How Bad Are Current Films ?

[S D]

If I was the only person watching my cable I`d drop the movie channels
... not that old films were that great : but at least there were good
ones from time to time. Made for TV films have also been junk for many
years, guess it`s that diversity thing. TV in general has gone into the
shitter, the only stations of value now are TCM, Animal Planet, PBS, and
National Geographic.

[Calvin]

... the only stations of value now are TCM, Animal Planet, PBS, and
National Geographic.

Plus FNC. Where else are you going to learn, for example,
that the terms, 'marriage', ' natural family', and 'union of a man
and woman' can be punished as hate speech in government
workplaces in Oakland, CA? Nowhere else. If you want to
know what madness is becoming commonplace in our culture,
only FNC will tell you.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Calvin

... the only stations of value now are TCM, Animal Planet, PBS, and
National Geographic.

Plus FNC. Where else are you going to learn, for example,
that the terms, 'marriage', ' natural family', and 'union of a man
and woman' can be punished as hate speech in government
workplaces in Oakland, CA? Nowhere else. If you want to
know what madness is becoming commonplace in our culture,
only FNC will tell you.

Are you sure what you heard is true? Or did Fox put its trademark spin
on the story?

[George Peatty]

Post by Alric Knebel
Are you sure what you heard is true? Or did Fox put its trademark spin
on the story?

Saying that Fox spin != truth is *your* trademark spin ..

[Alric Knebel]

Post by George Peatty

Post by Alric Knebel
Are you sure what you heard is true? Or did Fox put its trademark spin
on the story?

Saying that Fox spin != truth is *your* trademark spin ..

Sorry, bub. Not true. I'd have to see that story reported by someone
else besides those pieholes on that channel. They're shit-stirrers,
maintaining notoriety by working up people like you, and old Calvin there.

[s***@slidge.com]

Plus FNC. Where else are you going to learn, for example, that the
terms, 'marriage', ' natural family', and 'union of a man and woman' can
be punished as hate speech in government workplaces in Oakland, CA?
Nowhere else. If you want to know what madness is becoming commonplace
in our culture, only FNC will tell you.

Exactly. Where else will we find out that Saddam had WMD, that Iraq
was responsible for 9/11, that we're winning the war, and that George Bush
is a great president!

Certainly not from the liberal media!

[Calvin]

Post by s***@slidge.com
Exactly. Where else will we find out that Saddam had WMD, that Iraq
was responsible for 9/11, that we're winning the war, and that George Bush
is a great president!

Three out of those four they've told us at one time or
another, but never that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

[steve]

On 11-Jun-2007, smacked up and reeling, Calvin <***@windstream.net>
blindly formulated

Post by Calvin
Plus FNC. Where else are you going to learn, for example,
that the terms, 'marriage', ' natural family', and 'union of a man
and woman' can be punished as hate speech in government
workplaces in Oakland, CA? Nowhere else. If you want to
know what madness is becoming commonplace in our culture,
only FNC will tell you.

I think FNC is reliable for factual info..much more so than broadcast
network news or CNBC...but it's so much tabloid titilation and
ambulance-chasing these days that I dont find many programs worth watching.
O'Rielly seems to think his job is shouting down his guests (and then
thanking them for enduring the insult). Brit Hume rocks. Lot's of cute
chicks, too (just what you want in a news source, right?).

They should give Michelle Malkin and that blond chick a few drinks, dim the
lights, and see what happens. I'd watch.

steve

[Calvin]

Post by steve
I think FNC is reliable for factual info..much more so than broadcast
network news or CNBC...but it's so much tabloid titilation and
ambulance-chasing these days that I dont find many programs worth watching.
...

Unfortunately cable TV depends on tabloid titilation
and ambulance-chasing to fill up its time, and FNC,
MSNBC, and CNN are equally to blame. All three
of these cable networks followed the Paris Hilton
saga minute by minute, just as they did for Michael
Jackson, and every other such case that comes along.
But I try to separate all that from serious news.

[Magnus, Robot Fighter.]

Post by S D
If I was the only person watching my cable I`d drop the movie channels
... not that old films were that great : but at least there were good
ones from time to time. Made for TV films have also been junk for many
years, guess it`s that diversity thing. TV in general has gone into the
shitter, the only stations of value now are TCM, Animal Planet, PBS, and
National Geographic.

The new John Cusack horror film looks interesting. Good ol John
Cusack...makes bad movies tolerable.

[David Oberman]

Post by S D
If I was the only person watching my cable I`d drop the movie channels
... not that old films were that great : but at least there were good
ones from time to time. Made for TV films have also been junk for many
years, guess it`s that diversity thing. TV in general has gone into the
shitter, the only stations of value now are TCM, Animal Planet, PBS, and
National Geographic.

The only channels I like are: TCM, Animal Planet ("Animal Cops
Houston" rocks!), CourtTV (primarily for "Cops" & "Beach Patrol") &
"Dog the Bounty Hunter" on A&E (a station which otherwise sucks). The
Fox Westerns channel is good, too. You see a lot of Boetticher & Mann
Westerns on it.

For TV in general, programming is worse than ever, & commercials have
got longer & more frequent. I don't know why you like PBS: It's
pathetic at this point, just an incessant mass of yapping Suze Ormans
& other human pledge-break irritants. I'd almost always rather watch
Huell Howser on the local public station.

Say, what happened to Gondo?





____
He was a longtime friend of mine, Ben Washer,
whom Richard had originally engaged as Mary's
press agent for most of her Broadway shows.

-- Radie Harris

[Kingo Gondo]

Post by David Oberman

Post by S D
If I was the only person watching my cable I`d drop the movie channels
... not that old films were that great : but at least there were good
ones from time to time. Made for TV films have also been junk for many
years, guess it`s that diversity thing. TV in general has gone into the
shitter, the only stations of value now are TCM, Animal Planet, PBS, and
National Geographic.

The only channels I like are: TCM, Animal Planet ("Animal Cops
Houston" rocks!), CourtTV (primarily for "Cops" & "Beach Patrol") &
"Dog the Bounty Hunter" on A&E (a station which otherwise sucks). The
Fox Westerns channel is good, too. You see a lot of Boetticher & Mann
Westerns on it.
For TV in general, programming is worse than ever, & commercials have
got longer & more frequent. I don't know why you like PBS: It's
pathetic at this point, just an incessant mass of yapping Suze Ormans
& other human pledge-break irritants. I'd almost always rather watch
Huell Howser on the local public station.
Say, what happened to Gondo?

I was in New York for a week--just got back today.

