5 Complaints About Modern Life (That Are Statistically BS) - CRACKED

Link

#1 makes me so happy, and I hope it shuts a lot of people here up.

music has been going downhill since Guido of Arezzo created notation.

Just going to be serious here for a second, saw that the writer of the article stated that stuff that was "trash" in Mozart's time wasn't published, or just not played. I just wanted to add that back even earlier, a lot of music was notated, but then was erased and re-written. Music that was only for a specific function, and when the function was done, it was no longer needed

Link

#1 makes me so happy, and I hope it shuts a lot of people here up.

Razor-Lazor

I didn't understand their reasoning with number 1 at all. DreamnDayUnite

makes total sense to me, actually.

I've not heard anyone who has meant it when they say that music today is all trash, I don't know where they are getting that idea from, the sheltered eldery homes?

The first one is probably a US biased thing because here in the UK things are more expensive, the cost of living is jumping up, houses are unaffordable even what they consider affordable housing is about 150% more expensive then what it was twenty years ago.

Agree with what they say about the food stuff, people do complain about modern day process stuff but in the olde days they eat much worse stuff because they didn't know it was bad for them, some of it anyway.

Number 1 kinda surprised me.

Good list.

Sugar, sugar.

Oh honey, honey.

You are my candy girl, and you've got me wanting you. =3

Ah cracked, I love thee.

Also LOL at Sony NGP already being in cracked article (less then a week after announced)

That article was interesting. I definetely agree with #1 because it reminds me of all the idiots on youtube.

Sugar, sugar.

Oh honey, honey.

You are my candy girl, and you've got me wanting you. =3

no_more_fayth

i love that song

The first one is probably a US biased thing

Evil_Saluki

It's "America's Only Humor and Video Site Since 1958". :P

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

Sugar, sugar.

Oh honey, honey.

You are my candy girl, and you've got me wanting you. =3

spawnassasin

i love that song

Me too.

It's better than "Gimme Shelter."

And I like that song as well.

Number 5 is so ****ing true.

All stuff I've always thought. More people need to read this. I'm tired of hearing conservatives talk about the non-existent "good old days" where crime was lower, everyone had more money, and pop culture was better.gameguy6700

The evidence provided for number 1 is a massive contradiction. I mean for albums from 2000 - 2010 you have:

N-Sync, The Beatles, Eminem 50 Cent, Usher, 50 Cent, Carrie Underwood, Daughtry, Alicia Keys, Taylor Swift and Susan Boyle (yuck).

Granted not all of that is terrible, just most of it. It also has a band from the 60's. By comparison the 70's had:

Simon and Garfunkel, War, Elton John, Elton John, Peter Frampton, Fleetwood Mac, "Saturday Night Fever", Billy Joel and Pink Floyd.

It may not be the absolute best selection, but I think I know what I would go for out of the two. Now music is subjective and all that, but people who seem to think that basing the idea that popular music was always this terrible off of pop charts really need to take a closer look. 1. Because the charts say otherwise. 2. Because it's not a very good argument anyway, as a lot of great artists were looked down upon by the general public in those years anyway. That might be true now as well to an extent, but in terms of what we consider popular music now there isn't much to support that. That's all subjective and everything, there's lots of different genres and stuff, and that's really up to you and your personal taste, but the main problem here is that last point is clearly not statistically BS, and it's the No 1 point. You could say, "Well that's subjective.", and in which case I dare you to go and listen to Susan Boyle and then say it again. It's perfectly reasonable to say popular music isn't as good now as it was in the past. This is also only an American chart, the British one would be a LOT different. And Sugar Sugar is awesome.

The evidence provided for number 1 is a massive contradiction. I mean for albums from 2000 - 2010 you have:

N-Sync, The Beatles, Eminem 50 Cent, Usher, 50 Cent, Carrie Underwood, Daughtry, Alicia Keys, Taylor Swift and Susan Boyle (yuck).

Granted not all of that is terrible, just most of it. It also has a band from the 60's. By comparison the 70's had:

Simon and Garfunkel, War, Elton John, Elton John, Peter Frampton, Fleetwood Mac, "Saturday Night Fever", Billy Joel and Pink Floyd.

It may not be the absolute best selection, but I think I know what I would go for out of the two. Now music is subjective and all that, but people seem to think that basing the idea that popular music was always this terrible off of pop charts really need to take a closer look. 1. Because the charts say otherwise. 2. Because it's not a very good argument anyway, as a lot of great artists were looked down upon by the general public in those years anyway. That might be true now as well to an extent, but in terms of what we consider popular music now there isn't much to support that. That's all subjective and everything, there's lots of different genres and stuff, and that's really up to you and your personal taste, but the main problem here is that last point is clearly not statistically BS, and it's the No 1 point. You could say, "Well that's subjective.", and in which case I dare you to go and listen to Susan Boyle and then say it again. It's perfectly reasonable to say popular music isn't as good now as it was in the past. This is also only an American chart, the British one would be a LOT different. And Sugar Sugar is awesome.

WasntAvailable

I didn't understand their reasoning with number 1 at all. DreamnDayUnite

That the ratio of good to bad music has always been the same. It's just that the rubbish forgettable stuff is the stuff that gets forgotten and the good memorable stuff is the stuff that gets remembered.

Bad music wasn't invented in 2000. There was so much manufactured, derivative, commerical, f***ing awful music made between 1960 and 1999 it's not even funny.

