As the net advances I think people will fall into increasingly narrow groups. I think the Beatles reached their iconic status partly as a byproduct of when they rose. True global telecommunication on a sensible time scale was just the beginning. The factors were just right.
Daft Punk and I think many modern artists of more or less any medium will have to find their niche and run with it. JoCo comes to mind. Having the goal of true world wide acclaim is not a realistic goal nor go I think things are right for it to happen organically.
This may change with further technological and social developments but that's how I see it currently.
Daft Punk are nowhere near the Beatles or Elvis in terms of that "global mania." You only think that because you engage with a small, self-selected group of the world. It's like me saying that Amon Amarth has that kind of pull - objectively, no, but among metalheads, absolutely.
You need to be looking at current pop musicians. Daft Punk are essentially nobody in mainstream music.
You need to be looking at current pop musicians. Daft Punk are essentially nobody in mainstream music.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but it's close. They certainly WERE something in mainstream music, back around the time of Discovery, they were getting hardcore airplay all over the world on mainstream stations - but that time is past, and it is no longer the case.
The only place I heard about a new Daft Punk album is this thread. They are so far from anywhere near the biggest band in the world, I must conclude you're in a bubble, as has already been pointed out. There are very few bands who can currently be called megabands, with worldwide appeal and current popular output (not a like a reunion tour by the Police). From the UK there's probably just Coldplay. U2 could probably be up there too. Maybe Muse, though they have a narrower appeal. They can do arena and stadiums anywhere in the world and sell out, easily. Some US groups would be able to do that across America, and a few outside, but I'm not sure who they might be.
In sheer quantity of fans, no one will ever again approach the Beatles levels. The Internet has changed the music business into a long tail of incredible variety instead of just a few mega popular artists. That being said, few remaining musicians can sell out arenas around the world.
U2 is a good example you gave there, but consider this. U2s last album came out in 2009. Did the Internet care at all? Does anyone here even know that album existed, the name of the album, or any song on it, without looking it up on Wikipedia like I did?
Daft Punk's last album was in 2007. Even a longer wait, and even a bigger explosion. What other musician these days can hit the front pages simply by creating music? Someone mentioned PSY, who I do like, but he hasn't proven he has any staying power. If PSY is still around a decade from now, we'll talk. The robots have hit it since the '90s.
Daft Punk is not that popular among people who aren't nerds. Sure, I think most people I know would recognize "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" when they heard it, but the only people I know who know or care about the new album are from the forum. There are a lot more mainstream artists who have better recognition than Daft Punk, at at least a handful who have also been producing well-known music longer than they have.
Heya, folks. Interesting debate but I really need to ask something of Scott.
Scott, you said that the feeling someone gets from smoking marijuana is inconsistent with "setting a plant on fire". However, you said that the feeling someone gets from playing a board game is correlated to the activity of playing a board game.
Take a hypothetical game described as placing coloured pieces of wood in a pattern dictated by guiding rules assigned by a random draw of cards. Aiming to fulfill the patterns described by those cards before another person who is also placing coloured pieces of wood according to similar, but different, rules fulfils the pattern their card describes.
Why is that a natural correlation with feeling good but igniting dried herbivorous material isn't? Neither jumps out as me as instantly describing a good time to an objective observer.
Also, the idea that you can obtain a feeling "inconsistent with setting a plant on fire" from smoking any plant is somewhat ignorant. Plants produce an incredibly diverse spectrum of bioactive compounds, and smoking a plant is just an inefficient way to get those compounds into your bloodstream. The effects of setting a plant on fire and inhaling the smoke are entirely dependent on the plant.
I just listened to this episode so here are my thoughts:
- I was incredibly lucky in the PAX badge game. I had seen earlier in the day that ticket sales status switched to "soon." Our internet went out at work, and I went into dicking-around mode. Decided to check the PAX page on my phone, and BOOM they were up for sale. I'm pretty sure I decided to check the page about 30 seconds prior to them tweeting that they flipped the switch. Queue time was about 5 seconds, got three 4-day passes.
- Media do get a free badge at PAX. Only media perks are free badge, secret room w/ internet access and lockable cabinets, 1 hour early entry to expo hall on day 1, and a 1 hour media-only Q&A w/ Mike & Jerry on Sundays.