Did our mutual hatred of the current PBS stimulate your inquiry?

[David Oberman]

I was in New York for a week.

Ew. Why'd you do that?

Did our mutual hatred of the current PBS stimulate your inquiry?

Yep. It's hard to criticize PBS without sounding like a rightwing
loon, but public TV has turned into such a vapid, touchy-feely thing
on the one hand (with programs about "Your Inner Child") & on the
other, just a bunch of pseudoscience & pseudo-finance ("Get Rich With
Mary Lou!"). Why should the public finance this gunk? We might as well
support Guthy-Renker on the late-night infomercials.

It hasn't been the same since Mr. Rogers died. :(





____
Chuala me an smoilin 's an londubh a ra
Gur ealiagh mo ghra thar saile

-- Traditional

[Anim8rFSK]

Post by David Oberman

I was in New York for a week.

Ew. Why'd you do that?

Did our mutual hatred of the current PBS stimulate your inquiry?

Yep. It's hard to criticize PBS without sounding like a rightwing
loon, but public TV has turned into such a vapid, touchy-feely thing
on the one hand (with programs about "Your Inner Child") & on the
other, just a bunch of pseudoscience & pseudo-finance ("Get Rich With
Mary Lou!"). Why should the public finance this gunk? We might as well
support Guthy-Renker on the late-night infomercials.
It hasn't been the same since Mr. Rogers died. :(

As long as Mr. Wizard is still with us, we'll be okay.

[l***@my-deja.com]

Post by Anim8rFSK

Post by David Oberman

I was in New York for a week.

Ew. Why'd you do that?

Did our mutual hatred of the current PBS stimulate your inquiry?

Yep. It's hard to criticize PBS without sounding like a rightwing
loon, but public TV has turned into such a vapid, touchy-feely thing
on the one hand (with programs about "Your Inner Child") & on the
other, just a bunch of pseudoscience & pseudo-finance ("Get Rich With
Mary Lou!"). Why should the public finance this gunk? We might as well
support Guthy-Renker on the late-night infomercials.
It hasn't been the same since Mr. Rogers died. :(

As long as Mr. Wizard is still with us, we'll be okay.

Oops, too late.

[t***@juno.com]

As long as Mr. Wizard is still with us, we'll be okay.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well, he's gone now.

[Magnus, Robot Fighter.]

Post by David Oberman

Post by S D
If I was the only person watching my cable I`d drop the movie channels
... not that old films were that great : but at least there were good
ones from time to time. Made for TV films have also been junk for many
years, guess it`s that diversity thing. TV in general has gone into the
shitter, the only stations of value now are TCM, Animal Planet, PBS, and
National Geographic.

The only channels I like are: TCM, Animal Planet ("Animal Cops
Houston" rocks!), CourtTV (primarily for "Cops" & "Beach Patrol") &
"Dog the Bounty Hunter" on A&E (a station which otherwise sucks). The
Fox Westerns channel is good, too. You see a lot of Boetticher & Mann
Westerns on it.
For TV in general, programming is worse than ever,

I was just about to post that....an endless parade of former models
and 'Beautiful People', on Network Programming at least. BSG being an
exception with two leads that re anyhting *but* beautiful, and models
that CAN act.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by David Oberman

Post by S D
If I was the only person watching my cable I`d drop the movie channels
... not that old films were that great : but at least there were good
ones from time to time. Made for TV films have also been junk for many
years, guess it`s that diversity thing. TV in general has gone into the
shitter, the only stations of value now are TCM, Animal Planet, PBS, and
National Geographic.

The only channels I like are: TCM, Animal Planet ("Animal Cops
Houston" rocks!), CourtTV (primarily for "Cops" & "Beach Patrol") &
"Dog the Bounty Hunter" on A&E (a station which otherwise sucks). The
Fox Westerns channel is good, too. You see a lot of Boetticher & Mann
Westerns on it.
For TV in general, programming is worse than ever, & commercials have
got longer & more frequent. I don't know why you like PBS: It's
pathetic at this point, just an incessant mass of yapping Suze Ormans
& other human pledge-break irritants. I'd almost always rather watch
Huell Howser on the local public station.

That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

[Kingo Gondo]

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?

It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

Nova and Frontline are two reliable favorites. National Geographic's
Nature is great. There are currently weekly documentaries on historical
research into religion. There's alos Austin City Limits, and for those
with a taste for English drama, Masterpiece Theater. Other odds and
ends. I can't think of anything that PBS does that's done better
elsewhere. I'm especially fond of their nonsensationalistic approach on
things like Frontline. You just don't get anything comparable anywhere
else.

[Kingo Gondo]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

Nova and Frontline are two reliable favorites. National Geographic's
Nature is great. There are currently weekly documentaries on historical
research into religion. There's alos Austin City Limits, and for those
with a taste for English drama, Masterpiece Theater. Other odds and ends.
I can't think of anything that PBS does that's done better elsewhere. I'm
especially fond of their nonsensationalistic approach on things like
Frontline. You just don't get anything comparable anywhere else.

Could you answer my original question?

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

Nova and Frontline are two reliable favorites. National Geographic's
Nature is great. There are currently weekly documentaries on historical
research into religion. There's alos Austin City Limits, and for those
with a taste for English drama, Masterpiece Theater. Other odds and ends.
I can't think of anything that PBS does that's done better elsewhere. I'm
especially fond of their nonsensationalistic approach on things like
Frontline. You just don't get anything comparable anywhere else.

Could you answer my original question?

I've watched it since the 80s. And it doesn't change a thing that I said.

[Kingo Gondo]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

Nova and Frontline are two reliable favorites. National Geographic's
Nature is great. There are currently weekly documentaries on historical
research into religion. There's alos Austin City Limits, and for those
with a taste for English drama, Masterpiece Theater. Other odds and
ends. I can't think of anything that PBS does that's done better
elsewhere. I'm especially fond of their nonsensationalistic approach on
things like Frontline. You just don't get anything comparable anywhere
else.

Could you answer my original question?

I've watched it since the 80s. And it doesn't change a thing that I said.

Well, I was asking to see how much perspective you have.

The heyday of PBS was the 60s through maybe the mid 80s. This was before
cable (during the first part) and certainly before cable predominated. It
was also, largely, before home video.

PBS was like a lonely beacon of culture and freedom for many people. If you
lived in New York, or Chicago, or San Francisco, you might have plenty of
opportunities for cultural experiences of all types--assuming you could
afford them. But most of this country was (and still is) Podunksville.

