jaws and star wars reverse 60s cultural trend?
alejandro de tacobell
youthful, experimental, adventurous, and countercultural.
but, then spielberg and lucas came along with jaws, star wars, close
encounters, indiana jones, ET, etc, and turned the movie industry into
bastion of big business interests and mainstream popular taste.
to an extent, there is truth to this argument. 60s america underwent
great changes in culture, politics, personal expectations, etc. the
mantra was Be Yourself, Don't Trust Old Farts, Try Something New.
and, so we had new music and new cinema. personal artists of music and
film...
yet, there's something wrong with this argument.
in reality, though 60s produced many iconic mavericks and
experimentalists, what appealed to 60s generation most was rock music
which, despite its claims and pretensions, pandered to the widest
possible popular tastes, or widest possible youthful popular tastes.
rock music was immediately accessible and appealing. one didn't need to
think or rack thru one's emotions. it made you feel good and you felt
good, and you wanted more. its effect was instantly gratifying. it
also shaped--and biased--youthful minds toward cultural experiences
offering direct & intense pleasure.
if previous generations felt a lingering sense of obligation toward the
higher arts, the 60s generation said there is no high and low. many
who argued thus were intellectuals and serious artists, and they would
soon suffer the consequences for their conceits for the new generation
soon turned away from all serious things in art. it wasn't so much that
the revolution devoured its own children but forgot them; whatever it
was, it certainly was marketable.
so, while we tend to associate the various developments of 60s culture
together--beatles, dylan, stones, godard, kubrick, avant garde in fine
arts, theatre, dance, etc--, the truth is the most important single
cultural force of the 60s--rock music--was in direct opposition to the
'seriousness' of other arts. for instance, kids who loved sgt. pepper
and 'i can't get no satisfaction' were not especially keen on sitting
thru godard or rivette's films. of course, in their countercultural
pretensions, they would have heard of godard, supported what godard was
up to or stood for, and might even sit thru an odd
godard/rivette/straub film in utter seriousness--mostly trying to
stifle their yawns. but, as time passed, it quickly became apparent
that 60s/early 70s cinema and rock music were two different animals.
notwithstanding youth-pleasing films like the graduate and easy rider,
the cinema championed by countercultural intellectuals was serious,
heavy, often esoteric or dense or difficult or obtuse or inaccessible.
in contrast, what kids of the 60s/70s were getting from rock music was
a totally accessible experience of pleasure, hedonism, sexuality,
immediacy. all you needed to do was sit back or jump and down as the
band played louder and louder, faster and faster. even art bands like
pink floyd really knew how to crank up the volume and give their
audience a rollercoaster ride thru interstellar space. at grateful
dead shows, everyone was stoned and spinning around and around,
thinking of more drugs, sex, and other immediately gratifying
experiences. sure, there were some serious themes too, but the main
appeal was the immediate sense of belonging, of tuning into what made
full sense without too much or any effort by the audience.
in other words, does rock music have more in common with star wars and
jaws or with susan sontag, jean-luc godard, and nagisa oshima? now,
it's true that certain aspects of 60s/early 70s rock shared certain
characteristics with serious figures of the period. for instance, one
can say both lennon and godard were mavericks in their fields, often
rebellious and experimental. but, no matter how you look at it, godard
was an intellectual making movies NOT to please whereas the beatles was
nothing without offering immediate pleasure. the few times lennon went
into totally avant-garde 'serious' direction--'two virgins' album, for
example--nobody gave a shit. the so-called countercultural crowd
wanted rock music to rock, not make them think. sure, they preferred
personal artists like van morrison, hendrix, and morrison to industry
robots, but they wanted music to rock their soul, to offer them
immediate thrills.
now, there were plenty of people who learned to appreciate both rock
AND serious 60s/early 70s countercultural products. but, as time
passed, the contradictions grew larger and larger, and the rock
mentality won out. despite their efforts, the intellectuals and
serious artists couldn't inspire but a handful of followers, whereas
rock music won over just about every member of that generation. and,
kids who grew up with rock music as their main cultural experience were
conditioned to think culture has no value unless it impacts you in the
most powerful and immediate way possible. this attitude turned them
away not only from traditional conservative fogey arts but also from
the serious avantgardists and counterculturalists like godard, sontag,
etc. whose work required great deal of patience, intellectual
curiosity, disciple, and personal input to understand and appreciate.
the communal rock counterculture was completely at odds with the
intellectual ascetic counterculture.
the liberal establishment dominating our culture has tried to place all
the blame on conservatives, on lucas and spielberg, etc. but, what
created the mentality of 'immediate impact only'? certainly not the
fogeys who'd championed the higher arts and argued patience/reverence
on the part of the audience as prerequisites for proper appreciation.
rather, it was the counterculturalists who said there is no high and
low, no serious and trivial; that, in effect, everything goes. so,
everything went.
now, let's consider jaws and star wars in this light. though they've
been deemed as reactionary forces that turned cinema away from the
developments arising from the 60s/early 70s, they are essentially the
endproducts of the 60s.
let's recall lucas made a bonafide artfilm with thx 1138. who went to
see it? never mind the fogeys, the very members of the countercultural
generation stayed away. not only from thx 1138 but from most of the
vaunted early 70s films. the self-styled hip/cool generation mostly
skipped out on two lane blacktop, pat garret and billy the kid, harold
and maude(except for diehard cult fans who kept it going), new godard
films, etc, etc, etc. mccabe and mrs miller was a flop. even
nashville, though heavily marketed and nominated for academy awards,
was a disappointment. most 60s gen preferred attending rock concerts
than trying out the latest film by bergman or antonioni(which were
mostly seen by urban sophisticate proto-yuppies).
indeed, what do antonioni and mick jagger have in common? antonioni,
to be sure, did score a hit among the youth with blow up, but its main
appeal was having made alienation cool and groovy. antonioni had less
success with zabriskie point and even less with passenger. while new
cinema was becoming quieter, more difficult, and intellectual, the new
music was becoming louder and louder. one had to give, and art film
gave to the primary sensibility within counterculture which was 'fuc*
you, suck my dic*, let's party, let's do drugs, let's get down and get
funky, etc'. not exactly the same sensibility one finds in 'passion
of anna', 'three women', 'conversation', or even in 'alice's
restaurant'.
while some art films did hit it off with the new generation, it had
more to do with certain key elements of immediate appeal than with
their overall seriousness. 2001 was cool with gen-60s cuz it was
something you could trip to. besides, there was no competition. had
star wars been available in 68, it would have blown away 2001.
anyway, you had two inherently mutually hostile creatures within the
same tent called counterculturalism. the serious movement which was
distrustful of emotions and tried to deconstruct society, psychology,
conditioned habits... and the rock movement which said trust your
feelings and the more immediate and direct your feelings the better.
godard and antonioni's attempts to assimilate the rock culture into
their aesthetic, ideology, and/or satire only demonstrates the problem.
