Are you a nostalgic person?

[RONIN]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Watching or listening to old things isn’t strictly nostalgia in and of itself, nostalgia is like a yearning for that time, I don’t watch Bogart movies and think ‘wouldn’t it be keen to live in the 1940s’ because i realise its a synthesised work of art, a yarn, a tale...nor does old music make me think ‘wow, I’d love to be wearing a drape suit with pork chop sideburns smoking fags on a street corner listening to Eddie Cochran’, its just music, music that sounds good to me in 2018.

See the thing is, the science is saying that after 22, we connect with less new things. Meaning we don't search out new things because it doesn't make us feel as good as the old stuff. So the late teens/early 20's becomes a holding pattern for a lot of adults. We're literally stuck in the past and missing the present.

Some people here are saying - well the new music and films out there right now are largely shit. Perhaps. But are you sure it's not you simply not opening your mind to what's out there now? The thing is, even if you are - the music (art/experience/whatever) probably won't resonate as deeply as the songs you heard when you were 19. That older stuff releases more seratonin in your brain which makes you feel good. Being rooted in the past is like being a drug addict. We're addicted to the high we feel each and every time we go down memory lane. It's a different high from doing something enjoyable in the present. Going back gives a sense of comfort and certainty in an increasingly uncertain world.

Think about it, how many of us are actually searching out new stimuli in our life? We eat the same types of food, listen to the same music we liked when we were younger, go about the same mundane routine day after day. As you said earlier, I'm starting to think nostalgia has its roots in our innate desire to be forever youthful. Reliving the time in your life where you were young and optimistic - a respite from the present-day cynicism that comes along with aging.

Edited May 24, 2018 by RONIN

[DieselDaisy]

I am not very nostalgic then, by your definition. I don't listen to any of the same music I used to listen to and am always partial to a new culinary experience. I tend to switch film preferences also.

[Kwick1]

I'm not nostalgic about most things. I don't keep cards or letters and don't stop my fun and important life events to take pictures. I spent most of my life getting to where I am today. I do greatly miss loved family members, friends and pets that have passed away, but that's love in the form of grief and don't consider that being nostalgic. 

My music interest has certainly expanded since my late teens/early 20's. And diet is completely different. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Kwick1

[Len Cnut]

27 minutes ago, RONIN said:

See the thing is, the science is saying that after 22, we connect with less new things. Meaning we don't search out new things because it doesn't make us feel as good as the old stuff. So the late teens/early 20's becomes a holding pattern for a lot of adults. We're literally stuck in the past and missing the present.

Some people here are saying - well the new music and films out there right now are largely shit. Perhaps. But are you sure it's not you simply not opening your mind to what's out there now? The thing is, even if you are - the music (art/experience/whatever) probably won't resonate as deeply as the songs you heard when you were 19. That older stuff releases more seratonin in your brain which makes you feel good. Being rooted in the past is like being a drug addict. We're addicted to the high we feel each and every time we go down memory lane. It's a different high from doing something enjoyable in the present. Going back gives a sense of comfort and certainty in an increasingly uncertain world.

Think about it, how many of us are actually searching out new stimuli in our life? We eat the same types of food, listen to the same music we liked when we were younger, go about the same mundane routine day after day. As you said earlier, I'm starting to think nostalgia has its roots in our innate desire to be forever youthful. Reliving the time in your life where you were young and optimistic - a respite from the present-day cynicism that comes along with aging.

Im constantly watching new films, listening to new kindsa music i aint heard before, tryna get into new shit, i get tired of the same old crap over and over.  I probably watch about 3 or 4 new movies a week...music i obssessively seek out stuff thats like...outside of my frame of reference

[DieselDaisy]

I do not even listen to rock music right now. The whole Anglo-American rock thing just depresses me. 

[Len Cnut]

Also, i was never optimistic, even when I was young   I dont think people generally were arrogant me either.  Everyone around here was arrogant and cynical

[RONIN]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not very nostalgic then, by your definition. I don't listen to any of the same music I used to listen to and am always partial to a new culinary experience. I tend to switch film preferences also.

