To what extent is 'popism' borne out of the critic's fear of aging.

Please, for the love of god, I beg you -- never use this phrase again.

Great pop is great pop and I can still derive the same feelings from hearing a great new pop record that I did 30 years ago.

The fact is that the pop music coming out now is generally NOT VERY GOOD, just as it was NOT VERY GOOD in 1976 or 1986 or 1996, and people need to wipe the blinkers from their eyes and realise that.

I don't mean to suggest that most critics (or ILMers) would force themselves to like something they don't actually like because of this, but I think some might at least mute their reactions to new pop they don't like.

Wouldn't it be more fear-of-aging to glom onto "what's popular with The Kids Now" when you're twentysomething, an attempt to regain that excitement of My Very First Genre once more?

Wait, is there such a thing?

Is pop sans shiny packaging still pop?

Penman and Sinker are currently arguing that Boney M > AMM because the latter are snobs and laugh at people who lived and laughed and loved to Boney M.

But millions lived and laughed and loved to the Black and White Minstrels.

Doesn't mean they're actually any good.

no.

I mourn the passing of time. *cries and listens to nothing but Van Morrison because it's REAL, man!*

If suno))) looked and acted like Girls Aloud, they wouldn't be pop.

If suno))) looked like suno))) but sounded like Girls Aloud, they'd be pop.

Or maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here.

How many do you need before it becomes 'a good year for pop'?

What is even the point of measuring these things by year now?

Thats amazing, i had no idea.

Music is long dead, so we browse at the images of genres before selecting that one, claim it to be number one and the best, then listen to the fucking thing before finally deluding ourselves that this is great and means something. This goes for all -ists and everyone.

Except me, of course.

what bit of the word "generally" don't you understand?

How can any year be generally good for pop? When did quality ever exceed quantity?

it's complete bollocks because i was introduced to the concept by people who would consider themselves largely unhip and i would back them up on this.

You can only consider yourself unhip if you listen to folk, son.

I don't know any critic who listens to pop music enough to (a) consider himself a "popist"; (b) wonder whether by listening to Amerie he's drinking the elixir of youth.

in a weird way i think this is cos these deal with 'real life' better than so-called adult movies much of the time. they have the smallness of good indie movies.

Closet paedophilia?

WHAT DOES THAT MAKE MEEEE?

Hmm. I don't know if I've ever seen that stated so directly before. (Probably have, though.)

Anyway, pop and me/us and irony (it's a tangent): I don't like the word "ironic" not cause it doesn't hide a grain of truth but because it's really big and clumsy and shoves too much else in as well as the truth. I nowadays do, absolutely, love pop music. A while ago - a few years maybe - my relationship with it was a bit more complicated. It was something - this is also too crude - I felt I ought to like rather than something I really did like. This is how I'd got into most of the music I now love, mind you.

I felt I ought to like it cause I felt a bit sorry for it. It was always getting beat on by other people, and really it wasn't that bad and it could do with a mate. And I did enjoy it even if deep down I enjoyed other things more.

And then one evening I drunkenly posted somewhere that "Baby One More Time" was the best single of the year. And I got up in the morning and realised that a) there were loads of people telling me to fuck off and not be so ironic and b) I meant every word. And that was it really. It was like that bit in romantic films when leading lady gets dissed or is about to board a train to faraway or takes her glasses off and suddenly densely 'friendly' leading man thinks, blam!

Except pop doesn't love me back. Ah well. That's probably why I listen to Belle And Sebastian.

-- Tom (ebro...), April 11th, 2001.

Shh, you're giving it away!

xpost I've told that story in lots of different ways I think. The 'complex relationship with it' years = most of the 90s I guess. In the 1980s (i.e. as a kid and young teen) I loved pop uncomplicatedly, until at 13-14 or so people I wanted to be like told me I shouldn't.

No, granted, it's just that I find the word choice of 'comfort' terribly intriguing for some reason (I say this neither negatively nor positively). Must be the connotations.