- It is quite possible to get laid at a con, but don't be surprised if your experiences ends like the MC Frontalot song "Yellow Laser Beam."
- Doing anything during sex becomes possible one you have Google Glass.
- Most people don't know who the fuck Daft Punk is. They are nowhere near the level of popularity where someone who is not very into music or a specific subculture (a common person) would know who they are. Don't get me wrong, the average person has horrible bland taste in things, but let's not make Daft Punk out to be more than they really are. Besides, that new solo is pretty mediocre.
Heya, folks. Interesting debate but I really need to ask something of Scott.
Scott, you said that the feeling someone gets from smoking marijuana is inconsistent with "setting a plant on fire". However, you said that the feeling someone gets from playing a board game is correlated to the activity of playing a board game.
Take a hypothetical game described as placing coloured pieces of wood in a pattern dictated by guiding rules assigned by a random draw of cards. Aiming to fulfill the patterns described by those cards before another person who is also placing coloured pieces of wood according to similar, but different, rules fulfils the pattern their card describes.
Why is that a natural correlation with feeling good but igniting dried herbivorous material isn't? Neither jumps out as me as instantly describing a good time to an objective observer.
Think of it like this.
You go to play a board game. That is a think your body and mind are doing. In response your mind tells you that it is fun times and you feel good. If you take drugs to trick your brain into doing that without playing the board game, then it's a kind of cheating. It's like getting paid even though you don't have a job.
Imagine two different parties. At one party everyone is playing games and having fun with no drugs whatsover. At the other party everyone is feeling equally good, but are not doing anything. They are completely still feeling the effects of drugs. Party 2 is pretty fucking sad, no?
Obviously those are the two extremes. Most adult board games are frequently accompanied by alcohol consumption. Most people live somewhere in between those extremes and are perfectly decent functioning members of society. I still see it as pretty sad that someone can find an activity not fun enough that they would have to chemically enhance it somehow. Why modify, and possibly harm, your body for such shallow reasons?
I'm not opposed to other kinds of body modification. Consider a robot arm. Totally awesome and useful! If we can get to a GitS level of robot arm, it could even be better than a fleshy arm.
Most drugs modify only your body's feelings with some degree of potentially harmful side effects. That's unnecessary and undesirable in my book. I can control my feelings just fine without them. If drugs are needed, then I absolutely get them. But personally I take as few as is necessary, and I let other people do whatever they want as long as they have no effect on me.
Scott, you trick your brain everyday with food. When you drink orange juice, for example, you are ingesting vitamin C, stimulating production of oxytocin, and tricking your brain into thinking as if it was in love (I know I'm oversimplifying, scientist forumites, but I think I'm accurate enough for this largely social philosophical argument). How is this different from when someone else vapes weed to feel like they're having fun?
Also, what about the drugs that create experiences unlike any that can occur sober? LSD isn't tricking your brain into thinking that anything that could be happening is, its effects are unlike anything else. Is that not outside of your philosophy?
Scott, you trick your brain everyday with food. When you drink orange juice, for example, you are ingesting vitamin C, stimulating production of oxytocin, and tricking your brain into thinking as if it was in love (I know I'm oversimplifying, scientist forumites, but I think I'm accurate enough for this largely social philosophical argument). How is this different from when someone else vapes weed to feel like they're having fun?
Also, what about the drugs that create experiences unlike any that can occur sober? LSD isn't tricking your brain into thinking that anything that could be happening is, its effects are unlike anything else. Is that not outside of your philosophy?
I don't get why you guys think Scott needs a reason at all to not smoke weed, take LSD, etc. It's a personal choice and one that doesn't need to be questioned. Even if you guys are just curious its tantamount to peer pressure which I've always been strongly against. If he's curious then give him all the facts but if he doesn't want to do it then that should be that.
I don't remember you doing so, but you very well may have. Can you give the short version as a refresher?
I don't get why you guys think Scott needs a reason at all to not smoke weed, take LSD, etc. It's a personal choice and one that doesn't need to be questioned. Even if you guys are just curious its tantamount to peer pressure which I've always been strongly against. If he's curious then give him all the facts but if he doesn't want to do it then that should be that.
I don't care what Scott does. To me, this thread is just Argument Clinic.