Setting food/music aside, what specifically are you engaging with in your past during your "nostalgic" moments? 

I have one parent who is completely focused on the present and does not enjoy revisiting anything from the past. The other parent revels in the past and reliving their youth. It's really quite fascinating to see how differently they view the world.

 

 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Setting food/music aside, what specifically are you engaging with in your past during your "nostalgic" moments? 

I have one parent who is completely focused on the present and does not enjoy revisiting anything from the past. The other parent revels in the past and reliving their youth. It's really quite fascinating to see how differently they view the world.

 

 

The best example of it is kung fu films. I grew up on Hong Kong films. They are in my DNA. 

[RONIN]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Im constantly watching new films, listening to new kindsa music i aint heard before, tryna get into new shit, i get tired of the same old crap over and over.  I probably watch about 3 or 4 new movies a week...music i obssessively seek out stuff thats like...outside of my frame of reference

Does the new stuff resonate as deeply with you as the things you experienced when you were younger? 

On a slightly tangential note, why do you suspect "art" seems to decline more often than not as the artist gets older? Any guesses? They're more experienced, more skillful, more nuanced - and yet in music and film at least, youthful verve drives those industries artistically. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, RONIN said:

Does the new stuff resonate as deeply with you as the things you experienced when you were younger? 

On a slightly tangential note, why do you suspect "art" seems to decline more often than not as the artist gets older? Any guesses? They're more experienced, more skillful, more nuanced - and yet in music and film at least, youthful verve drives those industries artistically. 

That is not always true. Wagner's youthful operas, Das Liebesverbot, Rienzi - even ubiquitous The Flying Dutchman - are considered less significant works than his later masterpieces like Tristan, Parsifal and The Ring Cycle. The younger Beethoven worked within the confines of 18th century classicism, pleasing, yet lacking the revolutionary impetus of works produced during his ''heroic'' and Late periods, e.g., the 3rd and 9th. Shakespeare's great tragedies - Hamlet, Othello and Macbeth - occurred ten years into his career as a playwright. Dickens grew, from serialised satire into intricately plotted novels.

[EvanG]

22 minutes ago, RONIN said:

On a slightly tangential note, why do you suspect "art" seems to decline more often than not as the artist gets older? Any guesses? They're more experienced, more skillful, more nuanced - and yet in music and film at least, youthful verve drives those industries artistically. 

I don't know if it's more often. I've had this discussion before on here when someone stated that most bands never surpass their first or second record. Most bands/artists I listen to didn't make their best record until halfway through their career when they were more experienced as songwriters and musicians. Of course that's subjective, but I think most people would agree.

[Len Cnut]

42 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Does the new stuff resonate as deeply with you as the things you experienced when you were younger? 

On a slightly tangential note, why do you suspect "art" seems to decline more often than not as the artist gets older? Any guesses? They're more experienced, more skillful, more nuanced - and yet in music and film at least, youthful verve drives those industries artistically. 

I don't think it does.  Though i do think people have a prime, boxers, footballers, actors...after that most fall off.  But I don't think art necessarily declines.  With pop music it is to do with youth culture I think and being sort of attached to that so they sort of suffer as they get old.  Blues artists didn't though.  Painters don't.  Composers don't. 

As for does stuff resonate as deeply?  Yeah it does.  GnR were the band of my youth and they don't really resonate like they did.  Even The Sex Pistols don't.  I mean they do but...y'know, they're great but they're fine where they are too, I couldn't be listening to the same 5 or 8 or 10 or 30 albums forever.  There's stuff I'll come back to after a while but my priority is always new stuff, thats what keeps me into music, the new stuff.  I have like a mental log of like a shitload of bands and artists that are kinda on my invisible to do list that I might be idle one day and it'll occur to me like, y'know, 'shit, The Ohio Players, i always wanted to check those guys out!'.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Len Cnut

[RONIN]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is not always true. Wagner's youthful operas, Das Liebesverbot, Rienzi - even ubiquitous The Flying Dutchman - are considered less significant works than his later masterpieces like Tristan, Parsifal and The Ring Cycle. The younger Beethoven worked within the confines of 18th century classicism, pleasing, yet lacking the revolutionary impetus of works produced during his ''heroic'' and Late periods, e.g., the 3rd and 9th. Shakespeare's great tragedies - Hamlet, Othello and Macbeth - occurred ten years into his career as a playwright. Dickens grew, from serialised satire into intricately plotted novels.