PBS was THE primary avenue for bringing foreign and "art" films to the
masses. Most places did not have art house cinemas that flourished in the
bigger metro areas. Personally, my first exposure to foreign films was via
PBS--as an adolescent and young teen, I remember seeing stuff like Fires on
the Plain, Swept Away, and The Seventh Seal on PBS. There was NO other way
for me to see these films at that time. Now, of course, that role is
completely gone.

PBS also brought us its own original productions and those of the BBC--all
of which were uncensored. I remember seeing this on PBS:

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/167107?view=cast

Maybe I was 13 or 14 at the time, and I was blown away--this guy (Al
Freeman, Jr. as Bobby Seale) was saying "motherfucker" like a motherfucker
on my TV! It all seemed terribly adult, and made me realize that not
everywhere did people labor under restrictions that forced the entire
population to be treated like children.

I remember watching I, Claudius the first time it ran--holy shit! Now, there
is no way my local PBS station would show that uncut. They are too afraid of
their own fucking shadow--they might "offend" someone.

And when is the last time PBS offered up something as utterly groundbreaking
as Monty Python's Flying Circus?--it doesn't happen. Anything even
approaching that magnitude (and, of course, few things do) comes to us
through other channels now.

News, history and science programming--what does PBS do that the National
Geographic Channel. the Discovery Channels and the History Channels (among
others) don't? There is no show on PBS that couldn't get shown elsewhere.
Thirty years ago, that simply wasn't the case.

Even little things, like cooking shows, quality children's programming (I
think I enjoyed The Electric Company more than my baby sister), etc.--PBS
was IT, or close to it. Now, we have a degree of choice that was not even
imaginable then. Want to watch an opera? In 1967 or 1977, in the vast
majority of places, you were grateful for what you got from PBS. Now I can
go down to my library and choose from scores of them, for free, on DVD.

Times change. PBS had its time. And recognizing this, it has changed, trying
to find a role in the vast array of choices we now have. And those changes
have made it bland and redundant, for the most part--it doesn't want to risk
scaring off any potential viewers. "So because thou art lukewarm, and
neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth."

I am glad you still enjoy it. I watch it once a week now, maybe. That's just
how things go.

[Richard Schultz]

In article <4jSbi.88530$***@fe03.news.easynews.com>, Kingo Gondo <***@gmail.com> wrote:

: Even little things, like cooking shows, quality children's programming (I
: think I enjoyed The Electric Company more than my baby sister), etc.--PBS
: was IT, or close to it.

_The Electric Company_ was totally kewl. I read somewhere that Morgan
Freeman refuses to discuss his days as Easy Reader. Does anyone know
why? _The Electric Company_ is hardly something to be ashamed of having
been a part of. Heck, it even pulled Tom Lehrer out retirement.

Now _Sesame Street_, on the other hand. . .

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Where's the Kaboom? There's supposed to be a big Kaboom!"

[David Oberman]

Post by Kingo Gondo
PBS--as an adolescent and young teen, I remember seeing stuff like Fires on
the Plain, Swept Away, and The Seventh Seal on PBS.

I, too, remember first seeing "Fires on the Plain" on PBS many years
ago. I even wrote a wonderful poem about it.

Post by Kingo Gondo
Even little things, like cooking shows, quality children's programming (I
think I enjoyed The Electric Company more than my baby sister)

As a youngster, my favorite kid shows were "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood,"
"Sesame Street," "The Electric Company" & "The New Zoo Revue." In
fact, I still sing the "Zoo Revue" theme song in my car on my way to
Costco, Best Buy & Pavilions.





____
Chuala me an smoilin 's an londubh a ra
Gur ealiagh mo ghra thar saile

-- Traditional

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

Nova and Frontline are two reliable favorites. National Geographic's
Nature is great. There are currently weekly documentaries on historical
research into religion. There's alos Austin City Limits, and for those
with a taste for English drama, Masterpiece Theater. Other odds and
ends. I can't think of anything that PBS does that's done better
elsewhere. I'm especially fond of their nonsensationalistic approach on
things like Frontline. You just don't get anything comparable anywhere
else.

Could you answer my original question?

I've watched it since the 80s. And it doesn't change a thing that I said.

Well, I was asking to see how much perspective you have.
The heyday of PBS was the 60s through maybe the mid 80s. This was before
cable (during the first part) and certainly before cable predominated. It
was also, largely, before home video.
PBS was like a lonely beacon of culture and freedom for many people. If you
lived in New York, or Chicago, or San Francisco, you might have plenty of
opportunities for cultural experiences of all types--assuming you could
afford them. But most of this country was (and still is) Podunksville.
PBS was THE primary avenue for bringing foreign and "art" films to the
masses. Most places did not have art house cinemas that flourished in the
bigger metro areas. Personally, my first exposure to foreign films was via
PBS--as an adolescent and young teen, I remember seeing stuff like Fires on
the Plain, Swept Away, and The Seventh Seal on PBS. There was NO other way
for me to see these films at that time. Now, of course, that role is
completely gone.
PBS also brought us its own original productions and those of the BBC--all
http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/167107?view=cast
Maybe I was 13 or 14 at the time, and I was blown away--this guy (Al
Freeman, Jr. as Bobby Seale) was saying "motherfucker" like a motherfucker
on my TV! It all seemed terribly adult, and made me realize that not
everywhere did people labor under restrictions that forced the entire
population to be treated like children.
I remember watching I, Claudius the first time it ran--holy shit! Now, there
is no way my local PBS station would show that uncut. They are too afraid of
their own fucking shadow--they might "offend" someone.
And when is the last time PBS offered up something as utterly groundbreaking
as Monty Python's Flying Circus?--it doesn't happen. Anything even
approaching that magnitude (and, of course, few things do) comes to us
through other channels now.
News, history and science programming--what does PBS do that the National
Geographic Channel. the Discovery Channels and the History Channels (among
others) don't? There is no show on PBS that couldn't get shown elsewhere.
Thirty years ago, that simply wasn't the case.
Even little things, like cooking shows, quality children's programming (I
think I enjoyed The Electric Company more than my baby sister), etc.--PBS
was IT, or close to it. Now, we have a degree of choice that was not even
imaginable then. Want to watch an opera? In 1967 or 1977, in the vast
majority of places, you were grateful for what you got from PBS. Now I can
go down to my library and choose from scores of them, for free, on DVD.
Times change. PBS had its time. And recognizing this, it has changed, trying
to find a role in the vast array of choices we now have. And those changes
have made it bland and redundant, for the most part--it doesn't want to risk
scaring off any potential viewers. "So because thou art lukewarm, and
neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth."
I am glad you still enjoy it. I watch it once a week now, maybe. That's just
how things go.