I don't get why you guys think Scott needs a reason at all to not smoke weed, take LSD, etc. It's a personal choice and one that doesn't need to be questioned. Even if you guys are just curious its tantamount to peer pressure which I've always been strongly against. If he's curious then give him all the facts but if he doesn't want to do it then that should be that.
This.
I think it's kind of a question of the mental states we enjoy the most. Scott evidently enjoys the modes of thought presented by total sobriety, and I respect that; his leisure activities are intrinsically tied to his intellectual involvement in said activity, and so he derives more enjoyment from them when sober than he probably would when altered. That's super-cool.
Since games are equally a social and intellectual activity for me, I don't mind enjoying them in an altered state. I mostly game as a way to interact with friends in a way that's intellectually stimulating; however, unlike Scott, I derive more enjoyment from the social experience of gaming than the intellectual component. I like being a little bit drunk or stoned when I'm gaming in the same way I enjoy being a bit chemically altered in other social situations; that is, THC and alcohol tend to make socializing easier for me, and have some other pleasant effects besides.
There are leisure pursuits of mine that are intellectually fulfilling and are absolute non-starters when I'm chemically altered. When I'm designing furniture, compiling thesis notes, reading novels, or studying bio, any form of intoxication is a barrier to my success and personal fulfillment. I think it's probably because these things are how I self-actualize, and I don't like to muddy the experience of self-actualization with substances. In Scott's case, gaming is one of these activities, which I really admire; however, with the exception of games like Eclipse and Puerto Rico, I'm not in the same boat.
Responsible substance use is about knowing how to use a substance in a set and setting that is personally enjoyable, while also maintaining a healthy relationship between your substances and your personal goals. For some people (Scott), that means no chemicals ever. For me, that means maybe a bomber of beer when I'm with friends, and a bit of pot if it's around and I don't have anything important to do. Both lifestyles work.
TL;DR: No one who matters will judge you for being teetotal, or smoking weed, or drinking beer. There's no real problem with drug use as long as you're a grownup and don't flirt with addiction or dependence, or become defined by the chemicals you use.
TL;DR: No one who matters will judge you for being teetotal, or smoking weed, or drinking beer. There's no real problem with drug use as long as you're a grownup and don't flirt with addiction or dependence, or become defined by the chemicals you use.
I'd add you also don't do anything dangerous to yourself and/or others while under the influence of said drugs: i.e. drunk driving and whatnot. But yeah, this nails it on the head, pretty much.
I've been wanting to try that sort of thing for a while. Would straight up hash oil work? I remember seeing some sort of K2 spice ecig juice online and wishing I could get the real stuff legitimately instead of mystery chemicals. Hopefully Rym is right and that will be a thing soon.
Straight up hash oil will not work. It's too thick, 'specially if it's high quality. Also, don't smoke spice. I've heard too many stories about seizures and blackouts because of that shit. If you want to avoid that "stoned and foggy" feeling, buy a dank sativa and vaporize or turn it into oil then drink some coffee.
Comments
Daft Punk and I think many modern artists of more or less any medium will have to find their niche and run with it. JoCo comes to mind. Having the goal of true world wide acclaim is not a realistic goal nor go I think things are right for it to happen organically.
This may change with further technological and social developments but that's how I see it currently.
You need to be looking at current pop musicians. Daft Punk are essentially nobody in mainstream music.
U2 is a good example you gave there, but consider this. U2s last album came out in 2009. Did the Internet care at all? Does anyone here even know that album existed, the name of the album, or any song on it, without looking it up on Wikipedia like I did?
Daft Punk's last album was in 2007. Even a longer wait, and even a bigger explosion. What other musician these days can hit the front pages simply by creating music? Someone mentioned PSY, who I do like, but he hasn't proven he has any staying power. If PSY is still around a decade from now, we'll talk. The robots have hit it since the '90s.
Scott, you said that the feeling someone gets from smoking marijuana is inconsistent with "setting a plant on fire". However, you said that the feeling someone gets from playing a board game is correlated to the activity of playing a board game.
Take a hypothetical game described as placing coloured pieces of wood in a pattern dictated by guiding rules assigned by a random draw of cards. Aiming to fulfill the patterns described by those cards before another person who is also placing coloured pieces of wood according to similar, but different, rules fulfils the pattern their card describes.
Why is that a natural correlation with feeling good but igniting dried herbivorous material isn't? Neither jumps out as me as instantly describing a good time to an objective observer.
