It’s a great program. My son loves the books and I have to admit I look forward to taking him to the mailbox to check and see if one came. Many of the books are printed in a lower cost format specifically for the program. These editions have a back inside leaf that contains a blurb about the program and a picture of Dolly holding a book. My son knows her by sight and says “Thanks Dolly” when he sees her on that leaf.
I really underestimated the program when the hospital asked if we wanted to sign up for a free book program. But my son is now three with a little library made up mostly of these books. He also loves checking the mailbox for a new book!
This is such a wonderful program and I am so grateful for it. I wish/hope it becomes global.
I hate, hate, hate country music, but I have an enormous amount of respect for Dolly Parton. She's just a plain old good person, and also extremely savvy from a business and money point of view (while having to plough through patriarchal barriers both emotionally and financially): https://www.joshuakennon.com/dolly-parton/
I used to say things like "I like all music, but country", especially when I was younger. But then I started dating someone who grew up in the south (Georgia and Texas) and I've been exposed to many country songs, spanning many decades and I've found myself enjoying some of them. It's still pretty low on my list of favorite music genres but I can have a good time listening to it.
Not all country music is the same. I lean towards country from the 90s and before. Dolly is definitely my favorite. I enjoy the 90s pop country of Shania Twain and others around that time. Garth Brooks "Friends in Low places" is a fun song for Karaoke, so is Kenny Rogers's "The Gambler". There's a song by Jo Dee Messina called "Heads Carolina, Tails California" from the 90s that has been stuck in my head recently.
All this is to say, it's a big genre with many styles and artists, you might find a song or 2 you'll enjoy.
Classic country music is alive and well, in Ireland of all places. There is a talent show called Glór Tíre, it's in the Irish language but many of the songs are in English, and covers of classic American tunes. There is a thriving scene with young artists who are influenced by Irish folk music and classic Country & Western as well.
My comment was meant to be broad and a bit hyperbolic. I hate the historical country more than the modern stuff (which is thinly veiled pop music). I found it a formulaic kind of boring, uninspiring, and moaning about the writer's current state of affairs or others not like them. What causes the hate is having grown up in the country, I was forced to listen to it for a solid chunk of my childhood.
That being said, there are always exceptions to the rule. If we were in a car together, you'd not see me protesting if you put on Johny Cash or Gordon Lightfoot (though they're arguably more early fusion styles). And I'll admit I enjoy the sound of the Eagles, which I grew up listening to in the car from my mom and their sound is heavily influenced by country style that I loathe.
Yup, also liked early country when a child. Also “Cal country” like the Eagles. And recently learned there is/was a thing called “outlaw country” that’s less hokey and trite.
Check out the Shaver talk and performance on the Norm Macdonald Show on Netflix for example.
I find your comment interesting and would like to understand why you hate a large genre of music. Is it the message in the songs, the people, Nashville?
My taste in music is questionable (I still listen to Yaz and even Modern Talking occasionally, mixed with 80s disco, which I believe was the epitome of popular music) but I do like many Country songs: putting aside Dolly’s favorites like 9 to 5 (great lyrics and music if you haven’t listened to it), I also like many Kenny Rogers songs (guilty pleasure here is Scarlet Fever). Expanding, Folk and Bluegrass are also great.
As another person who dislikes 90% of country music I've heard, I guess I just find it mostly... trite and conceited. Lyrically and musically. The relationships described are typically shallow, the events described are typically shallow, the musical style is typically simplistic, but unlike other genres that are generally more self-aware, the average country song expects to be taken lot more seriously. Like a "profound" instagram quote in song form.
It reminds me of that general small-town mentality where said small town is treated like the center of the universe by its denizens. I guess that's country music's core demographic, so perhaps it's just giving the people what they want, but I find said mentality obnoxious so I find music extolling it in a "serious" manner obnoxious.
Obviously this is more of an issue with modern country, Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton and others historically brought more artistry to the genre. I generally won't seek them out because that isn't what I find most enjoyable, but I can at least respect it and I'm not repulsed by it. I'd rather listen to WAP on a loop than most modern country music, at least it knows exactly what it is.
