decadism.
If you're going to make silly comparisons like that, and tell me Ice Cube isn't a legend in Hip-Hop because he did some movies where he didn't murder people or deal drugs, then I can't argue with you.
Karon wrote:If you're going to make silly comparisons like that, and tell me Ice Cube isn't a legend in Hip-Hop because he did some movies where he didn't murder people or deal drugs, then I can't argue with you.
And if you're going to tell me that he's one of the best rappers alive when he hasn't contributed significantly to the genre in 18 years then you're not worth arguing with.
N.W.A and Public Enemy did have a point in commenting that Hip-hop/rap was being co-opted in the 90's...it was,but as I said that's to be expected with any music genre that gains any sort of commercial recognition...themes will shift from commenting on "urban blight" to singing about shoes/cars etc...broaden the market for the product.
...As for Ice Cubes foray into Disney Films...not surprising,Johnny Rotten is pedaling Butter and Iggy Pop is doing car insurance adds..."Icons" seldome live up to their own image...safe bet that if Tupac or Biggie were alive todaythey'd be doing Potato chip comercials or guest staring on Family Guy.
Lord Scythican wrote:
So they are doing better on a few things. What about all the stuff they are doing bad? Depression and suicide may have been greater in my day, but we didn't backtalk our mothers.
Karon wrote:If you're going to make silly comparisons like that, and tell me Ice Cube isn't a legend in Hip-Hop because he did some movies where he didn't murder people or deal drugs, then I can't argue with you.
And if you're going to tell me that he's one of the best rappers alive when he hasn't contributed significantly to the genre in 18 years then you're not worth arguing with.
Say what? Say what?
1990: AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted
1991: Death Certificate
1992: The Predator
1993: Lethal Injection
1998: War & Peace Vol. 1 (The War Disc)
2000: War & Peace Vol. 2 (The Peace Disc)
2006: Laugh Now, Cry Later
2008: Raw Footage
2010: I Am the West
Thats just copy and pasted off of wikipedia. How do you want him to...contribute? You want him to solely make a living on rap? That isn't that easy. Let me quote Redman on why it took 10 years for Blackout! 2
I had obligations. Doc had obligations. There were things going on with the label. Staff changes. That's what happened." Giving his take on the delay, Redman stated: "We was out venturing, starting other careers," Red said. "We can't just depend on this rap game. We did a movie, TV show — venturing out. Now we back. We ain't left. We're coming at the right time.
Can you elaborate on how he didn't contribute?
And yeah, Fitzz is correct. Hell, Biggie made "Juicy" explicitly to get noticed. It was for radio play, it wasn't hard, it was just a fun track. They want money in the easiest way possible, I'd do a few kiddy movies myself if it was paying out well. You think I would even take someone seriously for telling me after more than 10 years of rapping some of the hardest tracks there ever will be, that I am no longer supposed to be relevant? Ridiculous.
1990: AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted 1991: Death Certificate 1992: The Predator 1993: Lethal Injection
18 years precludes these. It's 2011.
1998: War & Peace Vol. 1 (The War Disc) 2000: War & Peace Vol. 2 (The Peace Disc) 2006: Laugh Now, Cry Later 2008: Raw Footage 2010: I Am the West
Thats just copy and pasted off of wikipedia. How do you want him to...contribute? You want him to solely make a living on rap? That isn't that easy. Let me quote Redman on why it took 10 years for Blackout! 2
Apparently its easier to make an exceptionally good living on movies? After 1993 his contributions to the genre stopped being particularly important one way or another. He has about the rapping credibility and skill of will smith now.
Can you elaborate on how he didn't contribute?
His releases were infrequent and bad after 2003?
You think I would even take someone seriously for telling me after more than 10 years of rapping some of the hardest tracks there ever will be, that I am no longer supposed to be relevant? Ridiculous.