And I will never buy anyone's claim to "not give a flying fuck about taste."

and his last sentence is key: popists are now looking back, it seems to me, to a 'golden age' around the turn of the millennium, that is ancient history to ver pop kids now, who don't seem to give a shit about the designated poptimist heroes.

and so the thing turns in on itself...

I'm over that now because i) I stopped moderating ILM, ii) The battle was lost before it started anyway.

Not for fucking rock critics it would seem, no. But for lotsa other kinds of critics.

Well I think the pop at the turn of the millennium was better than the pop being turned out now, just as ABC and the Human League were better than Owen Paul and Red Box.

1999 was a bad year for pop. 2001 was a fantastic year.

We did a survey on Poptimists once about what the most exciting year (to live through) for pop ever was. Results: 1st - 2003. 2nd - 2005. 3rd - 1999.

I think you can overestimate the 'golden age' stuff.

Anyway, in Britain it's pretty clear the charts have swung from dance-pop to rock, but this has happened any number of times in the past and will swing back sometime in the future. In the end it's just preferring music associated with certain values over music associated with other values, unfortunately.

blimey.

This original qn is quite a good phrasing of something that's been bubbling around LJ/pub discussions recently, to do with the emergence of 'perfect pop' as an idea in the 70s and 80s, and the way that some strains of indie (UK indie in the early 80s) originally characterised themselves as real-pop-in-exile. Popjustice had that feel for a while last year too, which is maybe part of the whole "Racistjustice" slur.

the people i know who i would call most afraid of aging are the ones convinced that all the best music just happened to be made during the years that they were 10-25. (in that sense, the rock 'n' roll hall of fame is a gigantic shrine to the fear of aging -- the canonization of one particular generation's youth.)

ha ha. not for Dance Music, apparently.

Uh, I dunno. Do you not?

!

It all comes back to radical subjectivism and I wait on the sidelines patiently.

this doesn't preclude being into dance music! dance music is really really really good.

Just keep telling yourself that...

true. he's the reason I became an ILM addict. kudos to the lex.

Why not?

like what?

also, what good criticism has ever talked in terms of objective truths?

god forbid this be another lex thread but i guess i/dom wz wondering, what is there to like in paris hilton or (lily allen for example), given their teenage-ness?

why go there?

"no such thing as radical subjectivism.
Why not?"

cos it assumes ur a blank slate, and you aren't. it's all a bit ayn-randy for my liking.

(xxxp)

I don't assume anyone's a blank slate at all! That's the point! There's no ONE mold for experiences and biases!

Kogan?

I guess this is where that term "dahnce music" is applicable again.

Btw, I was hanging out the other night with this friend who loves shit like Cut Copy and Junior Boys and Daft Punk, but when I said something about liking a couple of Britney Spears songs she was incredulous ("You actually LIKE that?"). I guess the artists she likes are a bit more indie and have in common some 1980s fetishization (she does like mainstream R&B from the '80s, too) -- but I was surprised that she couldn't see the similarities in the synth sounds and the joyously ridiculous over-the-topness.

With me, I look for some sort of deep emotional connection far far less than I did in my teens/early 20s. I'm not necessarily talking about being all emo here, although I've definitely got more content with things since then. Now I look for colour, humour, bounce, variation, surprise in music more than anything else and a lot of current pop music delivers that in varying measures.

It's also societal as well - I spend A LOT more time going out and dancing stupidly than I did even four or five years ago. A lot of that time there's a mini-scene around me that's into the same stuff, even if it's unknown to 99% of the rest of the world (exhibit a = Teddybears STHLM - Cobrastyle).

I don't feel like I *have* to engage with Ashlee Simpson or the Paris album partly because I have no interest in doing so. Any more than I have any interest in engaging with the Arctic Monkeys. I'm a bit tired of feeling obliged to keep up, and it's easier to pick and choose what contemporary music you listen to (or ignore) than ever before.

