While I can name several modern classical composers whom I interested in* I think your point still stands and most people wouldn't be able to name an active composer after Beethoven, maybe Brahms. I have brief memories of an interview with Milton Babbitt about how classical music was no doubt on the way out due to advent of popular music, and i think he was right, these days classical music is only relevant in most peoples lives when mentioning an anecdote about how making their newborn listen to Mozart might increase their IQ.
Whenever I would go to a chamber music event or an orchestral performance there will generally be two sets of people there - the old school bougie folk and a handful of conservatory students - the casual audience member is far and few between. Orchestras will have a better chance getting an audience by performing pops or some program full of video game music.
Still, going to the symphony hall, being part of that scene, this might retain it's importance for the upper class / professionals, and this alone could be enough to continue to support more than a handful of orchestras around the United States.
* And the only reason I can is because I studied composition and theory at University.
But there are. That is to say, if you mean exceptionally talented composers of classical music.
See Gyorgy Ligeti, Arvo Part, John Adams, George Crumb. Phillip Glass, and Nico Muhly. Everyone except Ligeti (RIP homie) is still living last time I checked.
It doesn't make it true either, and nothing that the original poster said suggested that it might be the case. Heck, we don't even know the gender of the original poster.
Fair enough. I think that's where we differ - I feel the word isn't quite as ill defined as you suggest, though it is commonly misused. A conversation for another time :)
Thanks. I'm well aware of what a hipster is and how the term is used in the context of modern slang, this doesn't really help answer my original question, however.
I never really got this line of thought. While creating life in a laboratory and creating life through sexually reproduction between a man and woman (or however it is other organisms manage it) have the same end result, I think it's fairly reasonable to recognize that they are two very distinctly different things.
I think you're very sadly mistaken - white people can be victims of racism, too, you dig? I grew up and went through a school system where white people were by far the minority, and yes, I had to deal with racism.
edit: Downvotes? Yikes. Like most people, I'd prefer some constructive replies instead of silent detractors, but it is what it is.
Certainly there is more than a small difference between it being rational for you to ignore a company and to call the company itself dormant and stale.
I'm just curious - do you mind elaborating on your thought that Microsoft has been stale and dormant? This just seems so far from reality, so I'm wondering what about them gives you that impression.
I think the major difference, which I mention in my edit, is the risks that we're suggesting are dangerous to a programmer aren't a direct result of the occupation. In the general case, I don't believe that anything about being a programmer stops someone from exercising on a regular basis (edit: or maintaining a healthy diet).
I don't have any of that data either, but to suggest that the life as a programmer working from home is as dangerous as the life of a career coal miner seems a bit absurd to me.
edit: Certainly no one's making the claim that a sedentary lifestyle doesn't have its own risks - but being a programmer working from home doesn't insist you live a sedentary lifestyle, however, the risks involved with being a coal miner aren't optional.
I may have read these posts incorrectly, but I don't think anyone made the claim that he won this money. There was simply a poster who stated that 400,000 is comparable to an amount of money you would receive if you won a lottery.
I would disagree. There's a distinct difference between food stamps->gigantic acquisition and food stamps->comfortable life as software developer at giant corporation->gigantic acquisition. The former glosses over the entire period in-between.
Whenever I would go to a chamber music event or an orchestral performance there will generally be two sets of people there - the old school bougie folk and a handful of conservatory students - the casual audience member is far and few between. Orchestras will have a better chance getting an audience by performing pops or some program full of video game music.
Still, going to the symphony hall, being part of that scene, this might retain it's importance for the upper class / professionals, and this alone could be enough to continue to support more than a handful of orchestras around the United States.
* And the only reason I can is because I studied composition and theory at University.