3 Answers

  1. Taste is taste, intelligence is intelligence. The only thing where they overlap is that taste can sometimes hint at the degree of intellectual development achieved when it comes to cultural objects and works of art that contain many meanings, which for various reasons can be difficult to understand. Otherwise … the network regularly appears stuffing that “scientists have discovered a relationship” (for example) tastes of a person with his intelligence.” That, supposedly, fans of heavy rock (classical and symphonic music) are fucking geniuses, and fans of r'n'b (rap, hip-hop) are not particularly smart. I'm an old music whore, I find it funny to read this)

    From the sixties to the eighties, when rock was especially popular, when Woodstock was more terrible than the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols, the same statistics were published about rock music. Now, when raphip-hop
    'n'b have become incredibly popular – statistics have become merciless to them. What causes this? The majority rule. The average intelligence score of 100 people and 1000 people will always be not in favor of the majority. Therefore, the audience of the most popular genres-teams-media projects will potentially lose out in average terms to less popular ones.�

    About academics – I won't believe it until I see the statistics. Ask about five thousand Russian academicians and calculate the results. Then we'll talk. In the meantime , I personally know one academic who is frantically drawn to Beavis and Butthead, watches Interns and Voronins to hell, listens to a lot of strange Russian rap (if you know what I mean by “strange”). And if you look a little wider – the same “Fizruk”, for example, is the focus of the zeitgeist, and its irony is most relevant to young segments of the population. While most of the actual academicians are well over thirty. Again, if you put together a focus group of these same academics and show them the series , I don't think they would criticize it very much.�

    I won't say anything about the Caspian Cargo, but musical tastes and preferences are a separate column. If you judge a person's intelligence by it, then you could give out an academic degree to everyone who listens to BG, David Bowie and is driven by classical music.

  2. I apologize, but after reading part of your question, I “yelled at golosina”. If you wrote articles for a local newspaper, you'd get paid for flashy headlines! “Why academicians don't listen to Caspian Cargo” – this is very funny, you made my day. I apologize for leaving this comment and not answering the question. Have a nice day.

  3. I still don't think so.
    Well, or in general terms and with many reservations.�
    In the statement about academicians, an attempt to manipulate the answer is already initially hidden. NOT listening to CG and NOT watching physical education will make you an academic? If you are an academician who listens to the CG and watches a physical education teacher , are you expelled from the Russian Academy of Sciences with a machine gun? Where do these statistics come from?
    Take, for example, the Krovostok group-the participants are at least sufficiently educated people, and from sufficiently intelligent families, although for most-the product is extremely unacceptable and, most likely, will repel you, as this group and the series repels you.
    In any creativity, in addition to the creativity itself, money is more or less involved, and if “people eat” – why not feed it with this?
    I think that tastes in music, movies, films are not a matter of discussion. Any food product entering the body will be processed, possibly assimilated, right? Why are “smart” products worse?
    You can watch Tarkovsky four times in total, read Proust, go to chamber music concerts every Sunday, but still be a tasteless person of a small mind.

Leave a Reply