I agree with everything you said. When you put it like that, it has
declined. But over the last three years, considering the pitiful state
of cable news (infotainment), I found FRONTLINE still to be one of those
beacons you mentioned. I think they've been cowed some by all this
right-wing talk about shutting it down, and I find it very brash to be
doing some of the stuff they're doing. NOW is another good one for
showing some very bad stuff that's otherwise going under the radar.

[Kingo Gondo]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the

programming

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel
is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is

also

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo
an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done

elsewhere

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Kingo Gondo
(and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

Nova and Frontline are two reliable favorites. National Geographic's
Nature is great. There are currently weekly documentaries on historical
research into religion. There's alos Austin City Limits, and for those
with a taste for English drama, Masterpiece Theater. Other odds and
ends. I can't think of anything that PBS does that's done better
elsewhere. I'm especially fond of their nonsensationalistic approach on
things like Frontline. You just don't get anything comparable anywhere
else.

Could you answer my original question?

I've watched it since the 80s. And it doesn't change a thing that I said.

Well, I was asking to see how much perspective you have.
The heyday of PBS was the 60s through maybe the mid 80s. This was before
cable (during the first part) and certainly before cable predominated. It
was also, largely, before home video.
PBS was like a lonely beacon of culture and freedom for many people. If you
lived in New York, or Chicago, or San Francisco, you might have plenty of
opportunities for cultural experiences of all types--assuming you could
afford them. But most of this country was (and still is) Podunksville.
PBS was THE primary avenue for bringing foreign and "art" films to the
masses. Most places did not have art house cinemas that flourished in the
bigger metro areas. Personally, my first exposure to foreign films was via
PBS--as an adolescent and young teen, I remember seeing stuff like Fires on
the Plain, Swept Away, and The Seventh Seal on PBS. There was NO other way
for me to see these films at that time. Now, of course, that role is
completely gone.
PBS also brought us its own original productions and those of the BBC--all
http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/167107?view=cast
Maybe I was 13 or 14 at the time, and I was blown away--this guy (Al
Freeman, Jr. as Bobby Seale) was saying "motherfucker" like a motherfucker
on my TV! It all seemed terribly adult, and made me realize that not
everywhere did people labor under restrictions that forced the entire
population to be treated like children.
I remember watching I, Claudius the first time it ran--holy shit! Now, there
is no way my local PBS station would show that uncut. They are too afraid of
their own fucking shadow--they might "offend" someone.
And when is the last time PBS offered up something as utterly groundbreaking
as Monty Python's Flying Circus?--it doesn't happen. Anything even
approaching that magnitude (and, of course, few things do) comes to us
through other channels now.
News, history and science programming--what does PBS do that the National
Geographic Channel. the Discovery Channels and the History Channels (among
others) don't? There is no show on PBS that couldn't get shown elsewhere.
Thirty years ago, that simply wasn't the case.
Even little things, like cooking shows, quality children's programming (I
think I enjoyed The Electric Company more than my baby sister), etc.--PBS
was IT, or close to it. Now, we have a degree of choice that was not even
imaginable then. Want to watch an opera? In 1967 or 1977, in the vast
majority of places, you were grateful for what you got from PBS. Now I can
go down to my library and choose from scores of them, for free, on DVD.
Times change. PBS had its time. And recognizing this, it has changed, trying
to find a role in the vast array of choices we now have. And those changes
have made it bland and redundant, for the most part--it doesn't want to risk
scaring off any potential viewers. "So because thou art lukewarm, and
neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth."
I am glad you still enjoy it. I watch it once a week now, maybe. That's just
how things go.

I agree with everything you said. When you put it like that, it has
declined. But over the last three years, considering the pitiful state
of cable news (infotainment), I found FRONTLINE still to be one of those
beacons you mentioned. I think they've been cowed some by all this
right-wing talk about shutting it down, and I find it very brash to be
doing some of the stuff they're doing. NOW is another good one for
showing some very bad stuff that's otherwise going under the radar.

I agree with you about the horrible state of cable news (or network news,
for that matter). I don't watch it, at all. I just go online. When I was at
my dealer recently getting the car serviced, I was almost slack-jawed with
MSNBC on the waiting room TV. People actually watch that shit? And believe
it?

I readily admit PBS has still good shows--just no more than several other
channels, which is the big change. In the past couple of months I can recall
two excellent PBS shows: the American Masters show about Ahmet Ertegun, and
the Bill Moyers special on how the press was (willingly) asleep on Bush's
bullshit war in Iraq.

[David Oberman]

Post by Alric Knebel
I've watched it since the 80s. And it doesn't change a thing that I said.

Let me add my admiration for "American Experience" to the thread.
Also, the series "Soundstage" has had some interesting musical acts on
over the years, such as Rickie Lee Jones, John Hiatt & Lyle Lovett.
But I still say that some PBS stations are much better than others.





____
Chuala me an smoilin 's an londubh a ra
Gur ealiagh mo ghra thar saile

-- Traditional

[Alric Knebel]

Post by David Oberman

Post by Alric Knebel
I've watched it since the 80s. And it doesn't change a thing that I said.

Let me add my admiration for "American Experience" to the thread.
Also, the series "Soundstage" has had some interesting musical acts on
over the years, such as Rickie Lee Jones, John Hiatt & Lyle Lovett.
But I still say that some PBS stations are much better than others.

I was trying to think of that show in my post, the OTHER music show (I
mentioned Austin City Limits), and that was it, Soundstage. I knew
there was another music show. I've seen some very surprising people on
there. Like Russel Crowe's band (and he was very, very good).

There's a variety of good stuff on PBS, and it's way off the beaten track.

[Kingo Gondo]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by David Oberman

Post by Alric Knebel
I've watched it since the 80s. And it doesn't change a thing that I said.

Let me add my admiration for "American Experience" to the thread.
Also, the series "Soundstage" has had some interesting musical acts on
over the years, such as Rickie Lee Jones, John Hiatt & Lyle Lovett.
But I still say that some PBS stations are much better than others.

I was trying to think of that show in my post, the OTHER music show (I
mentioned Austin City Limits), and that was it, Soundstage. I knew
there was another music show. I've seen some very surprising people on
there. Like Russel Crowe's band (and he was very, very good).
There's a variety of good stuff on PBS, and it's way off the beaten track.

Hey, my SO liked some ballroom dancing series they had--and I didn't
complain, since it had a LOT of hot chicks, scantily dressed (mostly Russian
emigres, it seemed).

