WAY O.T. FAME : Who deserves it the least?

[the_resonator]

 

Originally posted by cybermooks Politics are just the decisions that govern our everday lives, and lord knows we talk about our everyday lives here. As a libertarian I don't think so. We make the decisions that govern our everyday lives. Politics is when someone else tries to.

 

 

That is frankly absurd. It doesn't matter if you are a Green Party member, libertarian, or don't vote at all. Politics DO govern our everyday lives. Because our government is run by politicians.

And the government governs.

 

You could assert that it shouldn't be that way (i think a lot of people agree..as long as it's left out of their lives, but still governs their next door neighbor, etc.), but it's ridiculous to postulate that it isn't.

 

I think the radioplaymoron president metaphor is an apt one in a number of ways. For example, radioplay is largely (completely with the only exception being college radio, NPR/PRI, and public radio) determined by ratings accumulated by Arbitron (say 'monopoly' with a smile, please).

If, say, no one listened to the latest Pop Girl/little sister/boy/country jingoistic/blah sensation....then it would not appear to dominate the airwaves.

Likewise, if the differential between Gore and Bush totals had been larger than the quarter million votes it was, then it would have been much harder for the electoral college to so obviously reach a contrary decision to the general electorate.

 

However, i think the new expansion of electronic media is obviating the radio, and doing so with dispatch. For example, you can now get 500+ channels with satellite radio, in addition to the AM/FM choices, which can reach 100+, and you can get whatever songs or albums you want off of the internet and play them via an Mp3/4 whatever player as well.

 

15 years ago, when i was young, you could only get different and original via the 'cool' independent record store downtown, or mail order catalogs. Neither of which was readily available to the young audiences who are most important to maintaining growth and a healthy artistic community.

 

Now, it's a click away, and most times can be had for free. I think the days of radio domination are reaching an end.

 

All hail free downloads, php, linux, open source, internet radio, and the worldwide community.

[Puta]

Originally posted by SirGarrote all Bush's presidency proves is that there are more morons in the US than non-morons. -G

 

 

yeah, if a moron (moroon ) can become president, it says something about the people that voted for him!

[jigg]

What scares me the most about this country right now is the almost Messianic worship that people are giving Bush. I don't so much mind to guy (I'm still torn between him and Kerry), but it scares the hell out of me when people are willing to almost kill someone who speaks against him. It smacks of fanatic facism.

[Fear My Potato]

That's something I've noticed too. It's almost like there's some deep insecurity with supporting Bush in some of these people, at least the ones I've met. They know they're uninformed and haven't done their reading, and they don't want to have to so when the discussion gets to a certain point they run out of options and get frustrated.

 

At least around here, Albany is a weird place.

[cybermooks]

 

Originally posted by jigg What scares me the most about this country right now is the almost Messianic worship that people are giving Bush. I don't so much mind to guy (I'm still torn between him and Kerry), but it scares the hell out of me when people are willing to almost kill someone who speaks against him. It smacks of fanatic facism.

 

 

 

Oh please that pales alongside the fanatical, myopic, irrational hatred of Bush on the part of many of his opponents. The funny thing is that it isn't even over anything all that substantive, i.e. they hate Bush more than the terrorists, - as much as a cultural clash because the guy is from Texas.

 

If you are really so swept up in this crap you are misdirecting emotional power away from what you really want, or claim to want to do: make music.

[jigg]

 

Originally posted by cybermooks Oh please that pales alongside the fanatical, myopic, irrational hatred of Bush on the part of many of his opponents.

 

I'd say they about strike even. That's the other thing that scares me. There seems to be no voice for the middle. I don't know whether that's the media's fault or whether it's just the fact that just about everyone has been polarized by all the shouting rhetoric. I was actually very comforted by something one of the 9/11 Commission members said yesterday, about it being an election year that both sides will disagree... "that is right, that is good, that is proper." It set a tone that I don't that I've ever heard in politics in my life, that people should disagree, but reasonably, rationally, with acceptance. Not with the seemingly endless hostility that we're experiencing now.

[cybermooks]

Yes that's true, but one can misinterpret the "division" aspect; most people are oblivious and are not motivated by political passion fortunately. That's where you get the "middle."

