His estate won't be investigated, evaluated, nor taxed when it goes to his heirs. His finances are off limits (a warning he also gave to Mueller, and/or Comey) That's just a slow fat softball there.
But then he also lowered taxes on working families, which doesn't benefit anyone he knows.
Did he though? He says he did, but in actuality, he traded a $1.5 trillion loan to give the common worker a pittance in their check for a few years to keep the base enthusiastic, which then sunsets. So, in reality, there's no benefit there and even worse, the supposed benefit doesn't even add up to 1 trillion, meaning they're getting pennies on the dollar, the rest is going to him and corporations.
Also, how does capping the mortgage deduction help a real estate business?
Capping the mortgage deduction has 0 effect on Trump's real estate business, which is almost 100% commercial in nature. Also, Trump and his cronies are rich enough that the mortgage deduction doesn't do them any good whatsoever, so capping it doesn't hurt them either. Similarly, the original proposal of removing it altogether doesn't affect them either.
Sorry but I think you fail and are an example of there being stupid people on both sides of the political divide.
You think? You might want to investigate exactly what "think" means.... So far, whether you're a Trump supporter or playing devil's advocate, you only exemplified how dumb the supporters are with several of their most commonly trumpeted points. Thank you.
If FB wants to get rid of fake news they need to stop spreading hearsay, rumors and opinions presented as facts.
Cause I heard from a really close friend that Mark Zuckerberg pays no taxes and hasn't for years. See what I did there? That's called 'a Hairy Read'.
Presenting a false precept has no bearing on my previous statements in this thread. You can ask me to explain and/or defend my position, but presenting a false argument is no way to convince anyone other than the easily misled.
People are stupid. Trump "winning" is an example of people being stupid.
Is that so hard to understand?
Now if you're asking for proof on why people were stupid to elect Trump, that's a different story. We can start with the now proven statement that Trump only does things that benefit Trump. I cannot point to a single EO or policy that's he's pushed that's not benefitted him in a direct way. Sad.
Most folks stop listening to new music well before middle age.
This right here is as true as it comes and is worthy of a whole separate thread. It's a phenomenon I just don't get. Do I still listen to some music from my youth? Absolutely. Is it the main or even often selected choice? Not for me. And, there's a largish portion (30-40%) of my library I just recently got rid of because it's doubtful I'll ever listen to it again. Another chunk was boxed in storage to see if I miss them, and they're separated in my library for the same reason. I still prefer owning base physical media to pure online versions, there really is a difference depending on source material unless you're getting lossless online. I haven't looked to see if they've upped the standards recently, but AAC256 and MP3 320kbps just don't cut it. That too, is another topic, probably not worthy of its own thread.
At this time Newman is a 1 hit wonder, for all intents and purposes and reminds me of Rick Astley more than anything else. It doesn't matter how many albums they've released, nor how many pop hits they've gotten. You seem to have missed that point. Rush, for example, didn't really get rolling until album number 3 or 4. Led Zepplin came on like an avalanche with each new album. How many albums did Johnny Cash release again? How many did the Beatles sell? Compare that to a band like the Killers that had an outstanding freshman album and then a series of relative lackluster releases that didn't even come close to their first.
As I mentioned previously, I'm looking for unique identifiable sound. Many of these mentioned that I've listened to don't have it. Number of albums and even number of hits doesn't matter in this context. Popularity sometimes overrides everything else, just check any of the boy band hits.
I'd edit if I could - this comment is primarily related to Prophets of Rage. And Michael Buble is better known than any of them and I'd hazard a guess that his 55 million albums sold outpaces all of them together, well, except for maybe Harris, for whom I can get no numbers for. And Harris isn't someone I like, but you got that already.
In a nutshell - all pre 2000 artists. And when I heard the core of Rage was forming a new venture, that didn't really interest me either. It's obvious where your proclivities lie, in what you chose to bold. I would have done the exact opposite, which is likely why I posted what I did in the OP.
One you missed, but truly transitions across the 2000 barrier is Muse. While they formed in 94, their first album came out in 99. Their first break through really came in 2003 and exploded in 2006. I'd argue they're bigger and more influential than any of the other mentioned bands for post 2000 consideration and they've definitely shown growth across their albums.
But there is an enormous amount of sonic innovation going on in music being recorded today.