Hard as in difficult? Not sure when he managed to belt out anything that could be considered lyrically in the league of "hardest tracks there will ever be". Then again, there is typically little arguing with a fanboy on subjective matters. Exceptionally technically difficult rap didn't become a thing until later in the genres development when it became less about promoting the sound and more about differentiating yourself from the field. About the time Ice Cube abandoned it all.
Karon, are you just talking about hip hop? Because earlier on I took you to mean music in general was worse now than it was a decade ago, which I think is simply wrong.
But if it's just hip hop then honestly I don't know enough to know if you're right or wrong, hip hop now may be much worse. That's certainly happened to musical styles before, they lose whatever made them relevant and they get bloated and self referential. It happened to punk, it happened to hair metal, I'd have no problem believing it may well have happened to hip hop as well.
So if you're just saying that one genre of music isn't as good as it was, it's cool.
Karon wrote:I would put DMX on their level, yes. DMX is one of the most underrated artists I have seen, along with Rakim.
Yeah, I think I've made my point here. I might not seem to know anything on here, but I sure as hell know my Hip-Hop more than anything.
Sorry man but your argument boils down to the "kids these days" with a side helping of nostalgia, your parents probably complained about how kids these days listen to DMX and not whatever they used to listen to.
What is my argument? Kids DON'T listen to DMX these days. I wouldn't complain if my kids were listening to that, I'd be proud as hell.
Most kids today listen to bs pop music that means nothing at all. They wrongly label it as Hip-Hop and Rap. Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, Drake, all are pop artists, that gak they make isn't Hip-Hop.
Thats all pretty "get off my lawn". I grew up in the 80's and 90's and I didn't listen to that stuff. I still don't. Most of it's awful from an objective lyrical and musical standpoint. DMX has aged about as well as a tumor to me and in general the 90's were pretty weak musically. Eminem proved the best rapper alive didn't have to rap about himself (constantly), Radiohead released OK computer and the grunge movement came and went. Little is still hugely relevant. You should probably not fault a generation of people for not enjoying your subjective music tastes, especially when they weren't dominant in their prime.
Well, to be fair your argument that the 90s were a weak decade for music is subjective - as with many such statements, it's dependent on perspective. The 90s was a great period for music in the UK - in the US, perhaps not so much. Grunge aside, of course. It was awesome being a teenager in the mid-to-late 90s in Britain. There was a LOT of stuff happening on the music front.
Monster Rain wrote:The 90s were pretty good in the US as well.
Antichrist Superstar and The Downward Spiral alone make my point, but the list is far too long for my inebriated self to make an exhaustive account.
Suffice to say, if there has been an album of the caliber of either of those I previously mentioned in the last 10 years please direct me to it.
As has been a running theme here, the subjective nature of such statements is a bit unfortunate. I'm of the opinion that Manson was hugely overated and he doesn't get much play these days. Who knows, maybe Antichrist will start making classic lists a lot in a few years.
The Gorillaz self titled debut album came out in the 00's. The mars volta has done all of its stuff in that decade as well. Tool did its best work in the 00's, and A Perfect Circle splashed and went in that timeframe as well. System of a Down released Toxicity in 2001, which remains one of the best rated metal albums of that decade and easily eclipses most of the efforts in that space in the 90s.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Tool did its best work in the 00's, and A Perfect Circle splashed and went in that timeframe as well. System of a Down released Toxicity in 2001, which remains one of the best rated metal albums of that decade and easily eclipses most of the efforts in that space in the 90s.
Although, I feel that I should point out, that Tool's more "popular" choice among some fans, is AEnima, which came out in 96. I say it's more popular, because when Lateralus came out, most of my friends who were also Tool fans, told me that they hated it, and still preferred AEnima, and to an extent, Undertow.
Aenima just shades it for me, though Lateralus is also a very, very good record.
Monster Rain wrote:
Antichrist Superstar and The Downward Spiral alone make my point, but the list is far too long for my inebriated self to make an exhaustive account.
Suffice to say, if there has been an album of the caliber of either of those I previously mentioned in the last 10 years please direct me to it.