neither embraced rock culture but presented it as phony or simply as a
useful metaphor for what was wrong with materialistic/hedonistic
capitalist society.
anyway, lucas makes thx 1138 and it was a total flop. lucas, unlike
spielberg, had ambitions of being a real art film director. all
spielberg ever wanted to do was make movies like jaws and e.t. and then
finally move into respectable mainstream films of the david lean
variety(which he realized with saving private ryan and the like).
spielberg was all pop/mainstream thru and thru(though his adapation of
kubrick/aldiss's AI proved his talents are much greater than we
assumed). but, lucas was different. a close associate of francis ford
coppola, he figured he could reshape american cinema and culture toward
a new seriousness. and, he thought his generation was with him. after
all, hadn't 60s produced the french new wave, seen the decline and fall
of old hollywood, the arrival of new voices and talents like dennis
hopper, coppola, nichols, etc? but, upon closer inspection, lucas
had it all wrong. easy rider was a hit for its rocknroll appeal. when
hopper made a real art film next with last movie, everyone stayed away.
nichol's one great hit was the graduate which too had rocknroll
appeal. coppola's personal films had all failed. it was the rather
old-fashioned family drama/gangster movie godfather that turned him
into a star. and, friedkin's successes were french connection and the
exorcist, which despite their gritty realism, were recycled genre
formulations. indeed, there had no real art film success at the box
office. midnight cowboy's main appeal were its two lively and easily
identifiable characters; and for all its artsiness, it was a very
old-fashioned american story, and fast-paced too and often funny.
and, most of these films were made by directors older than gen-60s;
their sensibilities had been formed in the 50s, or even in the 40s and
latter 30s, prior to the advent of Youth Culture. popular or not, they
didn't really connect with gen-60s who wanted a total blast from
cultural experiences. rock was their religion. the woodstock
generation loved The Who blasting away the sky, sly and family stone
taking them higher, hendrix tearing the fogey anthem to shreds, etc.
if someone had shown the latest godard or bergman film between bands at
woodstock, there would have been a riot.
by 1975, the excesses of the 60s and early 70s had ebbed away, but the
impact had been profound and deep. you had an entire generation that
grew up embracing rock as their main artform. they learned to think,
feel, and see the world thru rock. books were boring, art films were
for the nerds and geeks, etc. those who'd grown up in the immediate
aftermath of the 60s were even more deeply influenced by counterculture
though they hadn't live thru it. at least the counterculture
generation had experienced a world prior to the countercultural
revolution, in a world with standards of high and low, serious and
trivial. gen-60s had a choice and they chose rock; but, having been
conditioned in the 50s and early 60s, on occasion they felt obligated
to balance out-n-out fun with cultural experiences that required a bit
more knowledge, input, patience, and curiosity by the audience...
whether it was art film, avantgarde music, new developments in jazz,
literature, etc.
but, not the immediate post 60s-gen. they grew up in a world wholly
transformed into hedon-heaven. they were conditioned from cradle to
love beatles, stones, carly simon, and not much else. lacking any
sense of obligation toward higher culture, they were content with
whatever made them most immediately happy and they were dismissive and
contemptuous of anything that was 'lame' which included 99% of art
films.
in this light, spielberg and lucas(and the makers of animal house)
didn't turn back the tide, but they extended the development of the
60s. in the 60s, youth culture of rock won out over all other forms of
music and art and entertainment. tv may have been bigger, but rock
became the heart/soul/religion/ideology/etc of new generations to come.
though called the film generation, the overwhelming majority of gen-60s
first and foremost belonged to the rock generation; film was secondary
in their search for meaning and amusement. their primary ideal for
cultural experience became the beatles, stones, the who, the doors, and
such. they wanted the same kind of pleasure from all other arts. to
go from beatles or stones or the doors to an artfilm by godard,
bergman, bunuel, etc. was a painful experience for most though
initially they pretended otherwise with their conceit of seriousness.
as time passed, even those who straddled between pop and art began to
favor the former. more of film culture became immersed in favoring
hollywood auteurs, cult films, popular entertainment than seriously
considering art films of bergman, antonioni, herzog, and godard. it
also didn't help that world film culture was in serious decline thanks
to rise of tv.
anyway, gen-60s and its immediate successors wanted the rock concert
experience. the logical extension of the rock concert into film was
the special effects extravaganza. jaws and star wars delivered(star
wars may have influeced rock concerts in turn). even classical-style
music of john williams was used rockishly. image and sound lunged at
you at full blast. jaws was badder than elvis. rock concerts had
electric guitars and star wars had electric swords. things blew up
pretty good. at times, the action was non-stop(to the point where a
movie like matrix revolutions is nearly all action). though gen-60s
was ostensibly into love and peace, their music was loud, aggressive,
and often violent(the who, hendrix, etc). besides, did anyone in the
60s prefer joan baez to the stones or the doors? i don't think so.
from this perspective, jaws and star wars were the logical and even
ultimate endproducts of cultural developments of the 60s. if we look at
the counterculture honestly for what it was than what it pretended to
be, it was overwhelmingly youth-based, anti-intellectual, loud and
crazy, and founded upon the principle of immediate sensation as the
most crucial and trustworthy human experience.
we can spot the superficial conservatism of jaws(law-n-order guy saves
town from shark) or star wars(unity and allegiance to sacred cause
defeats evil), but its visual language was geared to please the
attention-deficit-disordered gen-60s and those who grew up in its
shadow. with rock music, we don't care about the lyrics but the
performance. same was true with jaws and star wars. story and
characters were mere pretexts for rock-n-rolling thru visual/aural
space.
also important is the fact that both rock music and lucas/spielberg
films have had humble beginnings so much at odds with serious
counterculture elements.
art films and the intellectuals who defended them were founded on the
notion of going against popular cinema. bergman and antonioni worked
outside popular entertaiment altogether. godard used pop culture to
comment on capitalist corruption; unlike tarantino, godard wasn't
celebrating pop culture but using them like an archaeologists digs thru
garbage to learn about a certain society. sontag is often blamed for
destroying the division between high and low, but in fact this isn't
true. she didn't argue that the low was as valid as high, but rather
that even the low could be understood thru high interpretation and
yield insights about society and humanity. sontag argued that low
culture was sometimes worthy of serious considertion but she never
rejected the need for seriousness itself.
but, rock music was a different animal. if godard and sontag and such
figures had primary roots and interests in serious culture--despite
their affection or fascination with low culture--rock music was
unapologetically founded upon low culture--blues and country music. in
time, it's true that rock became more serious and artsy. but, whereas
with sontag and godard were serious intellectuals approaching the low,
with rock it was the low approaching the high, and eventually, rock
decided it was better to stick to true and low than be artsy fartsy.