Very good point, I hadn't considered that. I was thinking more along the lines of films and what the oeuvre of my favorite directors looked like (most of which grew increasingly disappointing with age).

Talking general trends, would you say that artists like Wagner, Beethoven and Shakespeare are more of the exception rather than the rule if we're plotting artists as data points on a grid? Or is your position that there isn't necessarily justification that the high watermarks in artistic achievement run parallel with youth? I'm not necessarily suggesting that the first release is going to be a masterpiece compared to the third release but rather that the artist on average is turning out much of their most vital and career defining pieces during the first 1/3-ish of the run.

If I were to loosely group artists:

A. "The Supernova." Artists that peak early. The initial output seems to be created in a burst of inspiration - with diminishing returns subsequently as the muse is exhausted.

B. "The Craftsman" - These artists tend to steadily build with each new release, iterating and streamlining their craft - until they peak during a period where they deliver career defining works. At a certain point, as the group above, the inspiration fades and the quality declines. e.g. The progression in Michael Mann's Manhunter to Heat /The Insider to something like Blackhat or Public Enemies.

C. "The Late Bloomer" -  I don't have the data necessarily to support this, but my gut feeling is that this particular artistic scenario is less common than either A or B. You could say an artist towards the final 1/3 of their career enters the "auteur" period where they've achieved mastery over their craft. Regardless, I'm not entirely convinced more skill or experience plays a decisive factor in art. Going back to film, I don't think directors like Terrence Malick or Kubrick were necessarily "better" towards the end even if they were 10x the craftsman by their last film.

Edited May 24, 2018 by RONIN

[RONIN]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't think it does.  Though i do think people have a prime, boxers, footballers, actors...after that most fall off.  But I don't think art necessarily declines.  With pop music it is to do with youth culture I think and being sort of attached to that so they sort of suffer as they get old.  Blues artists didn't though.  Painters don't.  Composers don't. 

Doesn't it follow that if people have a prime, then the art they're producing also follows that same trajectory? 

Quote

As for does stuff resonate as deeply?  Yeah it does.  GnR were the band of my youth and they don't really resonate like they did.  Even The Sex Pistols don't.  I mean they do but...y'know, they're great but they're fine where they are too, I couldn't be listening to the same 5 or 8 or 10 or 30 albums forever.  There's stuff I'll come back to after a while but my priority is always new stuff, thats what keeps me into music, the new stuff.  I have like a mental log of like a shitload of bands and artists that are kinda on my invisible to do list that I might be idle one day and it'll occur to me like, y'know, 'shit, The Ohio Players, i always wanted to check those guys out!'.

I wonder if your approach is more the exception than the rule. The general premise is that humans are creatures of habit. We're wired to fear the unknown (new stimuli). And there's nothing more comfortable than the same old thing I assume. 

To take this back to the original discussion of nostalgia - given the immense popularity right now of mining the past in pop culture currently (old franchises being resurrected with reboots/sequels, old bands coming back to tour the "classics", old painters/authors, etc being venerated, etc.) - I feel like there's a collective sense of reliving the past even in art. Having said that, I've always figured that as a society we'd be heading towards a youth culture and establishment that has no interest or regard for the past because their world will move so fast there is no time to look backwards. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by RONIN

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, RONIN said:

See the thing is, the science is saying that after 22, we connect with less new things. Meaning we don't search out new things because it doesn't make us feel as good as the old stuff. So the late teens/early 20's becomes a holding pattern for a lot of adults. We're literally stuck in the past and missing the present.