Here's an example from one of my favorite albums of last year, HUMANZ by Gorillaz. There are poly-rhythms, complex spatial effects across the stereo soundstage and sonic spectrum, both synthetic and natural instruments, rich and unusual harmonies, and...no autotune.,
First, I did watch the video as I hadn't seen this one. It's different and interesting, for sure. It's oddly drawing in, much like Bowie's Black Star. That said, in my admittedly cursory viewing I didn't really hear anything technical I haven't heard before. Then again, this was not playing on my HT sound system, which does such things well. If you want interesting soundstages, Deep Purple did a live show with quadraphonic sound that wrapped a stadium audience pretty well, considering the acoustics. For other aspects, you need to check out other pre 2000 artists like Depeche Mode, Stabbing Westward, Rush, Bowie, Queen, and the Beach Boys (yes, that later one may raise eyebrows, but they had some of the most complex harmonies in history, and they were mostly vocal, and none of these used autotune) For something equally as strange as this video, see the Verve live, also pre-2000 band.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree. Madonna will still be played, much like Patsy Cline, at 50 years. In 100 years, I think people will still remember the Beatles, Elvis, and the classics. In 5000, who the hell knows. Check your Zager and Evans.
I like the Gorillaz, unfortunately for the purposes of this discussion the band is pre-2000. The main artist is 80s/early 90s. I'm in search of new talent, new artists. Not that the old aren't welcome, but I'm not looking for new artists post 2000. The number is depressingly small. The number meeting the criteria of influential bands and artists comparable to those of prior decades is really down to just a dismal handful, at best.
I never said it had anything to do with their success or popularity. They explored and varied their music. They did so previously via various recording studio capabilities and tricks among other things. I'm not sure Sgt Peppers could have been played live at the time.
To name a couple,
BANKS, Bastille, Elle King, Foster the People, Grouplove, Klingande, Kongos, MGMT, Nothing But Thieves, Of Monsters And Men, One Republic, Paloma Faith, Phantogram, MIsky, The XX, Zayde Wolf...
are all either one hit wonders, minor pop, or unknown. Out of this group we'll likely hear Bastille, Elle King, and Kongos in 5 years on something other than "do you remember when" nostalgia plays. They'll need to do more to make the level discussed.
Barns Courtney, Beth Ditto, Calvin Harris, Crowder, Daughter, Ella Eyre, Idina Menzel, Illenium, John Newman, Klingande, La+ch, M.A.X, MS MR, Phantogram, Prophets of Rage, Robin Schulz, Sam Tinnesz, Star Fucker, Transviolet, Verite, Walk Off the Earth, Whilk & Yelawolf
are mostly relative unknowns or, IMHO, untalented. Even if I like one of their songs, most don't know them, they have little recognition outside their immediate fanbase. But I'll check out a couple of those I wasn't familiar with, which was the purpose of my original post. Finding new talent to even listen to is definitely becoming more challenging.
I'd already mentioned Imagine Dragons as being on the road towards the goal. I'd also mentioned Portugal, the Man, elsewhere. I didn't mention Cold War Kids, Kaleo, Lorde or the Kongos: all 4 have potential. There are others I own I haven't mentioned. Pretty Reckless, Pop Evil and Royal Blood, for instance. But none of these have risen to even the bottom level of what's listed in the original list with the exception of Imagine Dragons and possibly Lorde.
The problem with this exercise is that it's limited to what gets played on the radio... at least I hope you're limiting it, because the alternative is that you haven't been exposed to any other music.
No worries, I've tried Spotify, Pandora, various online radio stations, etc etc etc. What I was really looking for are *known* acts. Those unknown special snowflakes are great, but I'm looking for something that has, so to speak, made a wide impact. Generally that means is "gets played on the radio" at the least.
Even within those limitations, I find your picks to be fairly bland. Imagine Dragons? But at least it's not Radio Disney-bland. Off the top of my head, Spoon, Tame Impala, and MGMT are the only bands I recall hearing on the FM radio in recent years that I'd actually go out of my way to listen to.
Spoon - 93. They're alright. Tame Impala are at least post 2000. MGMT is a group that I would lump with groups like Foster the People, lesser minor and one hit wonders.
