OK, Sidewinder et. al., much of what you're saying is persuasive; we probably shouldn't have (and still shouldn't) take all of that pop music too-too seriously. And, of course, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But:

~ Why did Dylan and Lennon and (presumably) others find it so necessary to disparage the importance of their own work? I'd say it was because so very many listeners took it so very seriously that the artists in question found it downright scary. Their songs *did* reach people on a very deep level, so much so that the effect was evident throughout society, even on the evening news.

I think those guys were rightfully abashed to be given credit for "causing" the sudden social change that was happening; they were only acting as messengers, giving voice to insights and experiences that they shared with millions of their peers (and thereby passing the message along to many millions more). I think that they themselves must have understood this, but the quickest and easiest way for them to deal with badgering reporters and their stuipd questions whould naturally have been to respond "Who, me? I wasn't serious about that at all."

~ To those who say that all that business in the sixties had nothing to do with spirituality because it denied many aspects of established organized religion, I'd just say we differ on our definitions of the word "spirituality." There is a long tradition of Beatnik Buddhism dating back to the late '40s that rejects the trappings of the conventional churches while promoting serious spiritual awareness, and this school of thought grew exponentially during the 60s, quickly spreading from a few tiny bohemian ghettos to college campuses and suburban homes everywhere. Yeah, sure, not everyone "got" the entire message, and many failed to pick up on the subtlest aspects -- certainly including anything remotely spiritual. But many listeners did hear something that prompted them to look into previously unfamiliar expressions of spirituality such as meditation, yoga, Sufi dancing, etc. etc.

In the end, should we take all that stuff with a grin of salt? Yeah, maybe so. The world didn't change overnight, not nearly so radically as many imagined that it would. In retrospect, it was foolish to expect the kind of cataclysmic social change that many were looking for, and I would contend that the so-called counterculture *did* have a profound and lasting effect on ensuing events.

I would argue that people today -- in the industrialized English-speaking part of the world, anyway -- *do* have a more subtle and highly-realized sense of spirituality than they did a generation or two earlier, whether they are committed churchgoers or adamant opponents of religion as it had been taught to them as children. And I do still believe that the 60s culture of social upheaval and "expanded consciousness," as spread via mass media including but not limited to popular music, had a tremendous and irreversible effect on society as a whole.

The fact that we're even *having* this debate must mean something. These ideas would not have meant anything to anyone in, say, 1957. I realize that the mergence of Dylan and Lennon, Hunter and Garcia, et. al., isn't the only thing to have happened between now and then, but it's gotta count for something!

But hey, if you're not buying into any of this, Happy New Year anyway. ;^)