[StormChaser]

Post by Kingo Gondo

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by David Oberman

Post by Alric Knebel
I've watched it since the 80s. And it doesn't change a thing that I

said.

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by David Oberman
Let me add my admiration for "American Experience" to the thread.
Also, the series "Soundstage" has had some interesting musical acts on
over the years, such as Rickie Lee Jones, John Hiatt & Lyle Lovett.
But I still say that some PBS stations are much better than others.

I was trying to think of that show in my post, the OTHER music show (I
mentioned Austin City Limits), and that was it, Soundstage. I knew
there was another music show. I've seen some very surprising people on
there. Like Russel Crowe's band (and he was very, very good).
There's a variety of good stuff on PBS, and it's way off the beaten track.

Hey, my SO liked some ballroom dancing series they had--and I didn't
complain, since it had a LOT of hot chicks, scantily dressed (mostly Russian
emigres, it seemed).

Yeah, they don't teach ballroom dancing in high school these days
unless you are a troubled minority youth who needs to learn it
in order to build self-esteem and social skills.

[Anne Budgell]

Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:12:00 GMT
Subject: Re: How Bad Are Current Films ?

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.
They keep running these ghastly musical "specials" featuring balding 60s
dinosaur acts like James Taylor, Peter, Paul and Mary, or the Moody Blues
playing to audiences of portly white-haired 60-somethings who seem to be
lost in teary nostalgia for their long-vanished youth. It's like watching a
marginally hipper version of the Lawrence Welk show. Do the people in these
audiences have one CD in their collections (if they've moved up to CDs, that
is) that was recorded in the past 35 years? It's a pathetic excuse for
cultural programming, and I say that as one who's old enough to have caught
most of these acts in their late-60s prime (but who outgrew them decades
ago).

If PBS wants to survive as anything culturally relevant, they need to do a
major rethink and start presenting some musical programming that not only
appeals to people (well) under 50 (without pandering to the MTV crowd), but
that also reflects the vast array of alternative-to-the-mainstream music(s)
out there, whether progressive jazz, alt-folk, indie rock, alt-country,
worldbeat, or what-have-you. (And I don't mean Blue Man Group, thanks.) To
cite only two of many possible examples, I'd love to see a PBS broadcast of
a Richard Thompson or Cecil Taylor concert (while they may be in the same
age range, their gigs are a hell of a lot more creatively and musically
stimulating than that 12-year-old Pink Floyd concert PBS keeps re-running
during every pledge drive). PBS is dying of atrophy and timidity, and its
seeming target audience will soon start dying of old age. And that could be
so easily fixed.
GMW

[StormChaser]

Post by Anne Budgell

Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:12:00 GMT
Subject: Re: How Bad Are Current Films ?

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.
They keep running these ghastly musical "specials" featuring balding 60s
dinosaur acts like James Taylor, Peter, Paul and Mary, or the Moody Blues
playing to audiences of portly white-haired 60-somethings who seem to be
lost in teary nostalgia for their long-vanished youth. It's like watching a
marginally hipper version of the Lawrence Welk show. Do the people in these
audiences have one CD in their collections (if they've moved up to CDs, that
is) that was recorded in the past 35 years? It's a pathetic excuse for
cultural programming, and I say that as one who's old enough to have caught
most of these acts in their late-60s prime (but who outgrew them decades
ago).
If PBS wants to survive as anything culturally relevant, they need to do a
major rethink and start presenting some musical programming that not only
appeals to people (well) under 50 (without pandering to the MTV crowd), but
that also reflects the vast array of alternative-to-the-mainstream music(s)
out there, whether progressive jazz, alt-folk, indie rock, alt-country,
worldbeat, or what-have-you. (And I don't mean Blue Man Group, thanks.) To
cite only two of many possible examples, I'd love to see a PBS broadcast of
a Richard Thompson or Cecil Taylor concert (while they may be in the same
age range, their gigs are a hell of a lot more creatively and musically
stimulating than that 12-year-old Pink Floyd concert PBS keeps re-running
during every pledge drive). PBS is dying of atrophy and timidity, and its
seeming target audience will soon start dying of old age. And that could be
so easily fixed.
GMW

Did you ever see that episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer pledges
$10,000.00 (that he doesn't have) just to get back to the program he
was
watching and gets hunted down by everyone from Mr. Rogers to Big Bird?

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Anne Budgell

Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:12:00 GMT
Subject: Re: How Bad Are Current Films ?

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.
They keep running these ghastly musical "specials" featuring balding 60s
dinosaur acts like James Taylor, Peter, Paul and Mary, or the Moody Blues
playing to audiences of portly white-haired 60-somethings who seem to be
lost in teary nostalgia for their long-vanished youth. It's like watching a
marginally hipper version of the Lawrence Welk show. Do the people in these
audiences have one CD in their collections (if they've moved up to CDs, that
is) that was recorded in the past 35 years? It's a pathetic excuse for
cultural programming, and I say that as one who's old enough to have caught
most of these acts in their late-60s prime (but who outgrew them decades
ago).

Evidently you don't watch enough PBS to know what's really going on.
Those shows are not PBS's regular lineup. The ONLY time they play is
during pledge drives. But I did catch Sarah Brightman during one of
those, and she's modern. They've also had Josh Groban, the Blue Man
Group, and that guy who makes ambient music. PBS's regular schedule
includes the opera stuff, and on Saturday's there's Austin City Limits.
Your criticism shows that you simply NEVER watch PBS.

Post by Anne Budgell
If PBS wants to survive as anything culturally relevant, they need to do a
major rethink and start presenting some musical programming that not only
appeals to people (well) under 50 (without pandering to the MTV crowd), but
that also reflects the vast array of alternative-to-the-mainstream music(s)
out there, whether progressive jazz, alt-folk, indie rock, alt-country,
worldbeat, or what-have-you. (And I don't mean Blue Man Group, thanks.) To
cite only two of many possible examples, I'd love to see a PBS broadcast of
a Richard Thompson or Cecil Taylor concert (while they may be in the same
age range, their gigs are a hell of a lot more creatively and musically
stimulating than that 12-year-old Pink Floyd concert PBS keeps re-running
during every pledge drive). PBS is dying of atrophy and timidity, and its
seeming target audience will soon start dying of old age. And that could be
so easily fixed.
GMW

Again, these music shows are only during pledge drives. It's not part
of the regular schedule.

[Anne Budgell]

Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:08:26 -0500
Subject: Re: How Bad Are Current Films ?

Post by Anne Budgell

Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:12:00 GMT
Subject: Re: How Bad Are Current Films ?