what jaws and star wars shared with rock music was the fact of having
been founded upon the low. in traditional hollywood, sci-fi and
monster movies were considered low and not given the A-treatment--not
for the most part, anyway. the respectable films were literary
adaptations, historical epics, serious dramas. even musicals were
deemed more respectable than monster films and sci-fi.
but, just as rock took humble blues and country and created something
grandiose and spectacular, spielberg took the lowly genre of the
monster flick and turned it into a grand spectacle. and, lucas took
laughable flash gordon material and turned it into grand space opera.
to be sure, early 70s directors reworked genres too, but they reworked
them into serious art--hired hand by peter fonda, mccabe and mrs miller
by altman, etc. but, spielberg and lucas--like rockers--took something
low and transformed it into something grander but not necessarily
artsier. in other words, though the Who's music may be more complex
than blues and country, all the immediate pleasure remains
intact--indeed, has been magnified. same is true of jaws and star wars.
instead of trying to turn low genres into art, they turned low genres
into high entertainment... just like rock music.
indeed, try to think of the cinematic equivalents of beatles, stones,
doors, grateful dead, led zeppelin, aerosmith. it's certainly not
godard, truffaut, antonioni, ackerman, greenaway, etc. it's spielberg,
lucas, zemeckis, tarantino, fincher, john woo and hong kong cinema,
anime, etc.
they said film culture used to lag behind the zeitgeist by 5-10
yrs(not so much today with savvy studio execs competing to appropriate
the next hottest thing), and this seems to have been the case in the
60s/70s. rock dominated the culture by 65 and it took ten yrs for
hollywood to become a true rock n roll movie with jaws. it took 10
yrs--from 67 to 77--to go from sgt pepper to star wars. the so-called
'film generation' was largely a myth. its main passion was rock, and
most of that generation wanted films that rocked, not films that ran
for 3 1/2 hrs with a woman peeling potatoes, shining shoes, and
demonstrating the meaning of living under the shadow of patriarchy.
if art film is considered dull and boring by most youths today, we have
the countercultural 60s rock generation to blame. they released
ultra-dionysian energies from the pandora's box.
so, despite all their self-righteous b.s., they helped spawn jaws and
star wars.
greek_phi...@hotmail.com
this would garner a nomination.
.
drumsa...@yahoo.com
alejandro de tacobell wrote:
>
>
volkfolk
"alejandro de tacobell" <fatsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116531890....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP>
Does your Mommy know that you are using her e-mail account?
Scot
Olom...@aol.com
Rock music?
The counterculture?
Throw your hatred down. It blinds you.
sixti...@yahoo.com
Street, Big Business, and Mega-corps "taking back the street", after
being blindsided by the 60s. They began to fight back, and smear the
accomplishments of the Sixties with the same paint brush. The
embryonic fight back began in the mid-to-late 1970s, and reached its
non-stop, still engaged, steamroller with the election of Ronald Reagan
in 1980.
The escapism films parallel that era, when movie studios were bought up
by corporations having no previous involvement in the arts. The
"bottom-line" managers put in charge of entertainment reflected the
desire of their corporate masters, and thus we began seeing movies
about fighting, other worlds, cheesy love stories, and greed in place
of movies of substance about people, events, and emotions.
Unfortunately, the beat goes on.
alejandro de tacobell
but the fact is the corporations caved into youth culture demands and
gave kids exactly what they wanted. loud music, loud movie, fast and
furious everything.
hollywood tried to be respectable and 'moral' up to the late 60s but it
was mocked and ridiculed as old-fashioned. with bonnie and clyde and
new cinema, everything channged. to survive, hollywood tried new
things to please the new audience. but, most early 70s cinema failed
and were not even popular with the 60s gen. what 60s gen really wanted
was movies as loud and racuous as rock music. hollywood finally
figured this out with jaws and star wars. since then, we've had
blockbusters, or movie rock concerts for the summer.
you say corporations did something evil and nasty but all it did was
give kids what they wanted. if corporations tried to shove beethoven,
sinatra, or andy williams down kids' throats, you think it would have
succeeded with even the mightest ad campaigns? no.
rock music and blockbusters succeeded cuz they were what kids wanted.
now, its CGI concerts and hip hop. corporations sell what kids want.
and why do kids want what they want? it began in the 60s with the
consolidation of youth culture. youth culture began in the 50s but it
hadn't turned into youth nation until the 60s.
60s gen hoped kids would be passionate about rock music AND serious
art/intellectual ideas, but when rock(and drugs)appeared on the scene,
most kids wanted to rock and roll all night and party everyday and
didn't want agonize thru the latest susan sontag essay, try the latest
avant garde jazz, or watch foreign films that were 4 hrs long.
and, so the rock aspect of counterculture killed not only traditional
culture but serious countercultural art/thought.
Nick Macpherson
alejandro de tacobell wrote:
> 60s gen hoped kids would be passionate about rock music AND serious
> art/intellectual ideas, but when rock(and drugs)appeared on the
scene,
> most kids wanted to rock and roll all night and party everyday and
> didn't want agonize thru the latest susan sontag essay, try the
latest
> avant garde jazz, or watch foreign films that were 4 hrs long.
>
> and, so the rock aspect of counterculture killed not only traditional
> culture but serious countercultural art/thought.
Something I haven't been able to figure out is why kids today are so
openminded about music, they'll listen to anything and most of them
have extremely diverse taste, but when it comes to movies, they're only
interested in seeing whatever's being hyped by the major studios on
television. Why does alternative music flourish, but aside from
softcore porn and no-budget horror, where certain filmmakers and
performers can find a niche for themselves, there's never been much of
a market for an alternative film scene? Go to an indy-released movie
at the local arthouse and the audience is so old, they were probably
around when Bergman and Fellini hit our shores.
alejandro de tacobell
try making some negro kids listen to country, polka, classical,
klezmer, mexican, or even jazz or blues. they'll start a riot.
'what dis shi* be?' they'd be hollering. they want hiphop.
buppies might also be into jazz, afro-pop, and blues as well as hiphop
but they be a minority among the negrokind.
as for white blue collar kids, it's either dimwit country or hard rock
and nuttin else.
now, college educated whiteys are more openminded but it's mostly
alternative rock, jazz(to show off their hipness), afro-pop. they
might listen to some non-afro world music on occasion to pat themselves
on the back for their 'inclusive' tastes, but they are mostly NOT into
all kinds of music if you mean folk/pop/traditional music from persia,
indonesia, bulgaria, ukraine, etc.
and classical music crowd grows smaller and smaller..
there's a reason why kids are more enthusiastic about music. most
music they listen to can be danced to. or, they can take some drugs and
flip out to it or go into some flaky rave trance. music is primarily
an emotional experience.
but, art films need the viewer to be alert and concentrate--on
characters, stories, themes--and really think. an art film doesn't
wash over them like pop music. it has to be read almost like a book.
so, it's natural that kids who are hooked to music want movies they can
dance, groove, or relax to. they want movies as pop music, not movies
as cine-literature. remember their eclecticism with music is limited
mainly to pop music.
but, art film or classical/modern music that require more patience and
cerebral input turn-off kids. cuz they want something they can groove
and funk and scream and jump up n down to.
marc...@yahoo.com
The movement for honesty in all aspects of human endeavor, sharing the
wealth, and desiring substance over style took the entertainment world,
corporate world, and political world completely by surprise. They
didn't know what to make of it, but once they did, they fought back
with a vengeance. This idea of yours that the entertainment world
caved into youth during the Sixties is ridiculous. Youth had to make
inroads into the old school every inch of the way. It was only the
surprise attack, mentioned previously, that worked for awhile in
Sixties Gen's favor.