I'm the OP. I agree with most of what you said. There are always exceptions to the rule, and the more fusiony types (like Cash) are listenable to even enjoyable. Same to Gordon Lightfoot, Kenny Rogers, Willie Nelson, etc.
Although I tend to agree with you, I am also curious what sort of music you would prefer that is less trite lyrically and musically? I know of quite a bit, but generally don't find that anyone wants to listen to it with me.
I'm not big on modern country myself, but there is some of what I would call "modern classic country" out there. Chris Stapleton is one that my girlfriend has warmed me up to.
Not the person you’re replying to, but I think it’s reasonable to dislike a genre when one dislikes the things that define the genre.
I don’t like death metal because I find the vocal affectation silly and the range of instrumentation too narrow. I dislike country for exactly the same reasons.
There are genre-defying artists who transcend the category; Patsy Cline comes to mind.
But if someone’s going to sit down and write a song that conforms to all of a genre’s conventions, people who dislike those conventions probably won’t like it.
Bitter at first, but eventually you learn to appreciate the unique experience for what it is, and then you start drinking it all the time.
You start trying to tell others about your experience, but only other black coffee drinkers seem to understand, and you sound insane to people who have tried black coffee and hated the bitter taste.
I used to enjoy some, but found the genre to be a dead end, with new bands just sounding like old bands. I’d love to hear it if there’s innovation going on!
I'm not GP. Pop country tends to be fine, but standard country often has the stories revolving around children being exactly like their parents or people getting drunk. There's also something about the rhythm and the melody (and possibly the instruments - such as acoustic versus electric). This could be a chicken and egg problem though, where the messages made the characteristic rhythm and melody turnoffs. I'm not positive though, because some of the older Elvis songs just aren't interesting.
The big issue may just be that I didn't grow up listening to Country.
The revenge message in Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats" is definitely a saving grace, though. I don't change the station when that song comes on.
Unless it's something like Swing, I hate Jazz more than Country. Which is definitely an instrument and rhythm/melody issue.
> There's also something about the rhythm and the melody (and possibly the instruments - such as acoustic versus electric).
“New” country music follows formulaic measures and beats, and doesn’t tend to experiment. If there is an ear worm section to a song, it’s made very obvious, and almost seem to invite people to “stim”.
I don't hate country, but it isn't one of my regulars. I have liked folks like Steve Young and Willie Nelson, and grew up with a lot of mullet rock, like Lynyrd Skynyrd and Molly Hatchet.
Its the one genre of music that I just don't like. I don't like smooth jazz but I've heard songs I can get into. But country music is different. I even spent a couple years putting a dedicated effort into trying to be tolerant of country music. It didn't grow on me.
I hate the historical country more than the modern stuff (which is thinly veiled pop music). I found it a formulaic kind of boring, uninspiring, and moaning about the writer's current state of affairs or others not like them. What causes the hate is having grown up in the country, I was forced to listen to it for a solid chunk of my childhood.
I'm the opposite, I like older "lost my dog, lost my wife, car doesn't work" country and dislike the semi-pop. I do find it interesting how much blues influence e.g. Hank Williams had.
I think questionable taste in music is a sign you're cultivating a good beginner's mind. :)
I also find sometimes that music in a genre is so bad/annoying that it wraps around to being listenable.
Maybe it's easier to see in movies where bad movies become enjoyable. (like "shoot-em up" where Clive Owen delivers a baby in the middle of a gunfight)
Are you kidding? I grew up in Turkey and they were big there, as well as in Europe (another now forgotten blast from the past is C C Catch). I bought their In the Middle of Nowhere album, that was the year I graduated from HS. We followed them closely, eg Thomas’s Nora necklace, the weird guitar/synth thing or that Dieter played, the fact that Nora’s jealousy came in between them, etc.
Looking at Spotify their top songs have robust play numbers.
On a related note, in case the younger crowd here is interested: Animotion is also an interesting group, watching their Obsession clip on YouTube tells you what those times were about.