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

When did you start watching PBS?
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.
They keep running these ghastly musical "specials" featuring balding 60s
dinosaur acts like James Taylor, Peter, Paul and Mary, or the Moody Blues
playing to audiences of portly white-haired 60-somethings who seem to be
lost in teary nostalgia for their long-vanished youth. It's like watching a
marginally hipper version of the Lawrence Welk show. Do the people in these
audiences have one CD in their collections (if they've moved up to CDs, that
is) that was recorded in the past 35 years? It's a pathetic excuse for
cultural programming, and I say that as one who's old enough to have caught
most of these acts in their late-60s prime (but who outgrew them decades
ago).

Evidently you don't watch enough PBS to know what's really going on.
Those shows are not PBS's regular lineup. The ONLY time they play is
during pledge drives. But I did catch Sarah Brightman during one of
those, and she's modern. They've also had Josh Groban, the Blue Man
Group, and that guy who makes ambient music. PBS's regular schedule
includes the opera stuff, and on Saturday's there's Austin City Limits.
Your criticism shows that you simply NEVER watch PBS.

You're right; having pretty much lost interest in PBS, I seldom watch the
network anymore on anything like a dedicated basis (about the only TV
channel I watch with any regularity is TCM). But I didn't use the word
"modern", nor did I mean to equate modernity with virtue. That would be
grossly ingenuous in a cultural context and grotesquely at odds with my
cultural tastes. Go back and re-read my post, and read my other response
(sent just before this one) for an idea of what I'd like to see on PBS-- in
my dreams, of course.

[Calvin]

Post by Anne Budgell
I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.
They keep running these ghastly musical "specials" featuring balding 60s
dinosaur acts like James Taylor, Peter, Paul and Mary, or the Moody Blues
playing to audiences of portly white-haired 60-somethings who seem to be
lost in teary nostalgia for their long-vanished youth. It's like watching a
marginally hipper version of the Lawrence Welk show. ...

I'm not in those audiences, nor watching them on PBS, having
had enough of all that long ago, and gone classical. You can't
beat those European dead white males after all.

But tell me please, who are the modern equivalents of
Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, et al? In all the years since
the late 60s and early 70s I've never happened on anything
on the radio on on juke boxes that comes close to those
great bands and singer/songwriters.

If you're going to complain about old people's likes, show something
that today's young are doing musically that is of the same
quality or stature. I doubt that you can. All you are likely to
showcase is popularity. There will always be popularity, no
matter the level of quality.

[El Klauso]

If Public Television and/or NPR sucks, you can blame yourself - for
not insisting of your legislators that it be a fully-supported and
independent broadcast service.

As Public Broadcasting funding is currently constituted, PBS stations
have to beg at the Federal, State and in some cases local government
levels, grovel before corporations, and constantly shriek about alms
from viewers and listeners. This supplicant position does nothing to
encourage autonomy, courageous programming or a long-term view of the
role that Public TV/NPR should occupy.

Only funding sufficient to create meaningful programming as well as
autonomy from government control or intervention can create a viable
Public Television/NPR, and I don't see any signs of the political will
which might make that happen.

[Calvin]

Post by El Klauso
Only funding sufficient to create meaningful programming as well as
autonomy from government control or intervention can create a viable
Public Television/NPR, and I don't see any signs of the political will
which might make that happen.

I don't know about PBS, but anti-conservatism, anti-Republicanism,
and anti-Bushism are alive and well on NPR, so you need not be
complaining about government control or intervention concerning NPR.

[El Klauso]

Not complaining, bub. Just noting what is needed to make Pub TV/NPR
autonomous.

[Richard Schultz]

In article <***@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Calvin <***@windstream.net> wrote:

: I don't know about PBS, but anti-conservatism, anti-Republicanism,
: and anti-Bushism are alive and well on NPR, so you need not be
: complaining about government control or intervention concerning NPR.

How many people listen to NPR? How many people watch Fox News?

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."

[Anim8rFSK]

Post by El Klauso
If Public Television and/or NPR sucks, you can blame yourself - for
not insisting of your legislators that it be a fully-supported and
independent broadcast service.

Or insisting it not be publicly funded at all.

[El Klauso]

In which case it is no longer Public.

[David Johnston]

Post by Calvin

Post by Anne Budgell
I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.
They keep running these ghastly musical "specials" featuring balding 60s
dinosaur acts like James Taylor, Peter, Paul and Mary, or the Moody Blues
playing to audiences of portly white-haired 60-somethings who seem to be
lost in teary nostalgia for their long-vanished youth. It's like watching a
marginally hipper version of the Lawrence Welk show. ...

I'm not in those audiences, nor watching them on PBS, having
had enough of all that long ago, and gone classical. You can't
beat those European dead white males after all.
But tell me please, who are the modern equivalents of
Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, et al?

Yes, who can match the lyrical sophistication of:

I can't get no satisfaction
I can't get no satistaction
I can't get no satisfaction
I can't get no girl reaction

Hey! He finally thought of a rhyme!

[t***@juno.com]

Post by Calvin
But tell me please, who are the modern equivalents of
Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, et al? In all the years since
the late 60s and early 70s I've never happened on anything
on the radio on on juke boxes that comes close to those
great bands and singer/songwriters.

I remember my parents saying the same thing in the sixties, comparing
The Beatles, Bob Dylan et al. to Glen Miller and Benny Goodman. What
will last and be considered great tomorrow will be decided by today's
youth.

[Magnus, Robot Fighter.]

Post by t***@juno.com

Post by Calvin
But tell me please, who are the modern equivalents of
Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, et al? In all the years since
the late 60s and early 70s I've never happened on anything
on the radio on on juke boxes that comes close to those
great bands and singer/songwriters.

I remember my parents saying the same thing in the sixties, comparing
The Beatles, Bob Dylan et al. to Glen Miller and Benny Goodman. What
will last and be considered great tomorrow will be decided by today's
youth.

enh...not so much true. Video killed the radio star. Aside from Beck
and maybe Nirvana, name one mainstream great act that came out of the
90's.

Even actually talented groups like:

Scissor Sisters
Modest Mouse
Mars Volta

will barely be remembered in a few years.

OutKast may have staying power though.

[steve]

On 12-Jun-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Magnus, Robot Fighter."

Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter.
enh...not so much true. Video killed the radio star. Aside from Beck
and maybe Nirvana, name one mainstream great act that came out of the
90's.

I guess "Janes Addiction" is the late 80s, but that was one ferocious and
quite musical rock band.