It was a long time ago, so I may be forgetting something, but the Beatles had two guitars, bass and drums. All those instruments were readily available when Elvis recorded his early Sun sessions.
You might want to double check that. No guitarist, deaf or otherwise, was involved in the mixing of Signals, the album following Moving Pictures. Didn't check the rest, but the same guy appears to have done a large number of the Rush albums following.
The last 20 or so years of music uses nothing really new other than autotune.
Oh, come on. There is some very interesting music being made right now if you're willing to dig beneath the top-20 charts.
The quote was in direct reply to the Beatles following Elvis. There's no comparison to the situation today, as they had new instruments, and new technologies. Everything that exists today existed in some form by 1995, it just might be more accessible today.
There's a lot of crap being made.
There's always a lot of crap being made. That's why we have something called "discernment". Fortunately, we are better equipped today to seek out the music that speaks to us than ever before.
How about there's a lot more crap being made today as regards the signal to noise ratio? (i.e., there's a lot more noise than signal) Finding the signal has been difficult, and with the demise of various non-controlled music related services/sites, finding new acts has become significantly more challenging, at least for me.
is pretty much a beat with some guy trash-rhyme talking, usually in an angry aggressive tone. Throw in a few curse words (SHOCK!) and you have a new contemporary rap song. There's no melody to speak of, and harmony was forgotten long ago. Rhythm is even devolved to just a simplistic beat.
Compare that with old-school rap where there was at least a melody and sometimes quite involved rhythms and possibly even some harmony, and you can only shake your head and think this is but a shadow of what could be.
The loudness wars killed Rush, for example. After Moving Pictures, their music lost dynamic range and became a persistent assault on the ears despite still showing the same talent from previous efforts. This is all attributable to the producer's influence.
The same arguments were made about early Elvis Presley and rock and roll. Then the Beatles came along.
Elvis was part of the leading wave of a new type of music utilizing new instruments. While early Beatles works were definitely more pop oriented on the same wave, they quickly evolved into some seriously interesting music setting entirely new bars. Even if you don't like them, there's no denying their talent.
The last 20 or so years of music uses nothing really new other than autotune.
There's so much music being made (and released) today
There's a lot of crap being made. Unfortunately, unlike the detritus from a mine that may hold a nugget of value, this is more like the excrement from the back end of an elephant that may hold the recognizable remnant of something that went in the other end.
I'm hoping for some more new talent coming through. Imagine Dragons is one, Portugal, the Man maybe another. There's a few more that may be promising, time will tell. The hardest thing is finding new music, because what I'm interested in and what the industry is interested in pushing don't align at all.
I imagine polling people in the '00s they would say that the pop music from the same decade was the worst ever produced. If anything, pop music since 2000 has had no identity. If the 80s was the decade of New Wave, and the 90s the decade of Alternative Rock, the 00s was an eclectic mix.
The late 70s/80 was the New Wave era, then you had modern, alternative, and post modern (IIRC, that was the sequence) all ending roughly in 85/86 when Madonna catapulted pop back front and center. You also had the hair metal band era from the mid 70s through mid 80s that overlapped, along with just "rock". Then, in the 90s, grunge came out, along with alternative rock and variations of metal and industrial. You are right that it all effectively ended around 2000.
FWIW, New Wave and the additional genres were pretty much the result of MTV needing artists and only getting these unknown bands submitting videos. I strongly suspect the mid 90s through 2000 were a direct result of the internet making new artists available outside the control of mainstream distribution channels. Since 2000, things clamped down and the algorithm approaches you cite pretty much killed innovative and interesting artists in favor of boring cash cows.
Around here, we just got another new station after ClearChannel killed the last alt station they took over. Now the first 3 stations on my dial are all non ClearChannel stations (Infinity is another black hole of evil) being 2 independents and 1 minor player. I actually get to hear some different music. SiriusXM sucks too, btw, but prior to recent events, at least they offer an alternate playlist to ClearChannel's selections. It's no mystery why new music has a tough time, with lots of people turning to their own collections and no longer frequenting sources of what should potentially be new exposures.
Slashdot Mirror
How does ending the estate tax benefit Trump.
His estate won't be investigated, evaluated, nor taxed when it goes to his heirs. His finances are off limits (a warning he also gave to Mueller, and/or Comey) That's just a slow fat softball there.
