The Sixties

No, you can't. But the mistake you're making is in assuming that "hippie-ness" consists solely of sitting around saying "oh wow, that's some good shit, man." The true hippie credo is much more than that, which is something that's grievously missed by a lot of younger people these days.

The way you fight a corrupt government, at least in this country, is by voting their asses out. Yeah, we marched and we occupied ROTC buildings, etc, etc, and while those things might be good for raising awareness, what really matters is who you vote for.

We began to really understand this around the time of Gene McCarthy's presidential campaign in 1968, and that's why I say his campaign was one of the most important events of the 60's, far more important than any drugs or music.

I think you're probably right in that the hippie era has been romanticized a lot, but to say that it didn't really accomplish anything is to miss the context of the times. It accomplished a huge amount. It hooked into the Civil Rights Movement, from which it was largely born, and also gave us the Women's Movement, which of course was just another kind of civil rights. Along the way, it changed the social fabric of the world.

The music, the clothes, the hair ... those things were the trappings of the hippie era, but they weren't its defining characteristics. What defined the hippie era was the social outlook.

Then in the 1980's, with the beginning of the Reagan-Bush years, we got ourselves a conservative backlash, an emergence of the political far right that has lasted to this day. As a result, the American political scene is more polarized now that at any time I can remember.

But back to the original point ... in order to see the real effects of the hippie era, you first have to recognize what it really was, and understand that drugs and music wasn't what made it what it was.

 

The retro Phenomonen is also interesting. From a cultural perspective we as a society always seem to be nostalgic for what happened about 20 years ago. For example Sha Na Na performing a 50's act at Woodstock in 1969. The retro styling of 60's cars in the 2000's. That's more like a 30 year lag and it appeals to the baby boomers who had muscle cars in the mid to late 60's. That 70's show ,,,during the 90's. I hope that nostalgia for the 60's never goes away..it was such an interesting and unique time.

 

Granny and Zorba:
I'll just state the obvious by saying that an anarchist/hippie when he/she drops out is no longer trying to change society. All he asks is to be let alone, and in almost every case the state refuses to do that. The left-wing politicos of the time were well aware of this and were generally very critical of drop-outs.

 

I did a paper on comparing the 60's counter culture movement in San Francisco to the goldrush, much of what i think about the 60's has already been said.

 

I never understood what made the sixties and diffrent from the 50's 70's or any other time really.

I often hear the mantra of peace and love used in conjunction when someone describes the 1960's I always figured it was some rich white hippie with no real concerns who coined the phrase, after all during the 60's a brutal land was was being waged with horrendous losses to both sides, race relations were shit and racism was still rampant.

Not exactly peace and love as I would describe it, but hey at least alot of people were able to stand in the mud listening to shitty music at the supposed woodstock festival.

By the way the festival known as woodstock was a hoax perpetrated in part by the Central intelligence Agency.

To read more about it click on this.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=316732&f=420

 

Maybe ya should look into personal preferences, before you state that in actuality a music genre is "shitty." That's how you perceive it... Also, the 60's were very similar and connected with the decades directly before and after it. This is because after WWII there was a period in America known as the Post-war era, which lasted from 1945-1975, and all events with in that timespan are so closely connected that... Well I personally think is just amazing.

Also, it's not good to blindly follow conspiracy theories, because that makes you just as bad as a person who blindly follows his government... I don't like the statesmen of every decade has has a cultural revolution, because I don't believe that to be true. The 60's had a cultural revolution, sexual revolution, personal independence, and civil rights... Of course after a period of time things change within the mainstream, and I just would like to think of it as a cultural evolution, not quite a revolution.

 

I think the sixties are just as relevant as the eighties, or any other decade. The difference being that American mythology has turned that particular decade into a very lucrative business.

It's over, time to move on.

Nostalgia will always be a booming business.

 

The 1920's were the original 1960's

 

I really dig the 50s more then the 60s for some reason

 

Woodstock lost money, in part because the organizers decided not to go heavy on the gate crashers. Not all of the locals were pleased with the property damage and jammed roads. Still, a whole lot of people came, had a great time, got laid. As for the music, just what have the following four decades contributed that was anywhere near this quality? Lady Gaga? Michael Jackson? Give me a break.

 

If you were alive during the 60's, your view is going to differ from that of those who lived though it in a different region of the country. I think that the changes were more radical for the South than elsewhere. Before 1960, different points of view and different lifestyles were not tolerated at all in the South. The situation was less dire in other places.

 

I think anyone who says the 60's were more peaceful than the last couple of decades don't have a clue why there emerged a counterculture (which is generally the source of what the 60's makes so groovy to many people). And if you understand what circumstances it takes to get in a cultural revolution like the one in the 60's I guess you don't feel like romanticizing the decade in which it took place, unless you romanticize and love to rebel against society. I agree you would probably love it back then. If you like a better world for everyone and rebelling for that cause comes after that you're better of nowadays since overall we ARE much better off as a society (partially because of the changes started in the sixties). So yeah, it is inspirational.

