LibertyBell

This goes along with Isotherm's thoughts....before the New Year inland locations should get a snowstorm (29th sounds good) and a few days after the New Year (5-10 sounds good) it would be the coast's turn.

Thats a really good idea. I'll try spotify. I haven't listened to radio in years (not FM not AM nothing), I pretty much just youtube everything. It's completely replaced radio for me. I think the last time I listened to radio was about a decade ago. I hate commercial crap.

thats crazy, you couldnt move around if that was the case. I like our snow-melt cycles...one big snowstorm every month and warmth and clear skies in between (no rain).

there wasn't even a coating here....it looked good on radar while nothing was falling, and then it did start snowing around 10:30 am but only fell for an hour and it was very wet and didn't stick, just large wet flakes.

some refugees from the Thanksgiving slaughter

I think it will happen between Jan 5-10 with not much before then

I have a strong feeling that you believe the coast will have to wait for January for the pattern to benefit us.

I think part of the reason is snow's albedo. It reflects back what little light we get and lessens the effects of SAD. It literally brightens things up!

see there are some benefits to climate change

You also dont undermeasure like NYC has done in our biggest and smallest storms....31 or 32 may be closer to the true average.

snow measurement is the least scientific part of meteorology- look how much measurement methods have changed over the years and all these claims of undermeasuring, etc. There are many specific storms that can be pointed to for undermeasurement of snow here, and even one of them would have brought us over the 30 inch average. Exhibit A should be January 1996......

we've had March be very snowy in this kind of ENSO....maybe we shouldnt be concentrating so much on ENSO, there are other factors which can be more important

I dont believe enso influences our weather as much as people think (or used to think), there are other factors that usurp it, like blocking, we probably shouldn't be concentrating on enso so much.

did you see the super conjunction yet? It peaks tomorrow night, I wonder how the sky condition will be then? with all the technological innovations we've made, meteorology always lags behind....I still can't believe we haven't learned how to suck the clouds right out of the sky so we can see amazing celestial phenomena like this!

Thanks for your input! I consider you an expert! I think it was the variety of the music back then that made it the "golden age". People were more willing to take chances and let music tell a story, like an old epic poem. Attention spans today are lacking, everything gets melted down into a "sound bite" and rank commercialism is to blame.

Kansas is one of the greatest of the supergroups. I saw a lot of angry people on Twitter when Supernatural ended, I guess they wanted it to go on for a few more years.

if we can do away with RIAA and MPAA then I'm a happy man. They take most of the profits. Sony getting hacked a few years ago was the best thing that could've happened, people learned how awful they are (I always knew.)

this is just more proof of consumerism lol..... best selling doesn't mean better. Paul Simon wrote some amazing songs, so I'd argue that he's an artist from the classic rock era and so doesn't fit into this discussion. Actually when I mean "bad music" I'm referring to the likes of country music, Katy Perry, etc.

there were medical studies done showing how classical music improves cognition and learning.

None of us are boomers and I like that younger people are rebelling against consumerism.

and we didn't even mention Bob Dylan, perhaps the most prolific songwriter in modern history....didn't he sell the rights to his music recently for a huge sum of money?

I wasn't even around in the 60s but I defer to the experts on this: https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/music/rap-rock-and-all-that-jazz-which-decade-had-the-best-music-1.1564376108517#:~:text=The 60s,was in its purest forms. *this is obviously somewhat subjective based on what kind of music one is exposed to, but there has to be some objective metric in terms of music's influence on society. The 60s Hardcore music lovers will argue that the 60s were the best decade in musical history. It was in the early 60s when rock music was in its purest forms. As the decade neared its end, the pure rock was muddled with psychedelic rock, blues-rock, and folk rock, which had grown in popularity as the decade progressed. John Lennon was once quoted saying “The thing the sixties did was to show us the possibilities and the responsibility that we all had. It wasn't the answer. It just gave us a glimpse of the possibility.” The music industry really started to properly form, at that time. There was less segregation determining who could sing what. The sixties was a time of excitement in the music scene. The lyrics started becoming more experimental and expressive. Songs were more thought provoking, and tackled social issues, rather than just asking how much a doggie in the window was. And artists like The Beatles helped many see through the tough times. another nod to the 60s https://www.nme.com/news/music/this-is-the-best-decade-for-pop-music-according-to-science-2467655 https://www.smoothradio.com/news/music/best-decade-pop-music/ These are all quoting this study https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0210066

It's not "my music" though, I wasn't even born yet when most of the groups I referenced were in their heyday. As a person who believes in the complexity of the English language and classical writing and poetry, I naturally gravitate towards those who are the most literate and write the best. Writing is something that can be judged objectively. That may not be the best by everyone's standards but I have a specific objective definition of what I like and it's the type of writing that matches classical writing and poetry.

He also completely ignored the fact that so many of our youth gravitate towards older music. The Beatles are still considered the greatest rock band of all time. Find me a young group today that is anywhere near how great they were or Led Zeppelin or Queen for that matter. This isn't just an "opinion" it's a measurable matter of fact. What separates great music from rank commercialism is that the former tells a story and if you take the music away, the words still matter, they read like poetry written by some of our greatest writers. To not notice the general degradation of society, and how that's reflected in music, is to bury one's head in the sand. Facts are facts.....the new generation is angry because they know that their prospects for a better life are not as good as the previous generation's were and they have every right to be angry. You get less quality for the same amount of money, or even worse, lower quality that also costs more. There are multiple reasons for this, but corporatism, commercialism, etc., are all part of it.

okay then let's find a logical reason for why music has gotten worse with time....commercialism. It isn't just music that's been degraded it's many other facets of life. Let's face it, we live in a time when instant gratification results in a poor diet, where half of Americans have become obese (this started around 2000) and thats when the diabetes epidemic started, chiefly because of the consumption of convenient processed food. This era of "convenience" has bled into other facets of life generally degrading quality of life while increasing costs. Music is just a reflection of that new reality. And a lot of youth are rebelling against this new commercial reality. You completely forgot about the comment where a poster mentioned that his own children and their friends prefer music from the 80s. That's right in line with what I've seen too. It has nothing to do with one's age but with a measurable lowering of the quality of life.