But then he also lowered taxes on working families, which doesn't benefit anyone he knows.
Did he though? He says he did, but in actuality, he traded a $1.5 trillion loan to give the common worker a pittance in their check for a few years to keep the base enthusiastic, which then sunsets. So, in reality, there's no benefit there and even worse, the supposed benefit doesn't even add up to 1 trillion, meaning they're getting pennies on the dollar, the rest is going to him and corporations.
Also, how does capping the mortgage deduction help a real estate business?
Capping the mortgage deduction has 0 effect on Trump's real estate business, which is almost 100% commercial in nature. Also, Trump and his cronies are rich enough that the mortgage deduction doesn't do them any good whatsoever, so capping it doesn't hurt them either. Similarly, the original proposal of removing it altogether doesn't affect them either.
Sorry but I think you fail and are an example of there being stupid people on both sides of the political divide.
You think? You might want to investigate exactly what "think" means.... So far, whether you're a Trump supporter or playing devil's advocate, you only exemplified how dumb the supporters are with several of their most commonly trumpeted points. Thank you.
If FB wants to get rid of fake news they need to stop spreading hearsay, rumors and opinions presented as facts.
Cause I heard from a really close friend that Mark Zuckerberg pays no taxes and hasn't for years. See what I did there? That's called 'a Hairy Read'.
Presenting a false precept has no bearing on my previous statements in this thread. You can ask me to explain and/or defend my position, but presenting a false argument is no way to convince anyone other than the easily misled.
The bigger problem is when my kids homework MUST be sent to the teacher in Word format, or Excel format. I'm not sure what a good solution to that is
PDF because it's not system dependent and will actually print correctly. (ODF just doesn't have enough support, but when/if it does, great)
People are stupid. Trump "winning" is an example of people being stupid.
Is that so hard to understand?
Now if you're asking for proof on why people were stupid to elect Trump, that's a different story. We can start with the now proven statement that Trump only does things that benefit Trump. I cannot point to a single EO or policy that's he's pushed that's not benefitted him in a direct way. Sad.
I think you might want to rethink that position.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
Trump wins election
Most folks stop listening to new music well before middle age.
This right here is as true as it comes and is worthy of a whole separate thread. It's a phenomenon I just don't get. Do I still listen to some music from my youth? Absolutely. Is it the main or even often selected choice? Not for me. And, there's a largish portion (30-40%) of my library I just recently got rid of because it's doubtful I'll ever listen to it again. Another chunk was boxed in storage to see if I miss them, and they're separated in my library for the same reason. I still prefer owning base physical media to pure online versions, there really is a difference depending on source material unless you're getting lossless online. I haven't looked to see if they've upped the standards recently, but AAC256 and MP3 320kbps just don't cut it. That too, is another topic, probably not worthy of its own thread.
At this time Newman is a 1 hit wonder, for all intents and purposes and reminds me of Rick Astley more than anything else. It doesn't matter how many albums they've released, nor how many pop hits they've gotten. You seem to have missed that point. Rush, for example, didn't really get rolling until album number 3 or 4. Led Zepplin came on like an avalanche with each new album. How many albums did Johnny Cash release again? How many did the Beatles sell? Compare that to a band like the Killers that had an outstanding freshman album and then a series of relative lackluster releases that didn't even come close to their first.
As I mentioned previously, I'm looking for unique identifiable sound. Many of these mentioned that I've listened to don't have it. Number of albums and even number of hits doesn't matter in this context. Popularity sometimes overrides everything else, just check any of the boy band hits.
I'd edit if I could - this comment is primarily related to Prophets of Rage. And Michael Buble is better known than any of them and I'd hazard a guess that his 55 million albums sold outpaces all of them together, well, except for maybe Harris, for whom I can get no numbers for. And Harris isn't someone I like, but you got that already.
In a nutshell - all pre 2000 artists. And when I heard the core of Rage was forming a new venture, that didn't really interest me either. It's obvious where your proclivities lie, in what you chose to bold. I would have done the exact opposite, which is likely why I posted what I did in the OP.
One you missed, but truly transitions across the 2000 barrier is Muse. While they formed in 94, their first album came out in 99. Their first break through really came in 2003 and exploded in 2006. I'd argue they're bigger and more influential than any of the other mentioned bands for post 2000 consideration and they've definitely shown growth across their albums.