I prefer Back To Black by Amy Winehouse and Is This It by The Strokes more than either of those.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...and Shuma, you have a serious thing for Gorillaz, don't you? I find that odd.
So what people are really saying is "My generation is great. The generation younger than mine are a bunch of slackers who have no manners, listen to bad music, and show the decline of society." I remember hearing people say and seeing people write this in the 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s, and from looking at old movies, TV shows, magazines, and newspapers have seen it back to around the 1940s at least. The idea that the damn kids today are no good is not exactly a new one.
ShumaGorath wrote:The Gorillaz self titled debut album came out in the 00's. The mars volta has done all of its stuff in that decade as well. Tool did its best work in the 00's, and A Perfect Circle splashed and went in that timeframe as well. System of a Down released Toxicity in 2001, which remains one of the best rated metal albums of that decade and easily eclipses most of the efforts in that space in the 90s.
Yeah, Gorillaz is pretty awesome. Disagree about Tool's best work being in the 2000s, but I see your point.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:So what people are really saying is "My generation is great. The generation younger than mine are a bunch of slackers who have no manners, listen to bad music, and show the decline of society."
Albatross wrote:Aenima just shades it for me, though Lateralus is also a very, very good record.
Monster Rain wrote:
Antichrist Superstar and The Downward Spiral alone make my point, but the list is far too long for my inebriated self to make an exhaustive account.
Suffice to say, if there has been an album of the caliber of either of those I previously mentioned in the last 10 years please direct me to it.
I prefer Back To Black by Amy Winehouse and Is This It by The Strokes more than either of those.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...and Shuma, you have a serious thing for Gorillaz, don't you? I find that odd.
I'm a fan, they're one of about five bands that I listen to regularly and track their releases. They come up in conversation a lot primarily because they're a good counter to the idea that rap is stagnant/violent/getting worse/was better when tupac was around. They aren't my favorite band but they're close.
Fair enough, I just don't see them as a 'top 5 favourite artists' band... not sure why. I suppose I can put it down to fact that I can't get away from my perception of them as a Damon Albarn side-project, and not a band 'proper', if you will.
But anyway, we've been down this road before - no good can come of it!
What, in your opinion, makes Del a better rapper than say, a Pharoah Monche or MosDef? Just out of interest?
Albatross wrote:Fair enough, I just don't see them as a 'top 5 favourite artists' band... not sure why. I suppose I can put it down to fact that I can't get away from my perception of them as a Damon Albarn side-project, and not a band 'proper', if you will.
But anyway, we've been down this road before - no good can come of it!
What, in your opinion, makes Del a better rapper than say, a Pharoah Monche or MosDef? Just out of interest?
For the most part its technical skill. Del raps fast and uses quite a few tongue twisters in his rhymes but he still manages a lyrical flow that is representative of rap as a form of musical art rather then an exercise in rapidly stated poetry. Del is also somewhat free from the gangster rap trappings of continuous (and annoying) self referential songs and though he isn't totally free from the stereotype of that or glamorizing street culture he has shown in his releases that he's more then happy to conquer more whimsical ground (ala some of his Gorillaz albums or his own personal work such as deltron 3030). Most rap is samey gak about how great the rapper in question is and how much money they'll get or how people shouldn't mess with them. Del raps about science fiction stuff and pretends to be a ghost. The previous best rapper (eminem) escaped such trappings with singles like "stan" proving that there is an artist beneath the bluster, but he wasn't a stable enough personality to hold the title forever.
Of course this is all just my personal opinion.
As an example of what I mean by technical skill heres population control by company flow. Danger explicit lyrics.
time to live.
.
). I have plenty of reservations about my generation besides the lack of respect, discipline, and general laziness, but most of it's really subjective (even those three are probably subjective... except for laziness. I can't imagine anyone thinking laziness is good 
). I think it really comes down to defining better and picking which things are to be considered less important than others. I just don't find these five things given in the article definitive of anything other than what they are. Would be interesting to see what the other positives are though.