So for me, I think it's more with being cool with the idea of getting older.

(I haven't bothered to read any of this thread because I suspect it's already got all tiresome and meta, where I think everyone's personal rationalisations would be more interesting)

I guess I'd prefer to read people who write that way. I mean I kind of assume there's this tacit understanding most literate people have that all criticism is opinion and that therefore it's okay to phrase it as though it were fact because no one would actually take it as such.

WHAT! ILM?

Sometimes I think this is all it really boils down to - how much you go out dancing.

Any book or song or film that I have liked for some time is soaked in memories of youth. And liking NOW pop might well be about referencing a THEN pop taste from my past. This might amongst other things include a fear of ageing but liking is made up of a whole series of exciting phobias and desires.

'Popism' was one of Andy Warhol's better books - so it's an old phrase.

there's a unconscious physiological & psychological component to this though. music you hear as a child/adolescent/young adult litterally shapes your neural pathways and memory banks. once your brain stops physically developing around age 20, taste becomes a conscious effort. it's no coincidence that most people's -- though not ours! -- intense interest in pop music peaks around age 18-22.

most critics i like to read try to engage w/pop whatever their opinions - if you don't your kinda missing the big picture (pretending britney doesn't exist). which kinda explains another reason for popism because of how full of corny indie fuxx internet 1.0 was full of. but then i've been lurking on ilx for 4 years and i got here by googling for unrest and other sorta obscure indie rock bands.

yeah. one of my least favorite things is to get an hour (or 75 posts) into some critical discussion and have someone say, "oh well, it's all just opinion anyway." of course it's all "just opinion." the interesting thing is what the opinions are based on. i don't need christgau or anyone to constantly assure me that they are aware that what they are saying is "just opinion."

once your brain stops physically developing around age 20, taste becomes a conscious effort.

i don't discount the importance of early influence, but i have trouble with that degree of biological determinism. i like lots of kinds of things now that i had never even heard of when i was 20. it does take some effort to keep finding new things to listen to, but that was true when i was 14, too. really, it's way easier now for me to find all kinds of new and interesting things than it was when i was 14, because of technology. i think it has more to do with levels of curiosity and interest. only a subset of people are intensely curious about/interested in music, and so we pursue it. for a lot of other people, music is more like furniture -- they like to have it around, and they like it to be comfortable, and they would prefer to update it or replace it as infrequently as possible. (and a lot of those people have intense interest/curiosity in topics that hold much less interest for me.) so what i would argue is shaped by early experiences isn't so much particular musical tastes -- although that's a factor -- as interest in music, period. (and whether that's a function of nature or nurture is probably hard to say. do i love music because my dad loves music, or do we both love music because we share a music-loving gene?)

I don't see how pretending Britney doesn't exist is any worse than critics in the past pretending that Fabian or Curiosity Killed the Cat or 98 Degrees didn't exist. The main difference is that Britney was a more successful product, but all are just short-shelf-life oldies fodder for whatever millions of people joined in the short-term mania.

We now have 100 years of recorded music preserved, and covering 1000 years of music; I'd like to see critics engage more with that, rather than with whatever product the PR people have told them is about to drop.

The extent is.. I don't think existent. Yes, anyone my age with legitimate taste only recognizes stuff like King Crimson, Black Flag, Radiohead.. But full-on rockism seems more like a phase you shed to me. Like.. learning to like music that's liked by people you don't like. Assuming most of them started off as raging rockists, which is pretty safe, I think the average aging critic's popism is based more on getting away from his old self than a desire to be relevant.

Also, as an American, I can say that British critics are much more popist than our own (because their mentalities are more socially progressive?).

Cue: discussion of how underdeveloped every thought I just had is.

Popists may accused rockists of being rascist, sexist and homophobes. They aren't. On the other hand, popists are ageists.

