Miriam Meislik wrote:
> One of the reasons for the discrepancy, is that today's youth have
> lower expectations of their media. To them it is a consumable,
> something to be enjoyed now. Longevity is not really a consideration
> in their minds, so the quality doesn't have to be as good to them. I
> think they also have much lower expectations from their media. We
> didn't grow up with media in this way. We have higher expecatations
> and also expect some level of longevity in our media.
Yep, I can remember when a 45 RPM record was the big thing for the
latest "hits", and the LP album was for older folk who had time to stop
and listen. It was and is, I think, that youth feels it has so little
time when there is so much to do. It's like a feeding frenzy when
there is so much to sample with that excitement that comes with
limitless energy. So, it makes sense that they will want to have
everything at once if they can.
> I completly agree with Tom's assesment that each generation has their
> own ideal and threshhold. I recall sharing an album with my
> grandfather, he was probably in his late 60's at the time, I thought
> it sounded wonderful, all he did was complain about the sound and talk
> about "echo chambers" (his words) and how people didn't sing anymore.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> ...the youngsters seem to derive much more stimulus and deep
>>> enjoyment from a visual experience on a blurry 2x2 screen than I or
>>> people my age (41) or older are likely to. These kids... have a
>>> whole different set of habits and processes for enjoying imagery.
>>> Point is, each generation since the industrial revolution has a
>>> different set of visual stimuli and each forms different habits and
>>> adjustment mechanisms to meld the moving images into their version
>>> of reality.
>>> -- Tom Fine