Every Acid Dealer Gets Busted Eventually (rik) Sun 11 Oct 09 15:23
So you're just pissed off at three particular years?
Scott MacFarlane (s-macfarlane) Sun 11 Oct 09 15:44
Yikes, the selectivity. In my house we had Monkees records next to our Beatles LP's. Does The 1910 Fruitgum Company of 1968 and '69, or the Archies with "Sugar, Sugar" in 1969 offer proof that those years were all bubblegum?
Mark McDonough (mcdee) Sun 11 Oct 09 15:52
And what's wrong with "Spirit in the Sky?" ;-)
Bruce Pollock (bruce-pollock) Sun 11 Oct 09 17:45
I'm just saying not all years are created equal. Anyway, back to the book....
David Julian Gray (djg) Mon 12 Oct 09 06:41
yes ... back to the book ... Great (and perhaps not so great) social movements and music movements do not come screeching or crashing to halt - even if there is a crash - even if there is a totalatarian coup or a series of unfortunate events which prove to be dispiriting to an entire generation - ... like any supernova - the force of the event(s) send particles and waves (oh, yeah ... they're the same thing) deep and far and long and wide ...
David Julian Gray (djg) Mon 12 Oct 09 06:49
For many long days I've been thinkin' 'bout this ... In a post of my own I mentioned how in 1969, so-called "top 40" radio was till a dominant venue of popular music delivery and consumption - Top 40 radio was the great melting pot of music - where all the disparate styles of music that achieve some level of popular approval comingled and perculated in our brains ... that fact has been mixing with the Chapter from Bruces book on the various music scenes in Michigan - "Dont' Forget the Motor City" It's pretty hard to forget the Motor City when considering "the revolution of 1969" - Berry Gordy's Motown The proto-punk of The Stooges, the MC-5... George Clinton and Funkadelic Granted, Motown was getting ready to pack up and leave by 1969... but, as Bruce said - it's not about what *started* in 1969 - it's about what all came crashing together ... So... here's the question - Other than co-existing in Michigan... is there a link between these important movements which helped define so much of what came after? Is Funkadelic the link? some melding of the impulses of charm school Rhythm'n'blues with Kick out the Jams, m***********s!
Bruce Pollock (bruce-pollock) Mon 12 Oct 09 07:01
Before addressing your comment about Detroit, one thing that occurred to me is to compare Woodstock to the Summer of Love. Most of the people who lived in SF during those years say the Summer of Love was over by the time Scott McKenzie sang "If You're Going to San Francisco" in 1967. Certainly by 1969 it was a holy mess, even though (or especially because) tourists were driving through every day and kids in droves were showing up with their backpacks. In the same way, the "child of God" wandering to Woodstock to party with a half a million strong, I believe, was witnessing a kind of hail and farewell to a golden age, after which a melancholy mess ensued. Fittingly, Altamont occurred in San Francisco, where it all started with Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters (who loved the Hells Angels) in 62 or so. By 66 Tom Wolfe was claiming Kesey said "We blew it." By the time the news got back to New York McGovern had gone under for the third time.
Bruce Pollock (bruce-pollock) Mon 12 Oct 09 07:06
Detroit is a great place to point to for what came next, free from the myths and jealousies surrounding the coasts. To me, it was where rock returned to its working class roots in the 70s, with Iggy paving the way for punk, George Clinton combining glam and funk, Alice Cooper combining glam and arena rock, Ted Nugent and Bob Seger breaking through, Creem Magazine championing the cause, even Motown having a rebirth with the Jackson 5, Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye.
Scott MacFarlane (s-macfarlane) Mon 12 Oct 09 09:14
<where it all started with Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters> <By 66 Tom Wolfe was claiming Kesey said "We blew it."> Kesey has said many, many, many things about the Sixties, LSD, and the Prankster's role as proto-hippies. This is another example of taking one outsider's three word quote to help prove your thesis, Bruce. Kesey, after his bust, also moved back to Oregon in early 1967 and extracted himself from the thick of the counterculture because, as he put it, "we all got arrested." Evoking Kesey is to track the rise and fall of psychedelia, not music. You are the one who chose to use the word "end" to suggest that the revolution in music (and the counterculture) ended in 1969. Unlike Tom Wolfe, you've clearly attempted to write a serious assessment of the Sixties from an "insider's" perspective. There are many people who are serious observers of this era. The early '70s are an integral part of understanding the 'revolutionary' fervor of the "supernova." Consequently, in an historical domain overflowing with an unhealthy share of written distortion, propaganda, and oversimplification, your book and its conflated thesis deserves to be held to a high standard.
Robin Russell (rrussell8) Mon 12 Oct 09 12:11
In Brisbane we didn't stop thinking it would be a good idea to put LSD into the water supply in 1970. In 1973 Bob Marley and the Wailers, David Bowie, Steely Dan were really hitting their stride. Pink Floyd released Dark Side of the Moon. Grateful Dead released Wake of the Flood. By '83, when I was involved in the trade union movement, we were still listening to mostly '65 - '74 (+ The Clash), still working for a revolution.
Bruce Pollock (bruce-pollock) Mon 12 Oct 09 12:17
This reads like a review in the New York Review of Books, which I appreciate, since I'm not expecting to get one in the actual NYRB. Revolution is a loaded word. Obviously, something that started in '55, dramatically expanded in '65. Whether it continued to change and expand at the same pace through the next 40 years, whether MTV represented another "revolution," whether Michael Jackson revolutionized rock and roll race relations and choreography--may be like comparing eras in baseball. I definitely have the feeling 1969 was the end of an era for a part of the generation that discovered rock and roll. For others it was only the beginning. And at Studio 54 and Plato's Retreat, nobody cared one way or the other.
Robin Russell (rrussell8) Tue 13 Oct 09 10:38
I'm assuming Bruce's comment relates to Scott's comments, not mine. In August 1971, the Australian near underground publication, "Revolution", mutated into "High Times". If you assume Oz was always a couple of years behind the times, bingo!
David Julian Gray (djg) Wed 14 Oct 09 16:49
Bruce: Been enjoying reading and re-reading the book and the thoughts its triggered on that period and its impact socially, musically - and very much enjoyed youyr participation in the discussion - Thanks much for being here! Of course - time divisions do sometimes seem artificial, and, as Chou en Lai famously repied when asked his opinion of the French Revolution "It's too soon to tell" So it is, really with 1969 and as Frank Zappa said as the cancer was eating him up: Time isn't linear ...
Gail (gail) Wed 14 Oct 09 16:59
David and Bruce, and everybody who posted, this has been a rich meander through history and musical history. Thanks so much! We've got our next guest up - talking about traffic in the road sense of the word - so you're free to move along. You can also keep posting here for as long as you wish, of course. WELL members who are interested in continuing these themes may enjoy conferences like <music.> or perhaps <boomers.> to hang out with and muse about a certain g-g-generation. Thanks!
Lisa Harris (lrph) Wed 14 Oct 09 17:07
Thanks, Bruce and David.
Bruce Pollock (bruce-pollock) Thu 15 Oct 09 04:33
Now I've got a book signing to prepare for next week. Wish me luck.
Robin Russell (rrussell8) Thu 15 Oct 09 07:31
Good luck, Bruce. Thanks for a very interesting discussion, everyone!
what another day it takes: (oilers1972) Sun 18 Oct 09 19:41
Good luck, and thank you for sharing with us, Bruce!
Members: Enter the conference to participate
Non-members: How to participate