Pretty good article. #1 is true,

Number one won't shut anyone on here up. People have been saying that in every music thread without fail, no matter what evidence is brought forward. LZ71

But this is also true. :(

I'm not sure how I feel about #3. On one hand its all true, but on the other hand it doesn't really discuss preservatives to any extent.

Number 1 makes no sense. The music of the 90's was wayyyyy better than what we have today.

Sugar Sugar by The Archies is a badass song.

The evidence provided for number 1 is a massive contradiction. I mean for albums from 2000 - 2010 you have:

N-Sync, The Beatles, Eminem 50 Cent, Usher, 50 Cent, Carrie Underwood, Daughtry, Alicia Keys, Taylor Swift and Susan Boyle (yuck).

Granted not all of that is terrible, just most of it. It also has a band from the 60's. By comparison the 70's had:

Simon and Garfunkel, War, Elton John, Elton John, Peter Frampton, Fleetwood Mac, "Saturday Night Fever", Billy Joel and Pink Floyd.

WasntAvailable

But that's what they're syaing. You're only listing the music you generallydon't like from 2000-2010 and only listing the music you do like from the 70s.

Number 1 makes no sense. The music of the 90's was wayyyyy better than what we have today.

limpbizkit818

The ONLY thing I don't understand about #5 is this:

It said in the 50's a low-wage worker would earn $1 and hour.

Compare that to today where minimum wage is about $7 an hour.

Now, it also said in the 50's you could buy a "decent" midsize family sedan for $500.

So, you would have to work 500 hours on your $1 wage to earn $500.

So if you work 500 hours today, on a $7 wage, you only earn $3,500.

A decent midsize family sedan today probably costs I would guess about $18,000.

So I don't understand that part...

The '70s had Tony Orlando, Captain & Tennille, and Olivia Newton-John.

The '00s had Brand New, Kings of Leon, and Chiodos.

I can do that too. :)

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

The evidence provided for number 1 is a massive contradiction. I mean for albums from 2000 - 2010 you have:

N-Sync, The Beatles, Eminem 50 Cent, Usher, 50 Cent, Carrie Underwood, Daughtry, Alicia Keys, Taylor Swift and Susan Boyle (yuck).

Granted not all of that is terrible, just most of it. It also has a band from the 60's. By comparison the 70's had:

Simon and Garfunkel, War, Elton John, Elton John, Peter Frampton, Fleetwood Mac, "Saturday Night Fever", Billy Joel and Pink Floyd.

Razor-Lazor

But that's what they're syaing. You're only listing the music you generallydon't like from 2000-2010 and only listing the music you do like from the 70s.

No, that was the list of top albums from 2000 to 2010. I'm not listing the albums I don't like, that is the entire top pop chart. This is what they are using as evidence.

Number 5 is so ****ing true.

coolbeans90

I think # 5 should have been #1.

The '70s had Tony Orlando, Captain & Tennille, and Olivia Newton-John.

The '00s had Brand New, Kings of Leon, and Chiodos.

I can do that too. :)

no_more_fayth

The difference is my list was comprehensive and not cherry picking, it was a direct comparison between top albums from 2000 to 2010 and 1970 to 1980, i.e. the same comparison everyone else makes when trying to make this point. Albums from the 1970's in the chart are considered absolute classics. 50 Cent or Susan Boyle will never be looked back on with the same respect as Simon and Garfunkel or Pink Floyd.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Number 5 is so ****ing true.

dercoo

I think # 5 should have been #1.

I actually think that part of the Cracked article is true.

Not everything in the '60s and '70s were classics.

And what's wrong with Susan Boyle?

She's an amazing operatic singer.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

Number 1 makes no sense. The music of the 90's was wayyyyy better than what we have today.

Razor-Lazor

People must never forget :lol:

I actually think that part of the Cracked article is true.

Not everything in the '60s and '70s were classics.

And what's wrong with Susan Boyle?

She's an amazing operatic singer.

no_more_fayth

Whether you think it's true or not is pretty irrelevant, this article states that it is "statistically BS". Even ignoring that it's subjective in the first place, the evidence provided wouldn't even support that subjectively, if that were even possible.

Also Susan Boyle is vomit inducing.

Also Susan Boyle is vomit inducing.

WasntAvailable

She may not be attractive, but she has a beautiful voice.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

Also Susan Boyle is vomit inducing.

no_more_fayth

She may not be attractive, but she has a beautiful voice.

I meant both musically and physically. Voice isn't everything in music, it's sickly mass produced garbage taking advantage of a creepy anomaly that should have been at best a popular zoo attraction. The fact that her album is the best selling album of 2010 is an insult to music in general. Just my opinion.

Popular music is all trash.

When's the last #1 you were actually dying to hear?

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

Also Susan Boyle is vomit inducing.

WasntAvailable

She may not be attractive, but she has a beautiful voice.

I meant both musically and physically. Voice isn't everything in music, it's sickly mass produced garbage taking advantage of a creepy anomaly that should have been at best a popular zoo attraction. The fact that her album is the best selling album of 2010 is an insult to music in general. Just my opinion.

You mean a slutty, skanky, no-talent pop star didn't have the best selling album of 2010?

I think that's a good thing.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Number 5 is so ****ing true.

BMD004

I think # 5 should have been #1.

First of all, it's a 9:1 ration in between 2010 and 1950 dollars. Secondly, your average car in the 1950's ran for about $1500. Brings your estimate to about $13,500. Third, are you seriously comparing a new car from the 1950s to a new car from 2010?