Korn is pretty talented bunch. 80s again? Rage AtM's first CD was very
cool. After that they were disappointing.

Black Crowes..those guys are cool, and, AHA, that's the certainly the 90s.
"Amorica" and "Southern Harmony" are both awesome.

steve

[Magnus, Robot Fighter.]

Post by steve
On 12-Jun-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Magnus, Robot Fighter."

Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter.
enh...not so much true. Video killed the radio star. Aside from Beck
and maybe Nirvana, name one mainstream great act that came out of the
90's.

I guess "Janes Addiction" is the late 80s, but that was one ferocious and
quite musical rock band.
Korn is pretty talented bunch. 80s again? Rage AtM's first CD was very
cool. After that they were disappointing.
Black Crowes..those guys are cool, and, AHA, that's the certainly the 90s.
"Amorica" and "Southern Harmony" are both awesome.
steve

Agreed on all except the Black Crowes (they just never did anything
for me) and if we're going to go with Jane's Addiction and RATM, we
may as well throw in NIN. But are they as mainstream as say The Who,
or Elton John was?

Which brings us to what may be the reason we don't see acts with as
much staying power as The Stones or Bob Dylan: Music has become
extremely diversified.

Example: The Killers are as talented as any mainstream group today,
but will we see them play the Superbowl in twenty years? I can't think
of any group today with that much staying power.

[t***@juno.com]

Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter.
Which brings us to what may be the reason we don't see acts with as
much staying power as The Stones or Bob Dylan: Music has become
extremely diversified.
Example: The Killers are as talented as any mainstream group today,
but will we see them play the Superbowl in twenty years? I can't think
of any group today with that much staying power.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Who knows? A lot of people whe were 40-50 in 1964, had you asked them
would have doubted that The Beatles or Dylan would still be major
foeces in music into the 21st century.

You may not like, or be even aware of what's going on in music today.
But when today's 15-25 year olds are in their 30-40s' they will look
back to today's pop music nostalgically. And they to will bemoan the
next generations lack of quality in their music. It's just the way it
goes.

Face it. Not liking the current trends/artists in music is just a rite
of passage. It means we're getting older As long as teens rebel,
music will change. And as long as youth moves into middle-age,
parents will not like it!

[Magnus, Robot Fighter.]

Post by t***@juno.com

Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter.
Which brings us to what may be the reason we don't see acts with as
much staying power as The Stones or Bob Dylan: Music has become
extremely diversified.
Example: The Killers are as talented as any mainstream group today,
but will we see them play the Superbowl in twenty years? I can't think
of any group today with that much staying power.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Who knows? A lot of people whe were 40-50 in 1964, had you asked them
would have doubted that The Beatles or Dylan would still be major
foeces in music into the 21st century.
You may not like, or be even aware of what's going on in music today.
But when today's 15-25 year olds are in their 30-40s' they will look
back to today's pop music nostalgically. And they to will bemoan the
next generations lack of quality in their music. It's just the way it
goes.
Face it. Not liking the current trends/artists in music is just a rite
of passage. It means we're getting older As long as teens rebel,
music will change. And as long as youth moves into middle-age,
parents will not like it!

That's the thing. There's nothing rebellious about Snow Patrol,
Coldplay, Modest Mouse, The Killers, Maroon 5 and Green Day WISHES
they were edgy.....etc....etc....Rap has filled those shoes, helping
to create a huge diversification in music.

American Idol sure doesn't help either turning millions of kids onto
the edgy Clay Aiken and Punk Rock sounds of Carrie Underwood.

For fucks sake I doubt Avril Lavinge could name two Ramones by name,
but she sure wears their t-shirts. It's all corporate and image-driven
now my friend and the old rules don't apply anymore.

[Calvin]

Post by t***@juno.com

Post by Calvin
But tell me please, who are the modern equivalents of
Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, et al? In all the years since
the late 60s and early 70s I've never happened on anything
on the radio on on juke boxes that comes close to those
great bands and singer/songwriters.

I remember my parents saying the same thing in the sixties, comparing
The Beatles, Bob Dylan et al. to Glen Miller and Benny Goodman. What
will last and be considered great tomorrow will be decided by today's
youth.

Who think they're the coolest of the cool (or kewl, whatever).
But they and their tastes will in turn be scorned by the
youth to follow them.

[Anne Budgell]

Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:37:03 -0700
Subject: Re: How Bad Are Current Films ?

Post by Anne Budgell
I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.
They keep running these ghastly musical "specials" featuring balding 60s
dinosaur acts like James Taylor, Peter, Paul and Mary, or the Moody Blues
playing to audiences of portly white-haired 60-somethings who seem to be
lost in teary nostalgia for their long-vanished youth. It's like watching a
marginally hipper version of the Lawrence Welk show. ...

I'm not in those audiences, nor watching them on PBS, having
had enough of all that long ago, and gone classical. You can't
beat those European dead white males after all.
But tell me please, who are the modern equivalents of
Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, et al? In all the years since
the late 60s and early 70s I've never happened on anything
on the radio on on juke boxes that comes close to those
great bands and singer/songwriters.
If you're going to complain about old people's likes, show something
that today's young are doing musically that is of the same
quality or stature. I doubt that you can. All you are likely to
showcase is popularity. There will always be popularity, no
matter the level of quality.

Hello:
Would you do me a favor and actually read my entire post before you respond
to it? Notably the section that reads:

...If PBS wants to survive as anything culturally relevant, they need to do
a major rethink and start presenting some musical programming that not only
appeals to people (well) under 50 (without pandering to the MTV crowd), but
that also reflects the vast array of alternative-to-the-mainstream music(s)
out there, whether progressive jazz, alt-folk, indie rock, alt-country,
worldbeat, or what-have-you. (And I don't mean Blue Man Group, thanks.) To
cite only two of many possible examples, I'd love to see a PBS broadcast of
a Richard Thompson or Cecil Taylor concert...

Not being a fan of modern rock/pop, I have no particular interest in seeing
the Arctic Monkeys, the Killers, or Arcade Fire (mild curiosity, but no real
interest). But there's enormous quantities of superb music(s) that get no
representation in mainstream American media, much less on American
television, and PBS could perform a wonderful service by presenting some of
it. How about documentaries on Dock Boggs, Roscoe Holcomb, Howlin' Wolf, Son
House, Moondog, Doc Watson, Elliot Carter, or Harry Partch, just for
starters? Hardly the stuff of huge ratings, but who else is going to present
stuff like that? CBS? Let's see a little creative imagination here.