But there is an enormous amount of sonic innovation going on in music being recorded today.
Here's an example from one of my favorite albums of last year, HUMANZ by Gorillaz. There are poly-rhythms, complex spatial effects across the stereo soundstage and sonic spectrum, both synthetic and natural instruments, rich and unusual harmonies, and...no autotune.,
https://vimeo.com/200190282
First, I did watch the video as I hadn't seen this one. It's different and interesting, for sure. It's oddly drawing in, much like Bowie's Black Star. That said, in my admittedly cursory viewing I didn't really hear anything technical I haven't heard before. Then again, this was not playing on my HT sound system, which does such things well. If you want interesting soundstages, Deep Purple did a live show with quadraphonic sound that wrapped a stadium audience pretty well, considering the acoustics. For other aspects, you need to check out other pre 2000 artists like Depeche Mode, Stabbing Westward, Rush, Bowie, Queen, and the Beach Boys (yes, that later one may raise eyebrows, but they had some of the most complex harmonies in history, and they were mostly vocal, and none of these used autotune) For something equally as strange as this video, see the Verve live, also pre-2000 band.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree. Madonna will still be played, much like Patsy Cline, at 50 years. In 100 years, I think people will still remember the Beatles, Elvis, and the classics. In 5000, who the hell knows. Check your Zager and Evans.
I like the Gorillaz, unfortunately for the purposes of this discussion the band is pre-2000. The main artist is 80s/early 90s. I'm in search of new talent, new artists. Not that the old aren't welcome, but I'm not looking for new artists post 2000. The number is depressingly small. The number meeting the criteria of influential bands and artists comparable to those of prior decades is really down to just a dismal handful, at best.
I never said it had anything to do with their success or popularity. They explored and varied their music. They did so previously via various recording studio capabilities and tricks among other things. I'm not sure Sgt Peppers could have been played live at the time.
To name a couple, BANKS, Bastille, Elle King, Foster the People, Grouplove, Klingande, Kongos, MGMT, Nothing But Thieves, Of Monsters And Men, One Republic, Paloma Faith, Phantogram, MIsky, The XX, Zayde Wolf...
are all either one hit wonders, minor pop, or unknown. Out of this group we'll likely hear Bastille, Elle King, and Kongos in 5 years on something other than "do you remember when" nostalgia plays. They'll need to do more to make the level discussed.
Barns Courtney, Beth Ditto, Calvin Harris, Crowder, Daughter, Ella Eyre, Idina Menzel, Illenium, John Newman, Klingande, La+ch, M.A.X, MS MR, Phantogram, Prophets of Rage, Robin Schulz, Sam Tinnesz, Star Fucker, Transviolet, Verite, Walk Off the Earth, Whilk & Yelawolf
are mostly relative unknowns or, IMHO, untalented. Even if I like one of their songs, most don't know them, they have little recognition outside their immediate fanbase. But I'll check out a couple of those I wasn't familiar with, which was the purpose of my original post. Finding new talent to even listen to is definitely becoming more challenging.
I'd already mentioned Imagine Dragons as being on the road towards the goal. I'd also mentioned Portugal, the Man, elsewhere. I didn't mention Cold War Kids, Kaleo, Lorde or the Kongos: all 4 have potential. There are others I own I haven't mentioned. Pretty Reckless, Pop Evil and Royal Blood, for instance. But none of these have risen to even the bottom level of what's listed in the original list with the exception of Imagine Dragons and possibly Lorde.
Mentioned them as a potential elsewhere.
The problem with this exercise is that it's limited to what gets played on the radio... at least I hope you're limiting it, because the alternative is that you haven't been exposed to any other music.
No worries, I've tried Spotify, Pandora, various online radio stations, etc etc etc. What I was really looking for are *known* acts. Those unknown special snowflakes are great, but I'm looking for something that has, so to speak, made a wide impact. Generally that means is "gets played on the radio" at the least.
Even within those limitations, I find your picks to be fairly bland. Imagine Dragons? But at least it's not Radio Disney-bland. Off the top of my head, Spoon, Tame Impala, and MGMT are the only bands I recall hearing on the FM radio in recent years that I'd actually go out of my way to listen to.