>
> hollywood tried to be respectable and 'moral' up to the late 60s but
it
> was mocked and ridiculed as old-fashioned. with bonnie and clyde and
> new cinema, everything channged. to survive, hollywood tried new
> things to please the new audience. but, most early 70s cinema failed
> and were not even popular with the 60s gen. what 60s gen really
wanted
> was movies as loud and racuous as rock music. hollywood finally
> figured this out with jaws and star wars. since then, we've had
> blockbusters, or movie rock concerts for the summer.
Hollywood tried to be respectable and moral...what? are you kidding me
here? No offense, but did you actually experience that era in real
time?
It was "The Graduate" in 1968 that was the breakthrough for Sixties
Gen. The first movie for and about that generation with actual music
by a Sixties group for the entire soundtrack. Before that it was Beach
party movies that tried to cash in on kitsch and sex...oh, but I
forgot...that was Hollywood trying to be respectable and moral. ;-)
>
> you say corporations did something evil and nasty but all it did was
> give kids what they wanted. if corporations tried to shove
beethoven,
> sinatra, or andy williams down kids' throats, you think it would have
> succeeded with even the mightest ad campaigns? no.
You are viewing what I said in way too narrow of a view. I'm talking
about the advent of the mega-corp, that sucked up everything it could
control, including the news media and entertainment business. You had
middle managers from totally unrelated industries in charge. This has
led to the media crisis we have today...so much media in so few hands.
>
> rock music and blockbusters succeeded cuz they were what kids wanted.
> now, its CGI concerts and hip hop. corporations sell what kids want.
>
> and why do kids want what they want? it began in the 60s with the
> consolidation of youth culture. youth culture began in the 50s but it
> hadn't turned into youth nation until the 60s.
>
> 60s gen hoped kids would be passionate about rock music AND serious
> art/intellectual ideas, but when rock(and drugs)appeared on the
scene,
> most kids wanted to rock and roll all night and party everyday and
> didn't want agonize thru the latest susan sontag essay, try the
latest
> avant garde jazz, or watch foreign films that were 4 hrs long.
Whoa, that is just an easy stereotype, proving that the forces of the
right have succeeded in brainwashing the Ameican public into thinking
that the Sixties failed. The Sixties notions of freedom,
individualism, sharing the wealth, peace, love, and understanding ran
contrary to maintaining and expanding the corporate bottom line. Is it
any wonder that there has been a 25 -30 year cultural war against
everything the Sixties stood for? Well...it's working...they've got
you fooled, among thousands.
>
> and, so the rock aspect of counterculture killed not only traditional
> culture but serious countercultural art/thought.
Totally bogus.
RickNBarbInSD
alejandro de tacobell wrote:
> try making some negro kids listen to country, polka, classical,
> klezmer, mexican, or even jazz or blues. they'll start a riot.
> 'what dis shi* be?' they'd be hollering. they want hiphop.
>
> buppies might also be into jazz, afro-pop, and blues as well as
hiphop
> but they be a minority among the negrokind.
>
> as for white blue collar kids, it's either dimwit country or hard
rock
> and nuttin else.
>
> now, college educated whiteys are more openminded but it's mostly
> alternative rock, jazz(to show off their hipness), afro-pop. they
> might listen to some non-afro world music on occasion to pat
themselves
> on the back for their 'inclusive' tastes, but they are mostly NOT
into
> all kinds of music if you mean folk/pop/traditional music from
persia,
> indonesia, bulgaria, ukraine, etc.
> and classical music crowd grows smaller and smaller..
>
Can you please tell me exactly what those of polynesian descent are
likely to listen to? I didn't get the memo.
Jus' askin'.
John Harkness
wrote:
Hey! I resemble that remark. (well, not quite)
It's true, though. And it extends into the cultural coverage. In my
paper, if someone farts through a synthesizer, it can get musical
coverage. At ed meetings, there's occasional discussion of putting
some hot DJ on the cover, to which I have a stock response.
(Umm...when you say DJ, you do mean someone who plays records,
right?)
But I get nudged -- as does Andrew Dowler, who's doing the DVD column
during my leave of absence -- to cover more "popular" stuff. I got
asked "Why didn't you review Shrek 2?" and had the perfect response,
which was that I didn't get a review copy. But it struck me that the
last thing the world needed was another indicator that Shrek was in
their video stores. Everybody freaking knew that.
John Harkness
Olompali4
> art/intellectual ideas, but when rock(and drugs)appeared on the
scene,
> most kids wanted to rock and roll all night and party everyday
Trust me, Kiss had nothing to do with the counterculture. I figured you
were mixing 70's music industry with the 60's ideals. Neil Bogart! LOL!
Television programming is the culprit in the dumbing down of art and
education and you know it
As far as the what happened to the influence of the counterculture, you
are ignoring COINTELPRO completely.
But then..that's probably on purpose.
Olom...@aol.com
individualism, sharing the wealth, peace, love, and understanding ran
contrary to maintaining and expanding the corporate bottom line. Is it
any wonder that there has been a 25 -30 year cultural war against
everything the Sixties stood for? Well...it's working...they've got
you fooled, among thousands.
For anyone who wasn't there, Gov. Ronald Reagan really, really hated
the counterculture with an insane furor.
A month after his presidential election, John Lennon was shot in the
back.
Weird huh?
marc...@yahoo.com
Olompali4 wrote:
> As far as the what happened to the influence of the counterculture,
you
> are ignoring COINTELPRO completely.
> But then..that's probably on purpose.
Yes...exactly.
Johnny Gentile
the counterculture with an insane furor."
No shit there. What was his line? "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get
it over with. No more appeasement." ?!
I still get shivers...
Papanate
> Weird huh?
You attribute far to much power to Lennon as a counter culture activist and
or threat to conservative ideals......there were plenty of people, far more
up the power scale than he ever was...and a lot more dangerous because they
existed within the walls of the Government.
And despite your insinuation...the Government isn't in the habit of
assassinating citizen's or visiting British citizen's.
PapaNate
marc...@yahoo.com
Yes, that's what he said when he sent in the National Guard because the
people in Berkeley cleaned up a park and called it their own.