Sadly none of these groups were/are known in the US. One of my “if I were a rich man” projects is to open a nightclub that only plays 80s, including these synth gems.
Dolly Parton is the most wholesome and sexiest person alive. There was an interview with her just after she turned 70, and the question was something along the lines of "Do you argue with your husband (shes been married to the same man for 50+ years)" and her response was "no, if I need to win an argument, I just have sex with him to get my way"
The Byrds - Sweetheart of the Rodeo
John Prine - John Prine
The Flying Burrito Brothers - The Gilded Palace of Sin
Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings - Wanted! The Outlaws
Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings - Waylon & Willie
Buck Owens - 21 #1 Hits
Don't forget to listen to the lyrics! You'll be two-stepping in no time!
There's a twist on black metal that you might like that's been coming out of Norway lately, exemplified by the bands The Good, The Bad and the Zugly and Kvelertak!
Black'n'roll is the term. Kvelertak are a contentious one amongst the black metal crowd (they aren't even on metal archives), but they're an excellent bridge into Norway's more "kvlt" sound.
She's able to do all this and still live comfortably and live her dreams. I wonder why more wealthy don't do things like this. It seems most just write a check to Charity X for the tax break and the ego boost.
The things Dolly does seem to lend themselves to legacy, and what could a rich man/woman want more than their name immortalized in a social program that helps people.
Dolly Parton embodies everything good about the Southern US, in an age where there's not really much in this area that gets the public eye for being a good, wholesome thing. I have a lot of respect for her, quite honestly in my mind she's up there with people like Fred Rogers and Bob Ross.
Not to detract anything from her contribution but she isn’t funding the whole thing. The way it works is a local nonprofit for a geographic area partners with the Imagination library and funds them to offer the program in that area.
Their website explains how you can become a partner for your area and the costs involved.
In some places it is government funded. The program in Baltimore City for example appears to be largely funded by Maryland State government via a yearly grant to a nonprofit.
Zero outrage on my part. Just pointing out that the op’s view of how this works doesn’t jive with reality. There are a lot of people and governments putting money into this to make it work at the scale and scope that it does.
A big motivation was that her father was illiterate. We live in Tennessee and this program is amazing. Dolly Parton is great to Tennessee and her reputation here is stellar.
If you find the right organization that uses the funds effectively, what's with donating your wealth as opposed to creating your own charitable organization? Also, I'm sure the tax deduction for donations is exploited when the receiving organization is non-profit in name only, but if the receiving organization really is an effective charity, what's wrong with the donor getting a tax break?
Or is the claim not that one approach is more effective than other in terms of positive impact, but that the wealthy, for their own sake, would be better off founding their own organizations?
This is Warren Buffet’s approach. He figured Bill Gates is better at giving away money than he ever would be, so he simply gives his money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
I am a nonprofit CEO who’s worked in community, sport, educational and health charities.
Organizations and causes require people who work full time to help organize the charitable work. It is very difficult to find people to volunteer at this level and typically if you do, they are independently wealthy. Retired people can do more but typically they do not want to give that much time and have other things they want to do.
4 hrs a week which is a typical volunteer shift at our hospital does not lend itself to pulling all the details together.
Good people deserve to get paid to do good work. Just like in tech, you get what you pay for. And typically a nonprofit worker puts extra hours and time in as does their family members in support of the cause.
I understand the need for professionals, but what grates me is seeing the leaders of these organizations renting expensive venues to conduct some of their activities, sometimes display expensive art and so on. As if they need to impress their donors. No, donors already believe in the cause, they don't have to be plied, taken to expensive restaurants, served luxurious food, etc. in order to get their commitments. They should believe in the mission, run frugally and most of all divert the majority of the money to the cause.
I often hear, well, if you don't pay them top salary you are not going to attract people from private enterprise. I don't think you want people whose main motivation to contribute is money.