The extent is.. I don't think existent. Yes, anyone my age with legitimate taste only recognizes stuff like King Crimson, Black Flag, Radiohead.. But full-on rockism seems more like a phase you shed to me. Like.. learning to like music that's liked by people you don't like. Assuming most of them started off as raging rockists, which is pretty safe, I think the average aging critic's popism is based more on getting away from his old self than a desire to be relevant.

That's a rather insightful, mature, and may I even say precocious comment.

Also, taking the piss. Kind of.

All pop music, not only today but ever since the 60s, is influenced by R&B to some extent or other. Sugababes is a lot more than just R&B.

Um, because cigarettes are laced (wait - LOADED) deliberately with noxious, toxic, and highyl addictive chemicals to MAKE YOU SMOKE ANOTHER ONE, Steve.

"I threw my Pitchfork at your dog to keep quiet!"

Esteban dropped some science

I assume since i am of similar vintage to Morley that I am also 'the enemy'. If so, I guess it would be helpful if I knew who I am the enemy of. Just in case, you know.

Absoultely. And rockism is partly about thinking you're resisting this (although you're really playing right into it) and popism is partly about wholeheartedly accepting it.

But, as I consider popism to be more a UK thing, I've probably gotten this all wrong. Fuck a common language.

(xpost xpost xpost)

There are a fair number of young people trying to carry on the mantle too. They gather at the bar across the street from me every night.

so are you saying that all music is intrinsically unsatisfying, or have you made a conscious decision to only buy unsatisfying ephemeral pleasures?

xpost

so are you saying that all music is intrinsically unsatisfying, or have you made a conscious decision to only buy unsatisfying ephemeral pleasures?

-- guanoman (inf...), September 8th, 2006.

Actually, I didn't really mean to agree with the word "unsatisfying." I don't believe in the idea of any music being intrinsically "unsatisfying." It's more just that there's a culture of needing to keep buying the new music, especially with pop. No 14-year-old would be caught dead, I'd imagine, grooving to a pop song from four or five years ago, with rare exceptions.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN

To ape Marcello, this is spurious bullshit. My girlfriend's brother is 14, self-identifies as a chav, and regularly "grooves" to things 4-5 years old, and older. And new stuff too. His attitude towards music fascinates me.

the difference between 'more songs about buildings and food' and 'fear of music', right kids?

I remember once I was watching this 12-year-old kid and I put on some James Brown. He said "Why are you listening to that OLD music? You want to listen to the same music for the rest of your life?"

(Kind of)agreed.

I have tried to give up the mantle of cool many times, but I have never been successful.

What sticks in my craw (a bit) is the notion that this popist thang is somehow new and vital and is breathing fresh air into decades of accumulated rockist fug. You know there's really nothing new about being chartpop-centred, or simultaneously loving Can, Merzbow, The Bee Gees, The Darkness and Funkadelic.

(Disclaimer : I don't love Merzbow).

you babysat the lex?

haha!

Utopic nonsense.

There are no generational enemies. There are no generations. There are only demographics.

1979 was already the '80s (music-wise). The '70s ended around '76-77.

Something I've been thinking about lately is the three time recycling of the Mickey Mouse Club. Each of them came 20 years apart (well, the 3rd one got popular at the 20 year mark).

1956 - Elvis breaks through for teens, boomer's find their hero. Rock is "teen music" while the aging generation clings to Nelson Riddle arrangements of Tin Pan Alley. Mickey Mouse Club debuts.

1966 - Mickey Mouse Club off the air. Rock begins to come of age with adult overtones.

1977 - The last of the Boomers are nearing the end of the line for being part of youth culture. Generation X has Disco Duck and the Village people to see as living cartoons. Mickey Mouse Club comes back on the air. Boomers who want to survive the change embrace Disco and such. Eventually this dance music finds electronics and gives us Debbie Gibson et al in the early to mid 80's.

1987 - College Rock and facsimilies of begins to leak over the edges attracting the mainstrem slighty ala REM, U2, INXS, etc. The 70's Mickey Mouse Club is long forgotten. Nirvan breaks the floodgates open a few years later.

(1989 - Okay, so the Disney Channel is on cable and needs filler so they resurect Mickey Mouse Club, but I know very few people who were watching it then with any idolization. The cast forms a band that is pretty much forgotten)

1996 - Generation X is beginning to age and are well into their adult themed music stage but the new Mickey Mouse Club is creating icons for a very young generation Y. I believe 1996 was the year the Britneys became part of the cast.

2006 - I wonder if this is the beginning of something, but what do I really know...this is all just a weak reactionary observation.

kids like simple pop -> late teens/twenty somethings want arty 'adult' music - > adults are too busy, tastes become fixed

the few old folks still into music have a few paths they could take (and you could do more than one at the same time): explore genres they know they like further, expand their tastes but only back through time, continue listening to new music, but new music made for old folks, continue on with the arty music the next generation is into these days, listen to the simple pop the kids 2 generations removed are into.

You're neglecting a vast middle ground. Ten years later, for example, Tony Hatch's arrangements for Petula Clark, or Bacharach/David/Warwick for a US example, have a foot both in "teen music" and in Nelson Riddle — it wasn't just kids who listened to Top 40 radio.

1977 - The last of the Boomers are nearing the end of the line for being part of youth culture.

Wikipedia identifies the boom as being 1946-1964, so I'd say 1982 (or so) would be more like it.

The barometer is open to substitutions

is this what you are saying papawheelie?

kids like simple pop -> late teens/twenty somethings want arty 'adult' music - > adults are too busy, tastes become fixed

It's more of a snap-back thing I think.

(x-post)

If I met a 24 year old in 2000, he'd/she'd often be wondering what I was into and what were the roots. But when I met a 24 year old in 2003, they could not care less about my generation's history with music. I see this as a reflection of X having passed on an Y fully in power.

20 year pendulum. 2002 might've been our recent equal point.

With the 60's, you can see something really interesting.

60-63: Most hits of this perioid stil sound like the 50's (Duke Of Earl, Fools Rush In, Sealed with a Kiss, etc.)

64-66: Teen music begins to grow a bit (early Beatles, Dylan working beanth the surface, Motown becoming a faorce)

67-71: This is the supposed apex of bommer's music with supposed arty/substanital content. The cite Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, etc., however, they simply look at teen bubblegum from this time with disdain (Ohio Express, The Archies, 1910 Fruitgum Co., etc)

Ohio Express, The Archies, 1910 Fruitgum Co. were the seeds of Generation X's younger members' taste for kiddy entertainment ala Patridge Family, so by the time Disco was around, boomers bitched about it not living up to the standards of their precioius Classic Rock while Gene X kids simply heard good pop music...but you could find some boomer's embracing Disco, which seems to live up to the intentions of this thread.

See, I always saw "popism" as basically a continuation or reclamation of the ecumenicism of taste that folks like Dave Marsh, Robert Christgau, Greil Marcus useta have (and may still have), as well as the moral imperatives behind them. It was only new insofar as it had been forgotten by those cursed with amnesia or highly selective memories.

I totally totally TOTALLY bought into the '50's re-runs as a kid (had a MMC Weebles set, in fact), and was kinda put off by the shiny jumpsuit '77 version; I admit the '50's MMC may be an unconscious reason why I dig United State of Electronica so much.

But what you're describing is still really more about demographics (and marketing) than generations. As large markets (again, I can only talk about my side of the Atlantic) gained their first FM rock stations, there was now a place for teens and young adults to hear Hendrix/Cream/Airplane (and also, on more-adventurous stations, Coltrane or Ravi Shankar) and not have to suffer a Frank & Nancy Sinatra duet, or Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, or The Archies.