Reagan was a first class fascist, and first class asshole. It irked me
last year when he died and everyone was praising him. He was a vile
human being, who started the downward trend of American society when he
took office. And now, we have his heir apparent as our president.
It's almost as if Dubya is Ronnie Raygun's illegitimate son.
Hmmm, maybe we should ask Barbara Bush about that one.
marc...@yahoo.com
On the contrary there was no one more unifying of different age
brackets, income brackets, ethnicities, and politics than John Lennon
and his music.
His minimalism was a greater influence than any political polemic.
He was a threat.
Whether he was assassinated because of it, I don't know, and I don't
think we'll ever know...but, he was a threat to a once established
order reasserting itself in the personage of Reagan. They thought John
had retired for good...and then he re-emerged.
Reagan elected one month, Lennon eliminated the next month. What
irony.
RastafarianWarrior
BEAT the "easy money" SCAMS
----------------------------------
I know all of you who are in this forum are looking for some crazy
loophole to make money online real fast, but let me tell you, you're
not gonna find it. These things are built to pay out like shit, giving
you only pennies.
But I've found a way to beat these scams, and 1 in particular. You
won't start off making substantial dollar amounts, but after a few
months your earnings will grow into a decent sized chunk of dollar
bills. In my case, after 2 months now, I am finding that my earnings
balance grows by around $5/day. Now I started off making pennies per
day, but after only 2 months I've reached $5 per day. Now even if this
increase in earnings leveled off (which it hasn't), I'd still be taking
in $5 x 365 days = $1825 per year with hardly any effort.
Now I hope I have your attention because this really works. I'm not
going to lie, I benefit from you signing up by clicking the link below.
BUT THAT IS HOW MY METHOD WORKS! The LinkBurst site pays out pennies
per click on their pay ads, so obviously this would be a poor choice to
try and get rich on by clicking ads. The way that this method is able
to succeed, is by paying people 20% of all of their referrals' income.
(I know that is bad grammar there)
So, I signed up 2 months ago, made $3 dollars by clicking links (and
yes, this site actually does send checks, or even uses PayPal deposit),
then convinced some of my friends to try this thing out. They joined
with my referral id and did the same thing I did. FROM THEIR LINK
CLICKS ALONE I MADE $3 more dollars!!! I KNOW, that's not much, but
this is the smallscale model of what was to come. I then began posting
in forums such as this, detailing my plan and laying it all out there.
Try and understand the potential of this method.
To illustrate how it works, think of a family tree. I am like the
father, and I get paid 20% of all the money that my descendants make.
The more descendants I have, the more money I make. Now, each of my
descendants is a "father" in his/her own right - and they receive 20%
of all their descendants income. So I hope this helps to explain how
this works.
I AM HELPING MYSELF BY HELPING YOU! I ADMIT IT!
But if you follow this plan, you will start to earn some significant
money online for very little effort.
HERE IS THE WAY YOU SHOULD PROCEED:
1.)Click <a href="http://www.linkburst.com/r-253578">This Link</a> to
go to LinkBurst's website and sign up under my referral id (253578).
2.)Spend few hours clicking paid links until you make a few dollars in
your earnings balance.
3.)Spread the word about how to take advantage of this site to
friends/associates. Maybe use:
-flyers
-email
-DEFINATELY post online in forums
4.)Continue spreading this message for say, 30 minutes a week, and you
WILL begin to see substantial dollar amounts begin to pile up.
<a target="_blank" href="http://linkburst.com/r-253578"><img
src="http://linkburst.com/banner1.gif" width="468" height="60"
border="0"></a><p>
Again, I admit, YES I benefit from you using this method, but after a
few weeks, you will start to benefit just as much as I am - so I'm
actually doing you a favor.
TRY THIS! I'M TELLING YOU NOW THAT IT IS WORKING!
marc...@yahoo.com
Sounds like Dubya's plan for Social Security. ;-)
alejandro de tacobell
their favorite music the scream of white man on stick going round n
round over fire for supper. they like captain cooked.
alejandro de tacobell
mr. fool. you are either totally naive or perversely cynical.
you say 60s was about such and such and such. but, intentions and
actions are never one and the same. theory is not practice.
just tell me how much of the wealth the beatles and stones shared with
poor people over the world? even when lennon turned maoist, he was
living in upscale new york and drinking martinis with rich celebs.
and, if the beatles were about peace, how come they couldn't stand one
another and broke up by hiring lawyers and suing eachother? just how
wonderful did apple corp turn out? yes, sixties ideals of sharing.
what happened? it lost tons of money, hell's angels stole all the
computers, knocked out derek taylor. just look at 'let it be' the
movie. yeah, some peace and harmony around the fab four. and, just how
spiritual was maharishi yogi, aka sexy sadie? and, what about
woodstock? when the hicks ran the place, it looked like green eden.
hippies spend three days there and it's a disaster area. hippies didn't
even have the decency to stick around and clean up the mess they made.
you speak of sharing, but most hippies were about bumming off something
for free. or, look at 'gimme shelter'. look at those drug dazed
zombies. you expect them to establish and maintain a new utopia? and
how do you like those hell's angels? and, grace slick was really
really effective when she said 'don't touch anyone unless you intend
love'. or, how good ole mick whining into the mike:'brothers and
sisters, why are we fighting?' gee, you think hiring the hell's angels
for free beer, inviting 200,000 drugdazed kids,and singing songs about
the devil has maybe something to do with it?
you wanna go on? byrds couldn't stand eachother and members changed
all the time. same ego problems with buffalo springfield.
mamas and the papas were always fighting over love, drugs, money, etc.
jim morrison was a drunken buffoon and his partners grew sick of him.
hendrix was a dope fiend, and often a total as*hole to collegues. sds
degenerated into a radical marxist organization which spawned the
terrorist organization weathermen. 'sharing the wealth'? ha! did rich
bands share wealth with poor bands? did the beatles subsidize garage
bands? did band members even share amongst eachother? just tell me how
much lennon or mccartnery gave to harrison or ringo? was dylan into
wealth sharing? last i heard, he was ripped off by his manager, and
there were countless lawsuits. and, what dylan did with most of his
money was build a huge mansion and live really well. did dylan give
you a dime? no? not me neither.
or how about guys like abbie hoffman and jerry rubin? did they have any
sensible longterm programs for the future? or, was it all infantile
horsing around?
i don't care what the sixties intended. we have to go by what it was.
idiots defend communism by saying it meant well. but, communism must be
judged by what it did. same with christians who professed love and
peace but have waged war and promoted divisions. enough with all this
idealistic naive horseshi*. as much i love and admire the sixties, it
unleashed some bad jives which ultimately won out by dumbing down the
masses of youth who soon became addicted to the notion that louder,
faster, and crazier were best and the only things worth consuming.
'honesty in all things'? you gotta be shit*ing me. so just how honest
was jane fonda when she accused returned POWs of lying about how they
were tortured at the hanoi hilton? she was either a liar or a totally
naive jackass like yourself. how honest were all those sixties figures
with themselves and with others? if they were so honest, how come they
so often bickered, fought, and betrayed one another?
how come bobby seale and eldridge cleaver were soon dissing eachother?
how come eldridge cleaver held timothy leary as a hostage in algeria?
how come all those kids who went to woodstock to find freedom soon
returned home for free showers, bed and board from their suburban
parents? just ask peter fonda and he'll tell you dennis hopper was
raving mad when he made easy rider. and, how well did hippie communes
fare? they all thought it'd be so much fun but found they had to work
14 hrs a day just to grow enough food to last 2 months. wow, how
admirable! how noble and wonderful! and, janis joplin, what a paragon
of virtue and nobility! and great friends she had! friends who sold
her drugs and let her destroy herself in front of their eyes and didn't
have the courage and the HONESTY to tell her she was playing with fire.
and, the corporations figured it all out in the 50s. corporations
quickly assimilated rock n roll. when folk scene grew, corporations
were soon selling dylan and baez. when rock appeared with beatles,
corpies were happy to market the beatles. heck, the corporations loved
british invasion so much that they scraped the bottom of the barrel to
market every british band they could find. when psychedelic era and
summer of love came around, corporations were only happy to make a
killing selling sgt pepper, magical mystery tour, and all their
imitations and the like. don't you understand corporations are about
making money and they don't care how? they sell what people want. and,
rock music was loud, dumb, crazy, easily marketable. and, there was
this vast young market willing to fork over their allowance or earnings
from flipping hamburgers for the latest dylan, motown, beatles, stones,
hermans hermits, monkees, beach boys, you name it. you think the
corporations fought tooth and nail not to promote beatles, stones,
dylan, and the beach boys? dude, wake up.
corporations love nothing more than youth market. kids know what they
like--fast, loud movies and music about sex, violence, and
rebellion--and corporations are more than happy to oblige.
> >
> > hollywood tried to be respectable and 'moral' up to the late 60s
but
> it
> > was mocked and ridiculed as old-fashioned. with bonnie and clyde
and
> > new cinema, everything channged. to survive, hollywood tried new
> > things to please the new audience. but, most early 70s cinema
failed
> > and were not even popular with the 60s gen. what 60s gen really
> wanted
> > was movies as loud and racuous as rock music. hollywood finally
> > figured this out with jaws and star wars. since then, we've had
> > blockbusters, or movie rock concerts for the summer.
>
> Hollywood tried to be respectable and moral...what? are you kidding
me
> here? No offense, but did you actually experience that era in real
> time?
yes. look at most john wayne westerns. they are more about story and
characters and moral dynamics than blood splattering in slo-mo and a
dozen cars blowing up on the freeway.
old hollywood romances were about love, not cheap sex.
>
> It was "The Graduate" in 1968 that was the breakthrough for Sixties
> Gen. The first movie for and about that generation with actual music
> by a Sixties group for the entire soundtrack. Before that it was
Beach
> party movies that tried to cash in on kitsch and sex...oh, but I
> forgot...that was Hollywood trying to be respectable and moral. ;-)
you forget hard day's night. and, what about 50s films like rebel
without a cause and blackboard jungle? compared to them, graduate is
almost tame. besides, the graduate was a movie with a wide appeal.
even adults loved it. also, despite its jibe at 'plastics', the movie
is about a uppermiddle class kid, and of course the audience wanted to
identify with a rich kid. the movie sold a fantasy to the youth
audience. it was no more honest than old hollywood movies that also
sold glamour. yes, braddock seems to abandon everything for love, but
he has the money, the privelege, education, and the means to afford
such romanticism, freedom, and rebellion. so, it's really just another
hollywood movie.
> >
> > you say corporations did something evil and nasty but all it did
was
> > give kids what they wanted. if corporations tried to shove
> beethoven,
> > sinatra, or andy williams down kids' throats, you think it would
have
> > succeeded with even the mightest ad campaigns? no.
>
> You are viewing what I said in way too narrow of a view. I'm talking
> about the advent of the mega-corp, that sucked up everything it could
> control, including the news media and entertainment business. You
had
> middle managers from totally unrelated industries in charge. This
has
> led to the media crisis we have today...so much media in so few
hands.
that's a different issue. but, mega-corp or mini-corp, 60s created a
new culture dominated by youth tastes, and youth tastes were mainly
about loud, brash, mindless sex, violence, rock n roll and blockbuster
movies that precluded appreciation for more serious stuff like high
art, foreign film, classical music, jazz, and books, etc.
60s said just go with your young animal instincts. 60s generation
thought instincts would include higher and more serious stuff, but what
it really led to was a vast youth culture that was impatient,
attention-deficit-disordered, crass and crude. just look at 'gimme
shelter' and tell me there was longterm hope in them doped out eyes.
> >
> > rock music and blockbusters succeeded cuz they were what kids
wanted.
> > now, its CGI concerts and hip hop. corporations sell what kids
want.
> >
> > and why do kids want what they want? it began in the 60s with the
> > consolidation of youth culture. youth culture began in the 50s but
it
> > hadn't turned into youth nation until the 60s.
> >
> > 60s gen hoped kids would be passionate about rock music AND serious
> > art/intellectual ideas, but when rock(and drugs)appeared on the
> scene,
> > most kids wanted to rock and roll all night and party everyday and
> > didn't want agonize thru the latest susan sontag essay, try the
> latest
> > avant garde jazz, or watch foreign films that were 4 hrs long.
>
> Whoa, that is just an easy stereotype, proving that the forces of the
> right have succeeded in brainwashing the Ameican public into thinking
> that the Sixties failed. The Sixties notions of freedom,
> individualism, sharing the wealth, peace, love, and understanding ran
> contrary to maintaining and expanding the corporate bottom line. Is
it
> any wonder that there has been a 25 -30 year cultural war against
> everything the Sixties stood for? Well...it's working...they've got
> you fooled, among thousands.
nonsense.
first, i'm not anti-60s. i like much of that decade. and, i agree that
people who say 60s were all bad are narrow minded fools. but, let's not
be gushywushy 60s apologists nor pigheaded 60s bashers. the truth is
somewhere in between.
again, intention and fact are two different things. eisenhower 50s
were supposed to about prosperity, stability, nice suburban homes, and
happy conformity. that was the intention. but the fact is 50s spawned
rock n roll, youth rebellion, civil rights movement, beatniks, folkie
movement, etc.