Some people here are saying - well the new music and films out there right now are largely shit. Perhaps. But are you sure it's not you simply not opening your mind to what's out there now? The thing is, even if you are - the music (art/experience/whatever) probably won't resonate as deeply as the songs you heard when you were 19. That older stuff releases more seratonin in your brain which makes you feel good. Being rooted in the past is like being a drug addict. We're addicted to the high we feel each and every time we go down memory lane. It's a different high from doing something enjoyable in the present. Going back gives a sense of comfort and certainty in an increasingly uncertain world.

Think about it, how many of us are actually searching out new stimuli in our life? We eat the same types of food, listen to the same music we liked when we were younger, go about the same mundane routine day after day. As you said earlier, I'm starting to think nostalgia has its roots in our innate desire to be forever youthful. Reliving the time in your life where you were young and optimistic - a respite from the present-day cynicism that comes along with aging.

I agree with all but also, do you think the fact of becoming adult plays a factor in not seeking new things? When I say becoming adult I mean: having to work, taking responsability with new things, living by yourself, being married, having children, etc.

All that shit takes a good portion away from your personal time and then you're just tired and want to sleep. I know in my case, I really want to find new things (music, tv series, films, books) but my personal time has reduced to just a couple of hours per day, as opposed to when I was a teenager I had most of the day for myself (as my parents did everything for me).

It is frustrating but maybe Im just lazy and I need an excuse?

I don't agree with people saying ART quality has declined. There are awesome movies being made and books written. You just don't know them because you are encapsulated somewhere. Nostalgia hits you later in life, a yearning for those moments that made you happy. Those memories are usually acquired during childhood/teenagehood so I guess everybody will get nostalgic sooner or later.

When you get older there's not much out there that has the potential to impress you.

 

 

[Eric Cantona]

3 hours ago, RONIN said:

See the thing is, the science is saying that after 22, we connect with less new things. Meaning we don't search out new things because it doesn't make us feel as good as the old stuff. So the late teens/early 20's becomes a holding pattern for a lot of adults. We're literally stuck in the past and missing the present.

Some people here are saying - well the new music and films out there right now are largely shit. Perhaps. But are you sure it's not you simply not opening your mind to what's out there now? The thing is, even if you are - the music (art/experience/whatever) probably won't resonate as deeply as the songs you heard when you were 19. That older stuff releases more seratonin in your brain which makes you feel good. Being rooted in the past is like being a drug addict. We're addicted to the high we feel each and every time we go down memory lane. It's a different high from doing something enjoyable in the present. Going back gives a sense of comfort and certainty in an increasingly uncertain world.

Think about it, how many of us are actually searching out new stimuli in our life? We eat the same types of food, listen to the same music we liked when we were younger, go about the same mundane routine day after day. As you said earlier, I'm starting to think nostalgia has its roots in our innate desire to be forever youthful. Reliving the time in your life where you were young and optimistic - a respite from the present-day cynicism that comes along with aging.

Younger than 22, can confirm that modern pop music is shit

[DieselDaisy]

The general trend for (genius) classical composers is to work within the confines of the aesthetics of their day, learning, crafting - not breaking through any doors but perhaps nudging a few doors open, hinting at future possibilities - only to break through with a distinctive style of their own which may (or may not) be highly revolutionary (they could for instance espouse musical conservatism such as Brahms and Verdi), but certainly will be highly personal. Thus Mozart began composing classical pleasantries in the spirit of The Enlightenment and Classicism before producing sublime masterpieces which reflect sturm und drang and perhaps foreshadow (Mozart was never much of a revolutionary it should be pointed out) Romanticism. The three Da Ponte operas, final five or six symphonies and Requiem best reflect this late period of Mozart. Beethoven operated within the Haydn-Mozartian orbit but broke through during his Middle (heroic) and Late periods with genuinely revolutionary music. Wagner's early operas are in the Mozartian-Weber-Meyerbeer tradition before he theorised and then realised new possibilities regarding sonority, harmony, form, musical space and German nationhood: Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art).

 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Doesn't it follow that if people have a prime, then the art they're producing also follows that same trajectory? 