Meanwhile, Top 40 goes on as if nothing happened, and it still services a wide demographic that included a lot of teens and young adults. And you haven't mentioned R&B radio, which had its progressive moments (Norman Whitfield's productions, for example, and early JB-derived funk), but was essentially black Top 40 radio, and provided the roots for the remnants of the discotheque subculture that was eventually mainstreamed as disco, which briefly took over Top 40 and spawned its own radio niche.

True I didn't cite it here, but I surely didn't forget. I had a big crush on Annette at the time...but the B&W factor wasn't that big being about 1/3 of the TV sets I encountered then were B&W anyway.

I agree thousands of times over that there's tons of overlap in this theory/observation, but who likes what is the quesation. For the 60's generation that loved them some teen pop in 1962, they sure hated it in 1968. It was the next generation that bought into it at that point.

But as that generation became the economic powerhouse, the previous generation that was still hanging around acting as youth culture eventually bought into whatever was hot then (ABBA or whatever), which is what I think this thread is suggesting.

Perhaps I should've used quotes...or stated that my background/primary interests aren't "arty/substantial" music.

-- Michael Daddino

otm (for us popism). i was sorta confused when as young aspiring rockist Lester Bangs applauded bubblegum and on the consumer guide (online) Christgau just listened to everything (not that he doesn't have his own blindspots, but he usually owns up them as blindspots! its really more pluralism than 'radical subjectivism' as mentioned way above).

(xpost to PappaWheelie)

But to paraphrase John Lennon, "I don't believe in popism" — it's just a blip on the radar, amplified by the many eloquent people here and elsewhere who strongly like pop enough to write passionately about it.

The "critic's fear of aging" part is more interesting (to me), because the notion of a "rock critic" (one of the memes mentioned above) had its predecessor in the notion of "jazz critic", one of whom, the great Ralph J. Gleason, was a Rolling Stone mainstay. Once I became jazz-aware as a punkrock teenager, I would sneer at the grey eminences — e.g. Whitney Balliett, Leonard Feather — who seemed to ignore post-1960 developments in jazz; they became irrelevant to me.

(Which was my loss, for they were, in retrospect, great.)

But they had, essentially, lifetime gigs, even as jazz progressed from being the popular music, to being a popular music, to being a commercial non-entity in the face of rock and non-jazz pop LPs becoming the driving force of the music industry. Aging isn't an issue when your M.O. isn't about covering products marketed to the youth culture(s) of the day.

Good thread.

The fact is that the pop music coming out now is generally NOT VERY GOOD, just as it was NOT VERY GOOD in 1976 or 1986 or 1996

Pop coming out in 1996 was the best in ages. Pop coming out in 1976 was also great (and sadly washed away by a punk revolution punk that should never happened). Pop in 1986 was not very good, pop in 2006/7 isn't either, but at least better than pop was in 2000/01.

Good thread.

-- Dom Passantino, Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:40 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

with ya boy hongro making an appearance it can only get better.

Is he H to the ongro, M to the izzo?
For shizzle you phony, the rapping version of Sisqo

Btw. the terms Generation X and Generation Y are being mis-used here.

Generation X - born from the late 60s until the mid 70s - were never into disco. We grew up on 80s new wave/new romantics/synthpop and later a lot of Gen X got into "alternative" (grunge, britpop). Today Generation X has mostly settled, but are still buying records by new acts such as Coldplay and Travis.

Generation Y - born from the late 70s until the late 80s - were already in their mid-to-late teens by 1996. They were the ones who made hip-hop and dance popular. They were - maybe because they were the first generation who were told in school and by their parents not to trust grownups (mainly to avoid sex crimes committed against them) - also one of the most ageist generations ever, and preferred to follow their own sports, have their own "slang" to a larger extent than anyone before them, their own very different clothes style (that has seemed to survive longer than most, but is now slowly on the decline), even their own attitudes towards drugs (only a few hippies were ever in favour of drugs out of the 68'ers). Generation Y will be written into history as the "different generation", as the next generation is already about to abandon most of their values and embrace older generations' values.