kennedy/johnson 60s were supposed to be about a new america with
renewed energy and youthfulness and individuality but much of 60s
thinking was conformist--hippies all thinking alike, blacks all
becoming radical, etc. indeed, if one really wants to be a free
individual, why would he join a hippie commune, share in common ideals
and dreams as all the other youths, listen to the music every other kid
is listening to? also, 60s were supposed to be anti-materialistic but
you wanna tell me that 60s rock figures were not materialistic? you
wanna tell me a hippie who doesn't wanna work but bumd off food, dope,
shelter, etc. from others is not a crass materialist? he's just plain
lazy. he wants something for nothing. at the very least, corporations
work for their buck. hippies wanted everything for free. and, tell me
just how generous maharishi yogi and other such gurus were? if my
memory serves me right, they all surrounded themselves with rich celebs
and charged high fees for their spiritual counsel. and, did you read
'easy riders and raging bulls' by peter biskind? it's about early 70s
cinema, and you'll never read about more selfish, egotistical,
megalomaniacal, conceited individuals etc.
it's like 'the wild bunch' where someone says 'it's not what you meant
to do that i don't like but what you did'. we must judge 60s by what
happened, not what 60s people intended. peter coyote admitted that in
his commune, adults were using heroin in front of children! jerry
garcia's daughter said she accidentally ate magic mushrooms when she
was two cuz garcia was too lazy to remove it from the floor.
also, kids of 60s generation are some of the most snotnosed, conceited,
smug, smarmy, spoiled, pampered, materialistic, and crass idiots
around.
60s generation wanted their kids to grow up with more freedom than
themselves, but the result is households became too permissive. so we
have talkshows where parents say they can't control their kids. and
why? cuz these 60s gen parents are permissive idiots. that's why we
need cowboy dr. phil to knock them upside their heads.
RickNBarbInSD
alejandro de tacobell wrote:
This is ALL irrelevant Ad Hominem twaddle. The fact is that although
there has unfortunately been some backlash since, the sixties brought
about many positive social changes not the least of which were
accelerated reductions of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and
patriarchism etc. in our culture and to a lesser degree in the rest of
the world. Judging solely by some of the bigotry expressed in some of
your earlier posts you may not see these changes as positive, but they
certainly were for those people who were systematically repressed and
oppressed in the forties and fifties with utter impunity. Indignities
that are now unthinkable were then commonplace, and despite your gross
distortions and mischaracterizations I would submit that the music
played a large part in promoting and popularizing the ideas that made
those changes possible.
alejandro de tacobell
it's relevant cuz it affects us today. look up the word 'relevant'.
> The fact is that although
> there has unfortunately been some backlash since, the sixties brought
> about many positive social changes
i agree. i like the 60s overall. but, champions of 60s were too gushy,
too naive, too idealistic, too self-righteous to see that 60s unleashed
alot of bad stuff too.
> not the least of which were
> accelerated reductions of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and
> patriarchism etc.
true and untrue. white bigotry declined but black bigotry has gotten
much much worse. black people now see white people as just a bunch of
faggotyass pussyboys. afrocentrist ideology which dominate black
consciousness says white people stole everything from blacks all
throughout history. greeks stole from egyptians, white people stole
black recipes, white people stole black music, etc, etc. and,
affirmative action is racial favoritist progressive bigotry targeting
especially jews and asians in favor of hispanics and blacks. and,
listen to gangsta rap and tell me that isn't bigoted. black culture
went from martin luther king to al sharpton, the new voice of
blackness. whoopie.
as for sexism, 60s was about women reduced to screaming sex objects and
groupies of rock stars. indeed, when we read about most sixties
figures, they didn't have much respect for women. stones were
misogynists. so were godard and norman mailer. dylan too. indeed,
what is the image of women in the rock world? she's something to sing
about as a piece of meat. at rock concerts, men are gods and women are
screaming adoring fans. whether it was elvis, beatles, stones, etc,
women were often screaming emotional sex slaves to men. they wetted
their pants in orgasms and wanted to suck mick jagger's dick. is this
progress?
and, since then, it's gotten worse. look at rap, look at madonna and
spears, and etc. what is a woman to rappers? a 'ho'. what is the
public image of madonna and spears? dignified women? goddesses? no,
just sluts and whores, a musical strip tease act. it's a skanky las
vegas show with music. this all grew out of the 60s.
at the other extreme, you had the feminists who suppressed everything
that was natural about womenhood and refused makeup and wore overalls
cuz looking pretty was 'sexist'. and, where did that go? it got boring
and dull and stifling and dogmatic and was ulimately laughed at.
moderation is best and 60s didn't know the meaning of the word. it was
extreme this, extreme that. and, extremes always fail cuz the world is
not that simple.
and, 'homophobia' is a myth. i agree that greater tolerance of gays is
a good thing, but there was no such thing as homophobia. phobia is an
extreme irrational fear of something. normal people never had extreme
irrational fear of gays. instead, they rationally and naturally saw
gayness as faggoty, what with guys boofing eachother and fondling
eachother's balls. to hold that in contempt is natural and normal and
healthy, though i agree we should leave gays alone in peace.
the problem isn't homophobia which doesn't exist but homophilia, the
artificial notion that homosexuality is, oh goshy, the most wonderful
thing in the world. sticking a reproductive organ into a shi*hole is
not normal, not healthy, not rational, not natural, and certainly not
beautiful.
as for classism, what in the hell are you talking about? 60s were the
go-go yrs when the stock market was zooming and americans were consumer
crazy. people were very class conscious. everyone wanted to be
middleclass or higher. yes, there were hippies and dropouts and such
and such but when they grew a bit older, they realized they couldn't
bum off their parents forever and found jobs and cared about making
money and paying the bills. also, the great society turned out to
reinforce class divisions by encouraging black families to fail, to be
dependent on welfare, and be mired in poverty. never mind its
intentions; the results was blacks falling deeper and deeper into
poverty and dependence. so, great society inadvertantly made class
divisions even worse.
also, 60s youth narcissism led to 70s me-ism. when 60s gen were in
highschool and college, they were able to socially hang around people
like themselves and thought the communal party could go on forever with
everyone being so beautiful and groovy. but, after they finished
college, they were alone in the real world, and what they retained from
the 60s era was that nothing matters more than me, me, me. 60s
generation were not selfless but selfish. they wanted to spend endless
days attending rock concerts while their parents worked to pay the
mortgage. they dropped out not to help the poor or do good work but to
'find themselves', go to haight-ashbury and hang around other
'beautiful people' and do spiritual things like taking drugs and having
orgies. or, cruising on motorcyles or surfing. it was consumerist and
it led to 70s me-ism which then led to 80s yuppism.
also, the obnoxious self-righteous, utopian narcissism of the 60s gen
really turned the stomachs of later generations, especially when the
60s gen grew up and became pretty much like their parents ALL THE WHILE
commemorating everything 60s-ish in the media. 60s, 60s, 60s, they had
all the answers, they were so wonderful, they were so cool, blah blah
blah. enough already. 60s gen was better than all that came before,
better than all came afterward, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. talk about
narcissism.
as for patriarchism, what has replaced it? permissive parentism where
kids are showered with 100 dollar gym shoes? where kids are allowed to
listen to marilyn manson, gangsta rap, and other garbage? or, high
divorcism or singlemotherism? wow, those are great trends.
yes, patriarchy doesn't exist in the black community but what has
replaced it? young-male-muscle-ism. i'll agree that old-fashioned
moralistic black preacher patriarchs can be a pompous pain in the ass.
but, what's preferable? some funkyass jiveass punks who jump in the
sack with a dozen ho's, doesn't stick around to raise his own kids,
gets all his values and ideas from rap music or some hiphop funkyjunky
mofo yabbitydabbitydoo? at least patriarchs stick around to bear the
burden of responsibility. what to punkarchs do? they only see women as
ho's, as meat, and where did this begin? with presley and rock and
roll. and, do punkarchs respect any authority other than youth and
muscle and badass hipness? i don't think so.