Depends on the kind of art, the beauty of that kind of expression is that age doesn't really dim it in the way it effected Ali's relfexes or Peter Shiltons ability to kick a ball past the halfway line   These sorts of ideas are more related to like...pop music and thats a bit of a youth orientated market, otherwise art isn't effected by age i don't think.  Also, at the risk of sounding snobby, rock bands in general and kind of a little lower down on the artistic totem pole than say Van Gogh, it isn't art in the same way Mozart is art.  At its very very best it approaches that sort of thing, and even then just approaches but lets be honest with ourself, pop music that we all grew up loving and still do, first and foremost its a commercial enterprise, its not Van Gogh putting his heart and soul and fury behind every stroke, its not Wordsworth agonizing over a rhythming couplet til its like tearing the flesh from his body, its Dante dedicating his entire life to The Divine Comedy, its 'how can you we make the right kinda noise to get ourselves a swimming pool full of champagne that we can then drive a Rolls Royce in?'   And don't get me wrong, I got nothing against that, in fact I applaud it...but its not that other thing.

Quote

I wonder if your approach is more the exception than the rule. The general premise is that humans are creatures of habit. We're wired to fear the unknown (new stimuli). And there's nothing more comfortable than the same old thing I assume. 

I'm like that with many other things in life I guess, just not movies and music.

Quote

To take this back to the original discussion of nostalgia - given the immense popularity right now of mining the past in pop culture currently (old franchises being resurrected with reboots/sequels, old bands coming back to tour the "classics", old painters/authors, etc being venerated, etc.) - I feel like there's a collective sense of reliving the past even in art. Having said that, I've always figured that as a society we'd be heading towards a youth culture and establishment that has no interest or regard for the past because their world will move so fast there is no time to look backwards. 

I think that shit with the reboots is less to do with nostalgia and more to do with safe investment.  Think of it this way, you're a hollywood exec, you got a bunch of fuckin' money that you want to invest in a movie thats gonna recoup that shit, what are you gonna go for, Jim Jarmuschs latest movie about a poet that drives a bus in New Jersey OR...are you gonna invest in the superhero comic book?  The comic books got violence, its got explosions, its got the latest fit bird doin' facebook fish lips for an hour and forty minutes, its cartooney so the kids are sold, its violent so the late teen to early 20s demographics gonna show up and its a reboot so you got a certain guaranteed amount of comic book guy from The Simpsons types or people in their 30s and 40s who saw the original thing and remember it from that, its safe investment, its following the money like any good businessman would, it a guaranteed broad demographic who are going to show up to watch it, even if its a piece of shit if you can get enough interest to get that strong initial walk up on opening week you can recoup your budget and make a fair packet on the top and there you go, job done.  

Why do the money men at Warners care to stick their neck out to sign 'the next big thing', there's nothing in it, fuck em, they got youtube for that now, back in the day you could sign a fuckin' band, pay then a few 100 grand advance and they had to work that shit off for you, those record company advances was just them getting bands onto the right footing to start with i.e. in the red, thats why a lot of these bands had touring schedules and obligations that would cripple them, what the fucks the point in that now, what is there for Warners to invest in, some kid who makes a vid on youtube that has a good singing voice?  There's absolutely no way to judge the commercial viability of them so fuck em, let them do all that work themselves and when they're already pulling in millions of hits then you know you have a viable investment.  

So what happens, you go back to all those old classics that you been sweeping the floors for all these decades, bands whoose entire catalogues you bought and paid for years ago, repackage the shit, give em a shiny box and some stickers and a little 20 page booklet with a photo in it thats 'NEVER BEFORE SEEN' and sell it for 100 quid a pop instead of the 12 it costs to produce it and you're back into your old profit margin again.  Its nothing to do with nostalgia really, its a lot more cynical than all of that. Its not a natural inclination, this nostalgia shit, its a marketing scheme, its the reason why the word 'iconic' has become commonplace now, its just teffective salesmanship.  Sure there is a natural inclination towards nostalgia but I think thats more a personal thing that people like...have in their hearts.  I don't think it necessarily extends to culture but it ends up having to because, hey, you can only buy whats laid out on the stalls right?