Spoon - 93. They're alright. Tame Impala are at least post 2000. MGMT is a group that I would lump with groups like Foster the People, lesser minor and one hit wonders.
It was a long time ago, so I may be forgetting something, but the Beatles had two guitars, bass and drums. All those instruments were readily available when Elvis recorded his early Sun sessions.
The Moog synthesizer.
You might want to double check that. No guitarist, deaf or otherwise, was involved in the mixing of Signals, the album following Moving Pictures. Didn't check the rest, but the same guy appears to have done a large number of the Rush albums following.
Oh, come on. There is some very interesting music being made right now if you're willing to dig beneath the top-20 charts.
The quote was in direct reply to the Beatles following Elvis. There's no comparison to the situation today, as they had new instruments, and new technologies. Everything that exists today existed in some form by 1995, it just might be more accessible today.
There's always a lot of crap being made. That's why we have something called "discernment". Fortunately, we are better equipped today to seek out the music that speaks to us than ever before.
How about there's a lot more crap being made today as regards the signal to noise ratio? (i.e., there's a lot more noise than signal) Finding the signal has been difficult, and with the demise of various non-controlled music related services/sites, finding new acts has become significantly more challenging, at least for me.
Looks also wasn't as important, used to be ugly singers.
That reminds me of the saying: you have a face made for radio
contemporary rap music
is pretty much a beat with some guy trash-rhyme talking, usually in an angry aggressive tone. Throw in a few curse words (SHOCK!) and you have a new contemporary rap song. There's no melody to speak of, and harmony was forgotten long ago. Rhythm is even devolved to just a simplistic beat.
Compare that with old-school rap where there was at least a melody and sometimes quite involved rhythms and possibly even some harmony, and you can only shake your head and think this is but a shadow of what could be.
The loudness wars killed Rush, for example. After Moving Pictures, their music lost dynamic range and became a persistent assault on the ears despite still showing the same talent from previous efforts. This is all attributable to the producer's influence.
The same arguments were made about early Elvis Presley and rock and roll. Then the Beatles came along.
Elvis was part of the leading wave of a new type of music utilizing new instruments. While early Beatles works were definitely more pop oriented on the same wave, they quickly evolved into some seriously interesting music setting entirely new bars. Even if you don't like them, there's no denying their talent.
The last 20 or so years of music uses nothing really new other than autotune.
There's so much music being made (and released) today
There's a lot of crap being made. Unfortunately, unlike the detritus from a mine that may hold a nugget of value, this is more like the excrement from the back end of an elephant that may hold the recognizable remnant of something that went in the other end.
I'm hoping for some more new talent coming through. Imagine Dragons is one, Portugal, the Man maybe another. There's a few more that may be promising, time will tell. The hardest thing is finding new music, because what I'm interested in and what the industry is interested in pushing don't align at all.
I imagine polling people in the '00s they would say that the pop music from the same decade was the worst ever produced. If anything, pop music since 2000 has had no identity. If the 80s was the decade of New Wave, and the 90s the decade of Alternative Rock, the 00s was an eclectic mix.
The late 70s/80 was the New Wave era, then you had modern, alternative, and post modern (IIRC, that was the sequence) all ending roughly in 85/86 when Madonna catapulted pop back front and center. You also had the hair metal band era from the mid 70s through mid 80s that overlapped, along with just "rock". Then, in the 90s, grunge came out, along with alternative rock and variations of metal and industrial. You are right that it all effectively ended around 2000.
FWIW, New Wave and the additional genres were pretty much the result of MTV needing artists and only getting these unknown bands submitting videos. I strongly suspect the mid 90s through 2000 were a direct result of the internet making new artists available outside the control of mainstream distribution channels. Since 2000, things clamped down and the algorithm approaches you cite pretty much killed innovative and interesting artists in favor of boring cash cows.
Around here, we just got another new station after ClearChannel killed the last alt station they took over. Now the first 3 stations on my dial are all non ClearChannel stations (Infinity is another black hole of evil) being 2 independents and 1 minor player. I actually get to hear some different music. SiriusXM sucks too, btw, but prior to recent events, at least they offer an alternate playlist to ClearChannel's selections. It's no mystery why new music has a tough time, with lots of people turning to their own collections and no longer frequenting sources of what should potentially be new exposures.