 

Political obssessions often are nothing more than misdirected psychological problems latched onto something that is not real. There's an obssession with the "other," those other bad guys as the source of problems and other bad things, but meanwhile a lot of this is just in one's head. No one could possibly be as evil as portrayed (outside of the terrorists) and the actual differences are not all that salient.

 

We went through something like this in the 60s, only far worse. What I do know is this: you can really waste your life fuming about political things, brooding endlessly, wasting copious amounts of time that you could have used productively, i.e. doing music. I've been there, done that. Its no way to live. I'd give anything to get back the time I wasted on such concerns.

 

All things pass. If you don't like something in the public sphere today, there will be something else tomorrow. If you get what you "think" you want it doesn't turn out the way you expected, etc. etc. Then the unexpected always happens anyway.

 

Then before you know it your time is up and what have you done?

[jigg]

True, good points, all.

My problem is that it is reactionary, because when everyone around me is screaming that Bush can do no wrong, it's kinda hard not to immediately want to counterattack from the extreme position. Excellent point on psych. association.

 

 

Originally posted by cybermooks All things pass. If you don't like something in the public sphere today, there will be something else tomorrow.

 

 

Yeah, but there's damage being done while it's running it's course. Nature of the beast, I guess.

[Fear My Potato]

I think taking that energy and focusing it on music is a great idea, especially if the music is reflecting how you feel about what's going on. That's really what music is supposed to do right, be an accurate and true reflection of your take on your surroundings? Not that everything should be a political or social rant, that's definately not what I'm saying, but politics and society are a large part of our everyday lives (whether we guide the rest or not) and to ignore that large part of what is happening around us is almost irresponsible. Nothing bothers me more than musicians who completely ignore society and politics, like Britney Spears. You can only sing about love for so long...

 

And it's said all the time that politics/society and music don't mix...but then if you honestly believe that it gets very difficult to explain such outspoken musicians as Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam), Bob Marley, Ray Manzarek (the Doors), Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young, Grace Slick (Jefferson Airplane), the sixties in general, the list goes on.

[cybermooks]

 

Originally posted by Fear My Potato And it's said all the time that politics/society and music don't mix...but then if you honestly believe that it gets very difficult to explain such outspoken musicians as Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam), Bob Marley, Ray Manzarek (the Doors), Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young, Grace Slick (Jefferson Airplane), the sixties in general, the list goes on.

 

 

Ha great political theorists all, right up there with Aristotle and Edmund Burke. I don't mean to be facetious but these are largely emotional irrational types of responses.

 

Any serious political thought requires a rational detachment that follows the rules of reasonable discourse, otherwise it is just infantile posturing. But that is incompatible with music.

[jigg]

...more than just a little presumptuous, there, cyber. And not terribly accurate. Rational and reasonable discourse, yes. Detachment is next to impossible, due to the simple fact that we're human beings.

Some celebreties do indeed come across as jackasses, but you certainly can't presume to know exactly what their level of education is on a given matter. While it may not always be true, they may know something that you don't. That's part of being open-minded, reasonable, and rational.

Attacking a person and their point of view without knowing how they reached that point of view is more akin to infantile posturing inline with elitism.

[GigMan]

Originally posted by Fear My Potato I think taking that energy and focusing it on music is a great idea, especially if the music is reflecting how you feel about what's going on. That's really what music is supposed to do right, be an accurate and true reflection of your take on your surroundings? Not that everything should be a political or social rant, that's definately not what I'm saying, but politics and society are a large part of our everyday lives (whether we guide the rest or not) and to ignore that large part of what is happening around us is almost irresponsible. Nothing bothers me more than musicians who completely ignore society and politics, like Britney Spears. You can only sing about love for so long... And it's said all the time that politics/society and music don't mix...but then if you honestly believe that it gets very difficult to explain such outspoken musicians as Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam), Bob Marley, Ray Manzarek (the Doors), Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young, Grace Slick (Jefferson Airplane), the sixties in general, the list goes on.

 

I disagree:

I like music for it's own sake - I do NOT want to hear, know, or ever care about the musicians/celebs/actors political views.

 

I think Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover, Whoopi Goldberg, et. al are VERY talented + creative forces. Likewise w/Michael Stipe (REM), Chrissy Hynde of The Pretenders (who's like the PETA celebrity posterchild now), Neil Young, Dixie Chicks, etc...

 

However, I just don't know, want to know, or CARE about what they have to say politically. The ONLY reason they have a forum to express their views is because of their "pre-existing condition" of already being famous for acting, playing music, or for just "being famous" (the Paris Hilton syndrome - she's famous for being famous...). And I think their pre-existing fame creates the illusion for the public (who is completely caught up in celebrity-worhsip) that whatever comes out of their mouths regarding society, politics, religion... should be taken very seriously.

 

[scubyfan]

Originally posted by GigMan And I think their pre-existing fame creates the illusion for the public (who is completely caught up in celebrity-worhsip) that whatever comes out of their mouths regarding society, politics, religion... should be taken very seriously.

 

That's my biggest worry. There are millions of kids who are out of touch with anything even remotely resembling politics, and all they do is worship these figures who are famous for reasons completely unrelated to their thoughts on world affairs. Thus, there is a lot of control and opinion-shaping exercised on these poor souls, who end up having a one-sided and even incorrect/false takes on modern issues, especially politics.

 

Then again, who cares? Those who are mature enough to have their own strong opinions will completely disregard anything that leaves the mouths of these spoiled celebs, and the only real damage will be done to the followers. But considering youngsters don't vote and don't often care about these things (unless the celebs tell them to... ), it's a moot point.

[Fear My Potato]

Ha great political theorists all, right up there with Aristotle and Edmund Burke. I don't mean to be facetious but these are largely emotional irrational types of responses.

 

I don't know man, Eddie Vedder is good friends with Howard Zinn, probably the most acclaimed political theorist (if you want to call him that) of modern times and while sometimes the expressions can seem irrational (would a sit down coffee discussion work better in concert?) it doesn't necessarily undermine the validity or thought that went into it. It's a little difficult to say that Ray Manzarek or Eddie Vedder didn't put in rational thought to their political and social beliefs, especially Ray Manzarek who was extremely intellectual back in the day.

 

Any serious political thought requires a rational detachment that follows the rules of reasonable discourse, otherwise it is just infantile posturing. But that is incompatible with music.

 

I think to be productive about it it requires two approaches...a rational examination from a detached perspective to give it a full image as well as that personal connection to make it a fervent pursuit and an informed position. I find it interesting that when a person is in the middle of a situation and writes about it, they're "too involved" to have a rational understanding...yet if a person isn't in the middle of it people often dismiss what they have to say as uninformed. I think the best person to write about something is a rational, intelligent person who's in the middle of it. It's not where you are, it's what mindset you approach the situation with.

 

However, I also think there are more valuable and pertinent pieces of literature and more importantly journalism to be reading right now, especially in America, than aristotle. I think it's far more important to get an accurate view of your surroundings than to spend that time reading political theory, because once you absorb all those political theories you haven't got anything to apply it to. Better to formulate your own political theories based on what is actually happening.

[Fear My Potato]

 

Originally posted by scubyfan That's my biggest worry. There are millions of kids who are out of touch with anything even remotely resembling politics, and all they do is worship these figures who are famous for reasons completely unrelated to their thoughts on world affairs. Thus, there is a lot of control and opinion-shaping exercised on these poor souls, who end up having a one-sided and even incorrect/false takes on modern issues, especially politics.

 

 

The underlying problem here isn't the fact that celebrities have opinions though, it's the fact that kids don't base their beliefs on anything but celebrities, so if we really want to solve that problem we shouldn't be discussing celebrities, we should be discussing kids. If the formulation of political/social thought for people is ending at age fourteen than America has a very serious problem on it's hands...formulation of political/social thought should be constant thing open to whatever happens next in the world.

 

And what do you do when you have a person who is famous partially because of their political/social views, like Eddie Vedder? Part of the reason he got so famous so fast and had so much impact on that generation was the fact that he was very outspoken and very opinioned on several problems in society. "Jeremy" is a great example. Maybe if some parents had actually listened to that song instead of saying "I don't want to have to listen to political/social jibberjabber!" there wouldn't have been Columbine or Jonesboro or...

 

Yes it's a stretch, I know, but you get my point.

 

And if you hear celebrities saying something and you just consider it a person blasting their views into that forum then your approach to political/social discussion is all wrong. Society should be open to large debates about that kind of thing in music, movies, radio, etc...not just in literature! What the hell is so different about music from literature that one can discuss heavy topics and the other can't? One line comes to mind from Grace Slick from something off After Bathing Baxters "...that I'd rather have my country die for me." That's one hell of a powerful line and it makes you think, whether you agree with it or not.