- I was incredibly lucky in the PAX badge game. I had seen earlier in the day that ticket sales status switched to "soon." Our internet went out at work, and I went into dicking-around mode. Decided to check the PAX page on my phone, and BOOM they were up for sale. I'm pretty sure I decided to check the page about 30 seconds prior to them tweeting that they flipped the switch. Queue time was about 5 seconds, got three 4-day passes.
- Media do get a free badge at PAX. Only media perks are free badge, secret room w/ internet access and lockable cabinets, 1 hour early entry to expo hall on day 1, and a 1 hour media-only Q&A w/ Mike & Jerry on Sundays.
- It is quite possible to get laid at a con, but don't be surprised if your experiences ends like the MC Frontalot song "Yellow Laser Beam."
- Doing anything during sex becomes possible one you have Google Glass.
- Most people don't know who the fuck Daft Punk is. They are nowhere near the level of popularity where someone who is not very into music or a specific subculture (a common person) would know who they are. Don't get me wrong, the average person has horrible bland taste in things, but let's not make Daft Punk out to be more than they really are. Besides, that new solo is pretty mediocre.
You go to play a board game. That is a think your body and mind are doing. In response your mind tells you that it is fun times and you feel good. If you take drugs to trick your brain into doing that without playing the board game, then it's a kind of cheating. It's like getting paid even though you don't have a job.
Imagine two different parties. At one party everyone is playing games and having fun with no drugs whatsover. At the other party everyone is feeling equally good, but are not doing anything. They are completely still feeling the effects of drugs. Party 2 is pretty fucking sad, no?
Obviously those are the two extremes. Most adult board games are frequently accompanied by alcohol consumption. Most people live somewhere in between those extremes and are perfectly decent functioning members of society. I still see it as pretty sad that someone can find an activity not fun enough that they would have to chemically enhance it somehow. Why modify, and possibly harm, your body for such shallow reasons?
I'm not opposed to other kinds of body modification. Consider a robot arm. Totally awesome and useful! If we can get to a GitS level of robot arm, it could even be better than a fleshy arm.
Most drugs modify only your body's feelings with some degree of potentially harmful side effects. That's unnecessary and undesirable in my book. I can control my feelings just fine without them. If drugs are needed, then I absolutely get them. But personally I take as few as is necessary, and I let other people do whatever they want as long as they have no effect on me.
Also, what about the drugs that create experiences unlike any that can occur sober? LSD isn't tricking your brain into thinking that anything that could be happening is, its effects are unlike anything else. Is that not outside of your philosophy?
I think it's kind of a question of the mental states we enjoy the most. Scott evidently enjoys the modes of thought presented by total sobriety, and I respect that; his leisure activities are intrinsically tied to his intellectual involvement in said activity, and so he derives more enjoyment from them when sober than he probably would when altered. That's super-cool.
Since games are equally a social and intellectual activity for me, I don't mind enjoying them in an altered state. I mostly game as a way to interact with friends in a way that's intellectually stimulating; however, unlike Scott, I derive more enjoyment from the social experience of gaming than the intellectual component. I like being a little bit drunk or stoned when I'm gaming in the same way I enjoy being a bit chemically altered in other social situations; that is, THC and alcohol tend to make socializing easier for me, and have some other pleasant effects besides.
There are leisure pursuits of mine that are intellectually fulfilling and are absolute non-starters when I'm chemically altered. When I'm designing furniture, compiling thesis notes, reading novels, or studying bio, any form of intoxication is a barrier to my success and personal fulfillment. I think it's probably because these things are how I self-actualize, and I don't like to muddy the experience of self-actualization with substances. In Scott's case, gaming is one of these activities, which I really admire; however, with the exception of games like Eclipse and Puerto Rico, I'm not in the same boat.
Responsible substance use is about knowing how to use a substance in a set and setting that is personally enjoyable, while also maintaining a healthy relationship between your substances and your personal goals. For some people (Scott), that means no chemicals ever. For me, that means maybe a bomber of beer when I'm with friends, and a bit of pot if it's around and I don't have anything important to do. Both lifestyles work.
TL;DR: No one who matters will judge you for being teetotal, or smoking weed, or drinking beer. There's no real problem with drug use as long as you're a grownup and don't flirt with addiction or dependence, or become defined by the chemicals you use.