Well, that differs per person obviously. That some people can't get into any music after the 60's is their 'problem'.

Great sarcasm dude, but after all this is subjective anyway. Also, these are only two pop artists, if you don't like them post a better example of something that in your opinion actually comes near that quality. Although I'm neither impressed by these two person's music I can imagine other peeps do in fact think Michael Jackson reached the same quality. If you can't put yourself in the place of someone with different music taste you might as well give up bothering about any kind of music you dislike. In fact, that may be the best thing to do indeed cause you probably keep nagging on everything except your own precious preferences (which, if they only consists of 60's music are probably limited by lack of interest/openmindedness/urge for something new).
I also don't understand much of how some kinds of music got so big since it sounds very shitty to me but happily there has happened so much in music in the last couple of decades there's bound to be stuff that equals the quality of what came from the 60's. Diversion is great, except for 'music lovers' who can't cope with the stuff they don't like (generally all the new and different stuff)

 

Lady Gaga actually has great musical skill, and Michael Jackson, regardless of how weird he became is the king of pop, no one can listen to Thriller and not love that album.

 

Uhmm, I disagree... of course there are people who don't get anything (positive) from listening to Thriller. I agree Lady Gaga does has some musical skills and they seem to be appreciated by lots of peeps so I guess they're great indeed. It's also obvious that something in her skills is terribly annoying to a different kind of music lovers. That's all ok, there's not one album or artist that everybody loves and that does not matter one bit.

However, when people are comparing such artists with their fav music because they're the biggest in their day it just serves no purpose. It doesn't say anything about your fav music OR Lady gaga and Michael Jackson, it mainly says something about the person who makes the comparison.

 

Of course music appreciation is subjective. It could never be otherwise. I couldn't name the current glam rock/heavy metal/hip hop performers and wouldn't really want to. No rap, no crap. Let's just say I have two feet, and can walk out if necessary. (That didn't apply when I worked in a factory a couple of years ago where they played heavy metal over the P.A. system all day at high volume.)

I also play acoustic guitar in local bars on occasion. My play list includes alphabetically, Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, Steve Goodman, Pavel Grigorev, Arlo Guthrie, Woody Guthrie, Tim Hardin, Billy Joel, The Kingston Trio, Kris Kristofferson, Hans Leip, The Limeliters, Don McLean, Joni Mitchell, Fred Neil, Willy Nelson, Tom Paxton, Johnny Paycheck, Carlos Puebla, Marty Robbins, Eddie Setser, Dimitri Tiomkin, Valdy, Hank Williams Jr. and Neil Young.

Don McLean summed things up well with a single phrase: the day the music died...

 

I think there's no reason rap, rock, folk and country artists of all eras can't share the same stage if they're equally as good.

 

Rappers can rap on any stage that will have them. I will continue to vote with my feet.

I did watch a couple of Lady Gaga videos on YouTube, just to get a feel for her act. She is apparently female and can carry a tune. The videos were nauseating, and having watched two, I had no need to see a third one. Like I said earlier, these nauseating videos are probably an accurate reflection of current American culture.

One thing you will find if you look at my play list (above). I don't need to listen to anger. Anger seems to be often expressed by punkers, rappers or heavy metallers in their so-called music. These same people often have made millions, yet they're still pushing their infantile anger at whatever it is that pulls their spoiled brat triggers, or at least the spoiled brat triggers in their paying customers. Shit is shit, as a Buddhist once said, and I have no need to listen to it.

And if some want to criticize my thoughts here, well, I'm a big boy and I can deal with that as well.

 

If you get your culture from MTV or TMZ maybe...

You don't listen to Leonard Cohen then, remove him from your play list immediately.

Can you site an example of this for the sake of conversation?

Are you reffering to Cohen here?

 

Sure a lot of rap and metal is angry, but a lot of it isn't, and anger is a legitmate emotion, for example Eminem's "Stan" is one of the most critically acclaimed songs of the past 20 years. But some non angry rap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2_aY9gYTF0"]YouTube - Dessa "Alibi" Music Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ6bRVsP9QI"]YouTube - Eazy E "Easier Said Than Done"

 

So music sucks when it's focussed on anger? That's a personal opinion, I hope you understand this has nothing to do with the quality of music. I have this same opinion where it comes to music like gangsta rap or nu metal. In fact, when I am making up a tune and I just project a lot of frustration and anger on it I also have the feeling this tune gets a kind of nu metal vibe. This is (a small) part of why I myself dislike that genre: because generally their sound sounds like what I would come up with when I'm frustrated, of course I also just don't like this sound. Anyway, it's subjective. Frustrated, angry energy can also make fine music but if you don't like that it is just not for you. For example, I really dig a lot of black metal which focus often on hate and anger in their sound as well. Delicious!