 

Basically what I'm saying is that if you're at a point where you hear an opinion and it jerks you to reaction rather than thought, you should be re-examining your approach to social and political thought.

[Fear My Potato]

See, is discussing politics and society really that bad? I'd say we're doing a pretty good job here.

[jigg]

This is why I love KSnS...

 

 

 

...ok, this and bis-ass asians.

[Fear My Potato]

Originally posted by jigg This is why I love KSnS... ...ok, this and bis-ass asians.

 

Yeah, people always say "Come on! Take it open jam!" but can you honestly tell me this kind of informed discussion would be going on there?

[jigg]

Not an iceberg's chance in hell.

[Fear My Potato]

 

Originally posted by Fear My Potato What the hell is so different about music from literature that one can discuss heavy topics and the other can't?

 

 

And to continue this, I'm sure there are Pink Floyd fans in here. A lot of what Pink Floyd had to say was a commentary on the flaws of the music industry. I don't understand why it's acceptable to be discussing flaws with the music industry but not something that pertains to the listeners as well. When you look at it like this, you really have to wonder if it's the fact that there's meaningful things in music that bothers people, or if people just don't like hearing things that differ from their pre-set opinions.

 

And just to make one thing clear, with discussions like this while I may be refuting or addressing your points and coming up with counterpoints, and while I generally believe those counterpoints at the time...I definately am subject to change. I've done a fair amount of political discussion and one thing I've noticed is that even though I may have been disagreeing on the spot with something, it still can work it's way into my opinions and all. Maybe it's that on-the-spot disagreement that makes it hard to listen to someone sing about meaningful and heavy issues?

[scubyfan]

Except Pink Floyd didn't pass off political opinions blatantly and then form their music around it, as a veil, pardon the pun. The most obvious discussion of the music industry's true face is on "Wish You Were Here," but most of their other stuff has a broader theme.

 

Isn't all music based on opinion? The creator's motive is intertwined with his/her opinions, so thus, it's more important to judge the degree and kind of blatancy than whether or not opinions are portrayed at all.

[jigg]

In short, any creative effort will have bias.

[Fear My Potato]

Except Pink Floyd didn't pass off political opinions blatantly and then form their music around it, as a veil, pardon the pun.

 

Who are you talking about with this one?

 

it's more important to judge the degree and kind of blatancy than whether or not opinions are portrayed at all.

 

Hmmmm...

[cybermooks]

Who listens or really pays attention to lyrics anyway? Some dysfunctional kids may take them seriously; I don't think most people do. Words are more like phrases that fit into the mix; syllables that go along with the music.

 

Pink Floyd is great because the music is great. I could play any tune through from memory but still don't know the lyrics after decades; I only remember lead phrases like "Hello, is anybody out there," or "all you are is just another brick in the wall."

 

Or it took a lot of years to find out another song was saying "Louie Louie."

 

If you read most lyrics with out the music they are either inane (mostly) or pretentious bull{censored}.

 

Where is the lyric dominant? How about Rap, the most unmusical genre to come along, i.e. some dude talking {censored} over bass thumps.

[Fear My Potato]

as far as the president/airplay thing that's more or less what I meant to get at...that just because a person is at the top doesn't mean they necessarily deserve to be there or even are capable of being there, it just means they manipulated the system enough to get there.

 

And you have to realize there are a lot more forces at work here than you think. It makes sense to assume that a person who is in a position therefore are capable of being in that position...but that's assuming it's an isolated situation. With any President you have a massive support structure...politically, economically, the old buddy-buddy system, the Illuminati, etc. You don't have to believe in the Scull & Bones, but you have to at least agree there's a sickening support structure that skews conventional logic.

 

Obviously the US government doesn't function as it appears to either. I remember when Bush began talking about invading Iraq, and I remember as evidence was presented and all and it doesn't seem like the evidence or even the discussions in Congress were what influenced Congress to allow this war. It really seems like there were a lot of slimy underlying influences going on under the thin guise of the presentation of evidence. I don't know it just all doesn't seem to meet up on any middle ground. The whole "two sides keep one man from getting his will done" obviously doesn't work because the bottom line is that there's a third power at work here and it isn't democrat or republican...from what I can tell whatever it is is simply greedy.

 

And that last paragraph is frighteningly bitter