Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
So you're just pissed off at three particular years?
  

    
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? 
  

    
And what's wrong with "Spirit in the Sky?" ;-)
  

    
I'm just saying not all years are created equal.
Anyway, back to the book....
  

    
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 ...
  

    
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!
  

    
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.
  

    
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. 
  

    
<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.

 
  

    
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.
  

    
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.
  

    
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!
  

    
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 ...
  

    
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!
  

    
Thanks, Bruce and David.
  

    
Now I've got a book signing to prepare for next week. Wish me luck.
  

    
Good luck, Bruce. 

Thanks for a very interesting discussion, everyone!
  

    
Good luck, and thank you for sharing with us, Bruce!