The Beatles?
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: April 6th, 2010, 12:02 pm
""I think that the internet, cell phones, and all other modern forms of communication are of the very culture that needs to be countered. This whole lifestyle to me is in the wrong direction. I believe people are distanced from one another due to modern technology. We don't have the same sense of closeness as we did before. Remember when you could only contact another person through mail, your house phone, or going to see them in person? I was a kid then, but I felt so much closer to other people then I do now. Today people can communicate with one another more easily, but we're all blocked from each other in an intimate sense. I don't know what words to use to express how I feel properly on this matter, but maybe some of you can relate. Didn't any of you feel closer to friends in the early/mid 90's when cell phone and other technologocal 'necessities' didn't exist??""
I'm only 17, but I think I know what you mean. My circle of "friends" at school take it as given that a person will check their text messages every twenty minutes, figuring that the other person has no life except in case of emergency. In a case such as that you might figure that they would want to talk it out. In current times, that would infringe on the privacy they feel they can protect, but, from my experience, they end up having nothing special to protect in the end. They're all practically in safety nets so that they don't have to feel uncomfortable, but being in a net discomforts me.
I don't own a cell phone for those reasons, but I am alienated from my friends. As a movement, it would be a failure without followers.
That's why, like modern music, instead of destroying the movement, I think it should be updated; used in a way that fixes those problems and gains a new sort of integrity, with a new sense of personal boundaries. It's too easy to communicate quickly now to want to be isolated, so going back wouldn't fix everything, however, people are clearly not getting along very well as it is. Maybe there should be a movement that inspires absorbing more ideas, making up for ignorance, but letting people keep their space and personalities. A counter-culture would simply improve on these ideas by exploring radical options.
I think a new sense of music will stem from the same kind of movement, but I can only have a limited idea of what that could be at the moment.
- Interventizio
- Posts: 32
- Joined: April 15th, 2010, 12:40 pm
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:02 pm
The difference between Hendrix and John Lennon is in the approach. Hendrix wrote and played great but he wasn't capturing his times. His music is reminiscent of the 60's but doesn't embody it.Interventizio wrote: The Beatles were geniuses in inventing catchy songs, but they were after all songs for the industry. I am not biased towards commercial music, because art can bloom everywhere, but think about Hendrix. He's known for his freaky look, his most commercial songs and for the way he played his guitar. nobody seems to know any of the gems he composed, something resembling real symphonies among those. All that is quite sad.
Lennon on the other hand wrote of the times. If you want to experience the 60's in America, you have to know the Beatles especially in their psychedelic phase. 'Eleanor Rigby' sings of people as does especially 'A Day in the Life'. It's more then music with the Beatles. They preserved a decade in song. Far out man.
- MisterSlogra
- Posts: 34
- Joined: August 24th, 2010, 2:11 pm
The real evidence of this can be glimpsed by listening to Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, as well as their singles. You'll notice every song is very consolidated, precise, and lacking in superfluous mannerisms. They deliver music like an intoxicant, quickly and effectively, leaving their audience wanting more.
Whether this is art or not is open to debate, although it is clear that if they were simply puppets of a pop music industry, they were at least the most tasteful and sophisticated.
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: August 25th, 2010, 4:09 pm
Algol's piece
Ideology of sixties/seventies progressive/liberal/radicals fragmented into series of single issues with gender and race topping the charts.
Internet completes fragmentation and atomisation of culture by nature of on-line experience. We are strangers. We know nothing of each other. I am far away.
Obama used Internet to galvanise masses. This signals shape of things to come. However, alternative culture does need, and cannot avoid, having a hierarchically structured centre which provides focus, leadership and the means whereby political power can be gained. Currently, that does not exist.
Regarding music, I think there has to be a local aspect to alternative music. Think global listen local. I know that means listening to some not so great bands but live events are the heart of alternative music.
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: August 25th, 2010, 4:09 pm
Algol's piece
Ideology of sixties/seventies progressive/liberal/radicals fragmented into series of single issues with gender and race topping the charts.
Internet completes fragmentation and atomisation of culture by nature of on-line experience. We are strangers. We know nothing of each other. I am far away.
Obama used Internet to galvanise masses. This signals shape of things to come. However, alternative culture does need, and cannot avoid, having a hierarchically structured centre which provides focus, leadership and the means whereby political power can be gained. Currently, that does not exist.
Regarding music, I think there has to be a local aspect to alternative music. Think global listen local. I know that means listening to some not so great bands but live events are the heart of alternative music.
- MisterSlogra
- Posts: 34
- Joined: August 24th, 2010, 2:11 pm
Re: Algol's piece
Your point here is interesting because a musician friend and I both came to the same conclusion; clearly this phenomenon is readily observable.Eric14 wrote:Very interesting. Fragmentation of contemporary popular culture into commercialised sub-groups killed off the alternative as it was absorbed and became yet another category.
There is no chance for anything to be different or radical. Whenever a new creative door is opened and some musician enjoys uniqueness, the corporate guardians lock the door behind them and nobody else is allowed inside, unless they know the "password" and can adapt to a pre-programmed sequence.
It's unclear how the situation will develop. The Internet and digital media seem to be contributing to mass distribution of music, free of charge. For me this clearly indicates a mindset that is fed up with corporations putting their stamp of ownership on a universal art form.
- stormy phillips
- Posts: 302
- Joined: November 9th, 2011, 5:30 pm
- Location: N/I
Re: The Beatles?
- PaulNZ
- Posts: 595
- Joined: January 27th, 2011, 3:56 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Marcus Aurelius
Re: The Beatles?
Anyway, with regard to the Beatles I think they are so remembered because they appeared at the right time in the right circumstances. Talented as they were, there were others more talented or equally talented at the time. I think they were liked because they "felt" right and something resonated with the youth of the day, and once they had the momentum, they rode the wave so to speak.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023