Yeah, it's too late to shift it, but from everything I've seen when researching on Charity Navigator, leadership at non profits is viewed similarly as C-suite with regard to salary. I suspect it's probably because to be effective, it's much easier to just network at the level that C-suite professionals would, rather than the grassroots approach that requires raw labor, outreach, etc.
It's probably easier to get that guy you know who is high-up at Kroger to get involved in your charity in a mutually-beneficial way.
Or maybe I'm just really really over the edge jaded and cynical. It's probably that.
Good point. Even from a purely selfish perspective, I would think that being universally loved would have more utility than a few more millions in the bank.
I wonder why so many people want the wealthy to do more things to make the world a better place when the United States has a GDP of $23 trillion dollars.
Everyone wants to pay little taxes, have a cheap gallon of gas, and tax the rich to solve our problems, while kicking the can as far down the road as possible.
How many problems could have been solved with $32 trillion
It's not clear to me what connection you are making between America's GDP and wanting the wealthy to do more. The wealthy capture the largest portion of the GDP, so America's high GDP would seem to support the idea that the wealthy can do more.
It seems like you are criticizing tax rates but then you talk about how much can be done with the money that makes up the national debt. Are you advocating more or less government spending? Are you advocating more or less taxes?
The comment you're responding too was wondering why more wealthy people aren't building well-regarded social legacies. Not why rich people weren't solving society's issues.
> How many problems could have been solved with $32 trillion
How many problems were solved with that $32 trillion?
I like that its blind to anything else other than if the household has kids under 5 in it. Doesn't matter their ethnicity/color, gender, income, doc status, etc.
imo more government aid programs and charities should be like that. give to anyone in need or who would otherwise benefit from the given thing
unfortunately I've seen way too many special carve-outs and "allowed" discrimination to happen. which just further fuels political grievances.
I think it's closer to $40-$50/year. The way it works in CA is that every book costs around $4 and the cost is equally split by the state, local gov, and the Imagination Library
I was surprised to see Dolly Parton's initiative here in the UK. I just had my first newborn and the health visitors told me about Dolly Parton's Imagination Library in one of our visits. Great stuff!
It is a wonderful program. I wish more billionaires were trying to leave a legacy where their name stands for something more admirable. Will anyone know who Zuckerberg is in 100 years? Probably not.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has apparently given out $2 billion in grants. I haven't really heard anything about any of its projects, while Parton's library project sounds very effective. It did say on Wikipedia though that the Zucc's initiative issued a grant to matplotlib, so that's nice.
I only recognized a three of them: J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie. Three more I recognized universities named after them: James Duke (Duke University), Andrew Mellon (Carnegie Mellon University), Cornelius Vanderbilt (Vanderbilt University).
To the degree that I have a positive opinion of Rockefeller and Carnegie, it's because of their philanthropy rather than their industrialism or politics.
> To the degree that I have a positive opinion of Rockefeller and Carnegie, it's because of their philanthropy rather than their industrialism or politics.
I've a friend who's grandparents, in Vietnam, were quite ruthless and accumulated sizable wealth. Now, they sponsor Buddhist monks in an effort to avoid being reincarnated as cockroaches. I suspect analogous motivations for people like Rockefeller, Carnegie, or modern equivalents like Gates and Zuckerberg (even if simply a secular motivation to rehabilitate their poor reputations).
Parton just seems to be a genuinely kind human being.
I wouldn't assume that at all. One hundred years is a long time.
If people in 2123 are still talking about early social media companies, I'll be shocked. Actually I'll be dead, but I would be shocked.
Zuckerberg and Facebook are relevant in the here and now, but they are not obviously Edison/Bell/Ford-level relevant in the long term.
Unless either he, or his company, does something of lasting significance. Maybe Meta will have a next act. Maybe through his charitable foundation. Very much TBD.
"UK PhD Research: Books Babies and Bonding - The impact of Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library on parental engagement in book-sharing and on child development from 0-5 years old."
You can also emails HN mods directly at hn@ycombinator.com for specific unaddressed issues, including newly-created troll accounts. That's strongly encouraged over replying to trolls themselves:
