[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Revolution Is Dead, They Say



> This interesting subject was recently explored by a program on VH1, 
> though it unfortunately confined the history to American music of the 
> sixties and early seventies--no mention of British bands.

Keets:

Didn't catch it but it sounds great; I cannot imagine how they got away
without mentioning the British Invasion, though. Fortunately, VH1 is the
king of all repeats.

> I don't recall any other period in history where music might have been 
> such an important vehicle for politics.

Not JUST politics, but social issues as well. Lifestyle in particular.

> Is it the political movement that's dead 
> instead of rock music?

It IS dead, yes, but it was killed off long before the music. Nixon and
Agnew killed it, and quite intentionally. Bastards!

> The BBC basement tapes are next up, aren't they?

I'm hearing now that Ashley is holding it up. I can't confirm that.

> a) one disc at a time, repeating the first disc over
> & over until you've thoroughly "grokked" its

Carolyn:

ANOTHER Heinlein fan.
First I play them one, two, three...later I might pick a period. Some
discs obviously are going to be favored, by what's on it. For instance,
the excellent Chess Blues boxed set's third disc is outstanding, while
the others are merely very, very good.
Course here in the store I tend to play an entire boxed set in order,
since I've got 9 hours a day to listen to music.

> Hate to tell ya Brian, but almost without exception (take note of the word
> almost), every Who song can be sung to "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star."

McGoo:

No they can't. Unless you're "doing a Dickinson" by transposing words
and changing where it breaks to suit the tune.

> It wasn't I who made the above comment, but I do have something to say 
> about this.  The relationship of "art" to social change seems to be a 
> circular process.

This is definitely true, but in the `60's in particular music influenced
the society. Because it was a huge lifestyle change, and the artists
were "leading" the fans. Consider the song Crown Of Creation by
Jefferson Airplane. "In loyalty to their kind/They cannot tolerate our
minds/In loyalty to our kind/We cannot tolerate their obstruction..." If
that's not a call for revolution, I don't know what is!
Unfortunately, when you're a millionaire like John Lennon you could sit
around and do acid all day whereas the fans who had to work or go to
school had a harder time finding the same enlightenment mainly because
they had to make a living. It's easy to reject society when you have
enough money to ignore it. And also unfortunately, most of us didn't
realize this until much later. Had we suceeded in the revolution, it
might have been different...however, mainstream society quickly stomped
out the fire by jailing the primaries and making the followers
criminals. John Sinclair was sentenced to ten years for two joints. And
back then, you served it! I knew of a guy in Texas who was sentenced for
"intention to cultivate" for burnt seeds found in his car's ashtray.
Even today it's perfectly fine to work if you're an alcoholic whereas if
you smoked a single joint within the last two months your job could be
at risk. And no one seems to see anything wrong with this...

> There are constant arguments on this subject.  for a 
> current example, is gangsta rap a cause or an effect of behavior?

More of a cause than an effect. For one thing, it had to be "dangerous"
as to be on the cutting edge music must be dangerous. Rock USED to be,
and bands like Marilyn Manson, White Zombie, and Tool still play at it.
So Rap went farther than the real behavior of the artists (how many
women can a guy get when they're all "bee-at-ches?"), just like Manson
fans are more on the edge than the man himself...because they buy into
it just as we bought into it in the `60's.

> course, in the sixties, a similar question might have been asked about 
> The Who, and in the twenties about Louis Armstrong.)

The main difference here is that in the `20's communication was a LOT
slower, not having the huge network of radio and then television to fuel
it. Trends and fads moved along slower...they might last years instead
of weeks...today they flash by and are over before you even get a grasp
on them.

> art reflects change, but it also calls attention to new directions in 

DEFINITELY!

>It was unified?  That's news to me.

It was unified within itself. I know it sounds ridiculous, but when I
was hitchhiking around the country in the early `70's I could depend on
a ride from any longhair or "chick" who was a hippie. A ride, food, sex,
drugs. We KNEW we could trust each other. Then in the early `70's the
"pigs" used kids busted for drugs as informers & narks, and the entire
thing fell apart. They turned us against ourselves. It's a real pity any
kids bought into it, but...they weren't REALLY dedicated to change, just
going along with it. Shock troops, you could say.
So the social changed failed and we got Disco.
Society as a whole was fragmented, yes...because there were those who
said "Love it or leave it" and then us on the other end of the spectrum,
and the ones in between who knew we were right but were put off by our
lifestyle.
If it were done today, it would have been "packaged" better.

> into the picture.  I think the generation gap was aside from this 
> political movement, and was more clearly expressed by such bands as The 
> Who. 

Here I must disagree with you...with the exception of WGFA, which wasn't
pro-revolution anyway, Townshend was rather non-political. His music was
all about society and spirituality, and when he spoke of revolution it
was generally an inner one. And even then, it was usually about
realizing something about yourself.

-- 

 "You take the guns...I'll keep the women."
             what David Koresh should have said

                      Cheers                ML