And they we are onto the next generation. They aren't christened yet, but let's call them Generation Z. Generation Z grew up on the kinds of music that Generation Y gave them, but have now started to investigate older music to find other styles. They love My Chemical Romance, Panic At The Disco, Green Day, The Darkness and old ÀC/DC and Iron Maiden records. They spend less time listening to music, though, as they are more busy using their mobile video camera to film their friends while they are trying to kill themselves in various dangerous "stunts" that are subsequently uploaded to Myspace, Facebook or Youtube. Because Myspace, Facebook and Youtube is where you find Gen Z, more than anywhere else.

Classic Geir

It's the post that had to be made.

That Generation Y definition is sheer lunacy

Writin' 'bout "young people" is not exactly Geir's area of expertise.

Writin' 'bout "young people" is not exactly Geir's area of expertise.

Of course Gen Y'ers don't like to be slagged, but they will feel more and more lonely the more younger generations embrace older generations' values rather than their own misguided ones.

great revive

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/kids/bible/bible11-16/OldTest/pix/38.jpg

What are these misguided values of Gen Y, Geir?

Apart from their love of webcomics.

Is that a steel chair?

Forged in Satan's foundry

Yep, that's during Moses' time as WWE Champion.

Generation Y - born from the late 70s until the late 80s - were already in their mid-to-late teens by 1996

generation X/Y: chris fucking martin

Kids grow up so fast now what with all the crazy hip hop telling them to do so.

damn you, geir!

They spend less time listening to music, though, as they are more busy using their mobile video camera to film their friends while they are trying to kill themselves in various dangerous "stunts" that are subsequently uploaded to Myspace, Facebook or Youtube. Because Myspace, Facebook and Youtube is where you find Gen Z, more than anywhere else.

"Today's Christian doesn't think he needs God. He's got his Hi Fi, his boob tube, and his instant pizza pie"

What are these misguided values of Gen Y, Geir?

Mainly ageism.

Oooooh, vague!

Feeling old, Geir? (xp)

maybe because they were the first generation who were told in school and by their parents not to trust grownups (mainly to avoid sex crimes committed against them)

Generation Y, avoiding sex crimes!

geir: blaming the victims

They're ageists because of the rapists!!

omg

--To what extent is 'popism' borne out of the critic's fear of aging. [Started by Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), last updated 21 seconds ago] 29 new answers
--List songs about jailbait/underage lust/etc! [Started by roxymuzak (roxymuzak), last updated 1 minute ago] 6 new answers

Could make some comment here about parents telling their Gen Y children to avoid strange men like Geir but that would be cruel

To what extent is 'popism' borne out of the critic's fear of aging. [Started by Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), last updated 42 minutes ago] 31 new answers
Sean Kingston: "Beautiful Girls" [Started by Jordan Sargent, last updated 53 minutes ago] 60 new answers

That is Geir for the ages.

preferred to follow their own sports

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/153/500679~Rollerball-2002-Posters.jpg

have their own "slang" to a larger extent than anyone before them

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g292/brrelos/AuSlang2.jpg

their own very different clothes style (that has seemed to survive longer than most, but is now slowly on the decline)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39872000/jpg/_39872772_group.jpg

even their own attitudes towards drugs

http://www.schooljournals.net/eline5/media/Lena%20pictures/yearight.jpg

truly beautiful insanity.

THIS THREAD---------------H--U--R--L--------------> SPACE

That Geir post is the most ass-backwards thing I've ever read.

Geir you do realize that you're the one being ageist here?

old man geir hates them punk kids!

with their hippin and their hoppin

Basically: has popism become corrupted by those who don't want to accept that their generation is now the enemy?

we are all the enemy, the enemy is in our heads!

"Generation Y, avoiding sex crimes!"

This will be the chant for my neo-Grebo band (which exists now only in my head).