[l***@my-deja.com]

Post by Anne Budgell

Post by Kingo Gondo
It is mere shadow of its former self (60s-80s). At this point it is also an
anachronism--almost all of its former functions are now done elsewhere (and
certainly done better than the current PBS does them). Aside from "American
Masters" and the occasional special, it is pretty much a zero to me.

I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.
They keep running these ghastly musical "specials" featuring balding 60s
dinosaur acts like James Taylor, Peter, Paul and Mary, or the Moody Blues
playing to audiences of portly white-haired 60-somethings who seem to be
lost in teary nostalgia for their long-vanished youth. It's like watching a
marginally hipper version of the Lawrence Welk show. Do the people in these
audiences have one CD in their collections (if they've moved up to CDs, that
is) that was recorded in the past 35 years? It's a pathetic excuse for
cultural programming, and I say that as one who's old enough to have caught
most of these acts in their late-60s prime (but who outgrew them decades
ago).
If PBS wants to survive as anything culturally relevant, they need to do a
major rethink and start presenting some musical programming that not only
appeals to people (well) under 50 (without pandering to the MTV crowd), but
that also reflects the vast array of alternative-to-the-mainstream music(s)
out there, whether progressive jazz, alt-folk, indie rock, alt-country,
worldbeat, or what-have-you. (And I don't mean Blue Man Group, thanks.) To
cite only two of many possible examples, I'd love to see a PBS broadcast of
a Richard Thompson or Cecil Taylor concert (while they may be in the same
age range, their gigs are a hell of a lot more creatively and musically
stimulating than that 12-year-old Pink Floyd concert PBS keeps re-running
during every pledge drive). PBS is dying of atrophy and timidity, and its
seeming target audience will soon start dying of old age. And that could be
so easily fixed.
GMW

As another baby boomer, I totally agree with you. There's so much
interesting music programming out there (and from around the world)
that never gets shown on PBS. I actually program classical, jazz and
world music concerts and documentaries from other countries for a
University-based cable channel in a large American city and this is
all stuff that the producers would LOVE to sell to PBS first. Instead,
what does PBS give us? Another oldies concert! Performed before an
audience of middle-aged people reliving their teenage years. Navel-
gazing, self-absorbed boomers who can't seem to open up their eyes and
ears to new stuff going on all around them--outside of the mainstream.
I'm big on Asian pop music myself, but I have to go through all sorts
of out-of-the-way channels to feed my tastes in music. But that's
another story.

[David Oberman]

Post by l***@my-deja.com
As another baby boomer, I totally agree with you. There's so much
interesting music programming out there (and from around the world)
that never gets shown on PBS. I actually program classical, jazz and
world music concerts and documentaries from other countries for a
University-based cable channel in a large American city and this is
all stuff that the producers would LOVE to sell to PBS first. Instead,
what does PBS give us? Another oldies concert! Performed before an
audience of middle-aged people reliving their teenage years. Navel-
gazing, self-absorbed boomers

The atrocity "Celtic Women" has been running almost continually on the
PBS stations in So Cal for a couple of years, at least. It's all part
of that pseudo-Celtic fad that has infected the public & pop culture,
from "River Dance" to the "Titanic" soundtrack (the New Yorker music
critic wrote a great piece on that silly thing) to Loreena McBobbitt
or whatever her name is to the Jackson-Tolkien movie soundtracks to
"Celtic Women" & beyond.

When I think of PBS these days, I can't help thinking of crystals
hanging in gift shop windows in Carmel, the boutique air heavy with
the scent of champaka & sandalwood & the sounds of uilleann pipes,
dulcimers, & the plaintive cooing of Loreena McBobbitt soundalikes.





____
Chuala me an smoilin 's an londubh a ra
Gur ealiagh mo ghra thar saile

-- Traditional

[Calvin]

Post by David Oberman
When I think of PBS these days, I can't help thinking of crystals
hanging in gift shop windows in Carmel, the boutique air heavy with
the scent of champaka & sandalwood & the sounds of uilleann pipes,
dulcimers, & the plaintive cooing of Loreena McBobbitt soundalikes.

Found by doing a Google search on Loreena McBobbitt:

"I feel the same way about Loreena McKennitt (but not Lorena
McBobbitt unless she takes up the harp instead of the knife)."

[Cindy Hamilton]

Post by Anne Budgell
I'm so fed up with PBS's constant courting of the aging-boomer demographic.

Who do you think sends them money? The boomers represent a big
part of their funding; it only makes sense that they'd court them.

When younger people rack up the big pledge numbers, you'll see PBS
address that demographic.

Cindy Hamilton

[S D]

Not on NYC PBS : books, dance , classical music, art, plays

[Heynony]

Post by Anne Budgell
Do the people in these
audiences have one CD in their collections (if they've moved up to CDs, that
is) that was recorded in the past 35 years?

No. I looked. I was quite surprised.

(In the spirit of your inquiry I excluded re-do's)

I've certainly bought tons of CDs with more contemporary music, but
given all of them to people I thought might appreciate them more. Maybe
I lost a few, because I certainly remember enjoying some immensely.

An interesting exercise. Thanks.

[David Oberman]

Post by Alric Knebel
That's really not true at all, week to week. Most of the programming is
top notch during prime time. Those pledge drives come around now and
again, but when I think of the trade off, I'm okay with them.

I'm partly right (so I'm partly wrong). The L.A. station, KCET, has a
good lineup of shows in prime time throughout this week. I just
checked the schedule: stuff like "Nova" & "Frontline" & "Ella: The
First Lady of Song" &c.

But KOCE, the Orange County station, plays mostly crud. Tonight's
lineup is: "Inside OC: Celebrity Kickboxing" (crud), "Dr. Christiane
Northrup: Menopause & Beyond--New Wisdom for Women," "Ageless Skin:
Secrets from Dr. Denese," & "Dollar$ & Sense." Tomorrow night is
"Rolling Stones' Rock 'n' Roll Circus," "Nova" (usually played later
than on KCET), & "Rich Dad's Guide to Wealth with Robert Kiyosaki."
KOCE programming is just a lot of pseudoscience & facile personal
finance advice.

But where's the opera on PBS these days? Is "Live From the Met" even
on PBS any more? That & many other opera broadcasts used to be aired
several times throughout the week -- I grew up on it. We would see
things like Joanne Woodward introduce "Les contes d'Hoffmann" &
Bernstein rehearsing "Fidelio" & Bubbles Sills who put the bel in bel
canto & Scatman Crothers put the smackjack in the Siegfried, &c.





____
Chuala me an smoilin 's an londubh a ra
Gur ealiagh mo ghra thar saile

-- Traditional