> in our culture and to a lesser degree in the rest of
> the world. Judging solely by some of the bigotry expressed in some
of
> your earlier posts you may not see these changes as positive, but
they
> certainly were for those people who were systematically repressed and
> oppressed in the forties and fifties with utter impunity.
Indignities
> that are now unthinkable were then commonplace, and despite your
gross
> distortions and mischaracterizations I would submit that the music
> played a large part in promoting and popularizing the ideas that made
> those changes possible.
40s and 50s saw great changes. 60s started out great but it soon
degenerated cuz of its excesses, its delusions, its self-righteousness,
and its hatreds and bigotry. 60s soon turned into an era of youth
bigotry. it was founded on utopianism which is always stupid. it was
based on the feeling that the world could be changed by good vibes.
indeed, many 60s people who started out chanting love, love, love and
peace, peace, peace soon found themselves promoting hate, hate, hate
and war, war, war. it was a generation that started out with 'hard days
night' and ended up cheering 'battle of algiers'.
if 60s gen knew something about moderation, they would have continued
in the cautious and longterm constructive manner of truman and kennedy.
but, 60s gen embraced every idiocy like maoism, black pantherism,
radical anti-male feminism, burn-baby-burnism, zonk-out-on-drug-ism,
romanticize-communists-ism, bum-off-everyone-ism, welfare-ism, and
open-sexuality-sewagism-that-reduced-women-into-slabs-of-meat-ism.
in fact, 60s didn't even make sense. indeed, what did peaceloving flaky
hippies, maoist black panthers, puritanical radical feminists, rolling
stones, flying burrito brothers, jean luc godard, susan sontag, andrew
sarris, pauline kael, tiny tim, SDS, motown, and hell's angels have in
common? how do you square maoism with marvin gaye? or, timothy leary
with che guevara?
the only way you can say they all constituted some grand noble
experiment is to deal only with superficialities. no wonder 60s was so
much into poster art. yeah, stick the beatles, mao, che, stones, diana
ross, psychedelic colors, a godard movie poster, etc on the wall
WITHOUT understanding the real substance of each. see the world as
just a colorful show in your narcissistic circus as the hippest coolest
dude in the cosmos. do some pot, lsd, and who knows what else and i
suppose one would think this way.
as for the music, i agree 60s produced alot of great music. but, the
nature of rock is it conditions kids to think something has to be loud,
fast, and furious to be appealing and meaningful. in time, it creates a
new kind of snobbery and intolerance. kids raised on rock and hiphop
will often refuse to read, watch art films, or try listening to music
that doesn't offer immediate gratification.
also, while i'll defend 60s rock, what it spawned did alot of bad.
heavy metal, punk, and rap all grew out of 60s rock. heavy metal is
misogynist, ugly, barbaric, infantile, and retarded. punk is hateful,
demented, pathological, and retarded. rap is murderous, animalistic,
anti-woman, crass, and retarded.
and, if you really think funky rhythmic music is the basis for utopia,
do tell me why africans who are so full of rhythm can't even feed
themselves or maintain stable societies.
yeah, we've been brainwashed to think stiff rigid patriarchal nazis
were murderous cuz they were all into discipline and order. but,
rwandans were beating on drums and shaking their arses as they hacked
800,000 people to death with machetes.
will america's problems be solved by asswiggling, calling women 'ho's',
raising girls with groupie mentality worshipful of barbaric rock stars,
etc?
i think not.
JimK
<fatsg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You've got too much free times. Have you considered a hobby?
JimK
marc...@yahoo.com
JimK wrote:
> >i think not.
>
> You've got too much free times. Have you considered a hobby?
>
> JimK
On the contrary when someone is a racist, fully invested in a Hobbesian
view of the world, there's never enough time.
RickNBarbInSD
This is ALL irrelevant Ad Hominem twaddle.
>
> it's relevant cuz it affects us today. look up the word 'relevant'.
>
Judging from the amount and variety of logical fallicies riddling your
response, this may be an utter waste of time, but what is irrelevent is
the specific personal behaviors of various rock stars (i.e. John Lennon
was a rich man, Janis Joplin was an alcoholic etc.). These things
don't change the fact that much positive social progress was made in
the sixties and that the music contributed to it. Hence, they are not
'relevant' to the discussion. Please see "Description of Ad Hominem"
below.
Main Entry: rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: 're-l&-v&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present
participle of relevare to raise up -- more at RELIEVE
1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand
b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue
or under discussion <relevant testimony>
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man"
or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character
of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made
(or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting
the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the
claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the
character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases)
have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the
quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to
say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope,
so I can't believe what you say."
marc...@yahoo.com
>
breaks
> out in hives whenever anyone speaks in specifics rather than lazy
> generalizations, and you're bound to draw nothing but a quick,
churlish
> sneer in reply. When in doubt, just call the opponent "brainwashed"
and
> bail out....
WOW, we should seen this one coming right down Broadway.
Poisoned Rose, champion of disparaging others while remaining ambiguous
about his own take on the subject. And why not, you're an equal
opportunity disparager.
As for me, if I wanted to devote a good hour's worth to responding to
TacoBell's inane, prejudicial spin on things, I could. But, I all
ready said what I wanted to say, and I'm too damn tired right now.
So, my suggestion is to go to the 1960s discussion group at:
http://.groups-beta.google.com/group/1960s
and read the following threads:
Born on the Fourth of July
Positive effect of the Sixties, still felt today.
marc...@yahoo.com
poisoned rose wrote:
> marc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > poisoned rose wrote:
> > > you're bound to draw nothing but a quick, churlish
> > > sneer in reply.
>
>
> >
> > Poisoned Rose, champion of disparaging others while remaining
ambiguous
> > about his own take on the subject. And why not, you're an equal
> > opportunity disparager.
> >
> > As for me, if I wanted to devote a good hour's worth to responding
to
> > TacoBell's inane, prejudicial spin on things, I could. But, I all
> > ready said what I wanted to say, and I'm too damn tired right now.
>
You left out this part:
So, my suggestion is to go to the 1960s discussion group at:
http://.groups-beta.google.com/group/1960s