Edited May 24, 2018 by Len Cnut

[janrichmond]

 

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@Len Cnut Melissa Reese is a rock icon and I won't hear otherwise!

Who the fucks Melissa Reese?

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Who the fucks Melissa Reese?

Oh you Guns N' Roses fan, you.

[soon]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Who the fucks Melissa Reese?

She's this bad ass street urchin!  Thats who!

[Len Cnut]

OH!  Oh yeah, the new girl in Guns n Roses, sorry, slipped my mind, I remember a bit of noise on here when she signed up.

[Blackstar]

4 hours ago, RONIN said:

Some people here are saying - well the new music and films out there right now are largely shit. Perhaps. But are you sure it's not you simply not opening your mind to what's out there now? The thing is, even if you are - the music (art/experience/whatever) probably won't resonate as deeply as the songs you heard when you were 19. That older stuff releases more seratonin in your brain which makes you feel good. Being rooted in the past is like being a drug addict. We're addicted to the high we feel each and every time we go down memory lane. It's a different high from doing something enjoyable in the present. Going back gives a sense of comfort and certainty in an increasingly uncertain world.

For me this is limited only to music, the new music that has come out in the last couple of decades. In the same period I got excited with music that was old, but it was new to me.

It's not the same with movies. I've liked a lot of new movies as much as old ones (mostly not Hollywood though). Books are another story, since most of what we read is "old" anyway.

[SoulMonster]

18 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I’m talking about a set of personal experiences, I’ve got nothing against social mobility per se, I’m just talking about a pattern that is apparent to me based on what I have observed, there are any number of great and wonderful people going through that in life, unfortunately as is often the case in life heroes often go unsung and cunts are highlighted.  The social mobility isn’t the problem, its the attitude it engenders in a certain cross section of the populus.

People embrace social mobility for different reasons too, some strictly to advance in life and better themselves and some for slightly more sinister reasons.

I am almost sorry I made you post a levelled and reasonable post after your diatribe.

Coming from Norway, I have never seen the patterns you describe. That people who strive to become "upper middle class", or whatever, are more cunts than people in the working class or the properly rich. Then again we don't really have an upper middle class here, or at least not consider our population to be so stratified as to use that expression. Nor do we talk about a "working class". We are pretty much a classless society. (in both meanings of the word). Of course we would react with disdain on anyone who flaunts newly acquired wealth, like the "yaps" in the 80s, and anyone who brags about their money just to brag about their money. And since we Norwegians have such a humble (read: piss poor) origin, it doesn't take much for people to think you are flaunting your wealth. Any vulgar display of wealth, or really any display of wealth, is likely to be considered unbecoming bragging. Similarly, we don't like people who behave like something they are not, but since we don't really have classes there are no, say, upper middle class behaviors that lower middle class people can adopt to come off "better" than they are. There aren't any sosiolects, mannerisms, clothes, etc, that would mark one as belonging to the upper classes and which people could copy go appear "better" than they are. We simply don't have those markers. Rich people tend to dress, behave, talk, eat, etc the same as everyone else. But if there were any such markers of standing, I am sure any ostentatious attempts at copying these, to come off as being something you aren't, would be mocked by everyone. 

But you are describing a whole segment of demography, the entire "middle upper class", or whatever it was, as per your experience, being awful, and that is pretty interesting. At most here, we would have a few pretentious individuals who desperately try to appear as something they aren't. Then again, it doesn't take very much in England, does it? I mean, just go out and buy a common convenience like a dishwasher and wham! you are now acting above your station  Yeah, I still haven't gotten over it.

Again, you Brits are too obsessed with classes. It seems to be a straitjacket on social mobility which limits the most innocent of acts, like getting a dishwasher. You seem to be full of disdain for your fellow men, simply because they are something you aren't. I remember when that poor fellow was mauled by a polar bear and Brits would just laugh of it because he had a posh name, so it was all okay. Joking? Of course they were, but it highlights an aspect of your society, this us vs them as defined by social classes handed down from previous times.