 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:41 PM Conrad, fascists don't want to come together. Oh, yes, I'm quite sure they would love to get their propaganda out there, but in the end, "togetherness" is not their thing. Ask 6,000,000 Jews, and still more millions of gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped and developmentally delayed people ("defectives") who were sent to the death camps. Oh, sorry! You can't ask them. They're all dead! No. That kind of "togetherness" is nothing I will ever give a podium to! And frankly, I am amazed and not just a little disgusted that someone other than a fascist might want to give them one. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: artbrooks Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:10 PM "Don't think he ever shared the stage with an opposing political view. Ok then prove me wrong!" Prove he didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:28 PM My challenge predates this- Did he ever share the state or any medium with anyone he disagreed with. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:32 PM It is important to know that those who commanded the media and the state in representation of folk music abused their access by pumping the consumers of their media with one politicial point of view. This imho is nothing different than the use of the media and stages to do the same for any other political caause such as nationalist germany in the early 20th centruy. CB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM In short, Conrad, you're trying to draw a parallel between Pete Seeger and Adolf Hitler? Unbelievable!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:09 AM they both made use of folklore to push through a political agenda german folklore is still branded with this folk music in the USA is also still branded as lefty, hippy. Great parallel I think! Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:34 AM April Fool 365 days a year on this thread.....It is the only explanation for Conrad's point of view as he is completely alone in holding it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:02 AM What Conrad fails to recognize is what he considers "abuse" is simply a folk evolution. The way the folk revival evolved was certainly influenced by the left - but there was also a strong conservative faction involved as well. The whole "folk revival" took root in the early part of the 20th century when there was a conservative movement to preserve ideals and traditions - often making them appear more relevant than they really were. Folk music has always represented the feelings of a community, and what it evolved to was not so much a media-driven revolution, but an evolution of the needs of the community. Perhaps "folk" faded from public attention because the needs have changed. Again, it is simply stupid to expect an artist to dilute their songs or performances in the fashion Conrad is suggesting. It is hypocritical of the art. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 01 Apr 10 - 10:52 AM "Don't think he ever shared the stage with an opposing political view. Ok then prove me wrong!" In January 2009 Pete sang with Bruce Springsteen at a show that included John Roberts, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and some other people. They didn't all sing, though. Roberts muffed his lines. According to youtube, more people watched Pete than the others. "Cant get people together unless you share the media which he and smothers and othes dominated" Please define media and dominate in the above sentence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: frogprince Date: 01 Apr 10 - 05:04 PM Peasant, you deny any personal fascist leanings. If so, I must say you have done an incredible amount toward making yourself misunderstood here. I first noticed you when you objected to "alienating" fascists. At every turn, you seem to advocate welcoming extremists beyond the pale of what is normally considered the "right wing", and actively inviting them to share the stage. I believe that you said you are an American in the UK. One question: Do you believe that, for the sake of fair balance in the U.S., an effort should be made to bring the KKK and similar white supremists to the stage to share their perspective? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Apr 10 - 05:35 PM Pete Seeger's goals are freedom, decent working and living conditions for everyone—which is to say everyone—and a peaceful world in which everyone gets along, or at least resolves their differences peaceably. Adolf Hitler's aspirations were to roll over and crush any and all who disagreed with or resisted him, dominate the world militarily, and ethnically cleanse the world of "undesirables and defectives," which involved the cold-blooded industrialized massacre of all but physically fit members of the "Aryan Race." And you, Conrad, see parallels between them. Okay. . . . That you actually believe this is going to take a little while to absorb. Don Firth P. S. By the way, Conrad, how is your state of health and physical fitness? Are you blond? Are your eyes blue? No taint of "Jewishness" in your heritage? Just curious. . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Apr 10 - 05:37 PM "but sharing the stage with those with whom he disagreed.... I don't think it ever happened...." Your entire arguement hinges on that single statement - and you have created your own criteria. You could put anything in that first sentence - "but walking on water... I don't think it ever happened" "but finding a cure for cancer... I don't think it ever happened" "but hitting .401 for the Yankees... I don't think it ever happened" "but turning a frog into a prince... I don't think it ever happened" "but making Conrad face reality... I don't think it ever happened" You - and only you - have created a standard that you do not even hold up yourself to, and you cannot name a single artist who ever did what you suggest. Yet, because the impossible never happened, Pete Seeger and the Smothers Brothers were wrong for their actions. Does this honestly make any sense to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:02 PM :::Conrad is over in the corner, curled up and producing odd blatting sounds by blowing into his sleeve. He's forgotten how to form full sentences.::: We all realize that you'll say anything at all to "defend" youself, Conrad. Take a deep breath and step back a bit. Is it fair to say that you're worried that folk music in Germany and England seems to be manipulated to have an political overtone? Do you think that has happened in the USA and you're using Pete Seeger and the Smothers brothers as examples? Do you understand that part of the problem is your very narrow definition of folk music? In the mean time, admit that you have no idea, apart from that tv documentary, of who Pete Seeger or the Smothers brothers are. You've been out of the USA for 45 or more years, don't speak the language, and have no idea of what happened then or now. Start another thread after you've gathered your wits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:03 PM One of Pete Seeger's recent projects: CLICKY. One of Adolf Hitler's most recent projects: CLICKY. Should Pete Seeger have invited George Lincoln Rockwell or David Duke to have joined him on the stage? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Apr 10 - 10:53 PM Conrad, I've asked you a couple of times what songs a fascist might sing that would express his or her position and you've not answered the question, so I must presume that you, too, are at a loss. So I did a bit of googling and came up with the following entry in Wikipedia. So, for your enlightenment and edification, you might want to read this. CLICKY. You might also take note of the fact that, now, in Germany, singing songs directly associated with the Third Reich is illegal, and can get you three years in the slammer. For example, this is rather crude English translation from the German of the first verse and chorus of a fascist song: We National SocialistsHow do you think these sentiments might go over at your local folk club? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:48 AM Yes it has been a bit of a tradition to use music to bring about political change. That does not make it good or right. Any time music is used in this way or any narrowing of the availability of music in public forums- music suffers. When music is branded as being of a generation, a political point of view, economic class it is cut off from people who are not in that group or do not share the political viewpoint. When the musical venues, media polarize the music and it becomes branded as on one side of an issue it also stands to loose when the issue or point of view it is branded with falls out of favor. In this case they were on the winning side but in other cases - nationalist germany the music still has not recovered from the stigma of association with a political brand. One should not put music in tat position. The safer position is to do everything possible, even listening to music that you do not agree with played by people that do not share your views so that open, inclusive public forums for music can be constructed such that the music is branded as an all inclusive community discriminating against no one, a political. This is not to say that music can not be used by politicos but let it be used at designated political events and not folk festivals unless those festivals present music of a broad inclusive spectrum. Did the message come before the market place. I think not. The issues were not there when the market for folk music opened up. The market was dependent upon many different dimensions-generational change, nature of past popular music, factors relating to industrialization technology and cities. The ear was simply ready. Those who had access to the ears with a product that fit could flavor it any way they wanted. The choice could be to present a spectrum of points of view or a narrow manipulative point of view. The ears would hear whatever put into them of a folk nature that made them feel good. How do you keep music from being branded? You work very very hard to present balance even at the cost of waiting with your point of view until songs of an opposing point of view are produced. There is no real necessity to have political music- lots of other songs to fill the time. I dont see the manifest destany of political manipulation. It can be eliminated and the music will do much better expanding without it. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:51 AM No matter who sings I think we should be glad to hear them. Listening does not imply support for anything but music and performing. Works of art are works of art. Discrimination is not good. Inclusion makes the music stronger and gives the audience choice. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:57 AM I guess freedom of speech is dead in germany so you wish it to be universally dead? I would not agree with the opinions but I have to support the freedom to sing whatever you want. To ban freedom of singing means that some day it will be turned against you and now it will have precedent to occur. Watch out how you take rights from people lest it happen to you. Again songs are primairly artworks. Good to see your attitudes about freedom coming out. Anything can be free just as long as you agree with it. Thought so! You are just the flip side of the same evil process. Find yourself a political convention and leave folk music forums alone. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: artbrooks Date: 02 Apr 10 - 08:05 AM Find yourself a political convention and leave folk music forums alone. Right back atcha, Conrad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Apr 10 - 09:15 AM Conrad,when are you going to stop with the B.S. opinions and start giving us some facts - show us a single artist who lives up to your expectations of delivering a fair and balanced performance? You keep repeating yourself over and over and over again, and you are certainly entitled to an opinion - but move the discussion forward. We understand what you would love to see in YOUR ideal world, and we all know what the REAL world is about. If you cannot give us anything concrete, perhaps your arguments have run their course? Art and politics have always been mixed, and they always will be. Folk music is certainly influenced by a number of forces, it always has been and always will be. YOU CANNOT MANUFACTURE SOMETHING UNLESS THERE IS A NEED. Say what you will about the media and politics, the output has always been that they meet a need. There is no right or wrong, there just "is". As observers and participants, we watch what is |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:52 AM Conrad, I'm sorry music has suffered so in Germany. The US constitution doesn't allow that sort of censure. "This is not to say that music can not be used by politicos but let it be used at designated political events and not folk festivals unless those festivals present music of a broad inclusive spectrum" What does a folk festival in Germany look like? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Apr 10 - 11:04 AM "Again songs are primairly artworks." You should clarify - that is YOUR OPINION, not a fact. There is ample evidence that songs have been used for more than just art. What about work songs? Religious songs? Much more than "art". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: frogprince Date: 02 Apr 10 - 11:41 AM Peasant, at one moment you effectively imply that it would be best if we just don't sing any songs with any political implications. Then Don Firth comes up with a piece of vile Nazi crap, and you lament the kind of "evil censorship" that keeps something like that off the contemporary music stage. And as for the utter nonsense about waiting to produce a song until a song from an opposing viewpoint has been written: That piece of Nazi crap was written before anyone ever heard of Pete Seeger, Si Kahn, or Utah Phillips. If you don't have an underlying political agenda of your own, your thinking is simply muddled beyond belief. If you are trying to push a personal agenda covertly, you are unbelievably thick headed if you don't realize how transparent you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: frogprince Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:07 PM Conrad:Do you believe that, for the sake of fair balance in the U.S., an effort should be made to bring the KKK and similar white supremists to the stage to share their perspective? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Apr 10 - 03:44 PM Presumably in reference to my post with the Wikipedia article and the bit of fascist song—and the notation that the singing of songs of the Third Reich is illegal in Germany: "I guess freedom of speech is dead in germany so you wish it to be universally dead?" That is completely disingenuous, Conrad. Freedom of speech is NOT dead in Germany, as, I'm sure, will be attested to by any German Mudcatter or Mudcatters who live in Germany (and there are some). What they have done—and which has been rightly done in many countries—is to outlaw hate speech. Speech that attempts to promulgate hatred of, or incite violence against, particular groups of people such as, in the case of the Third Reich, Jews, gypsies, non-whites, and people with disabilities, who were regarded as "a burden on the State." Freedom of Speech is not, nor should it be, without some rational limitations. In many countries, including the United States, if one were to simply verbally threaten to kill or injure someone else, this is considered assault, for which one can be legally prosecuted. Another example would be if you were to call in a false alarm, reporting that there is a fire when there is no fire, you can be charged and prosecuted for this. And trying to claim that you were merely exercising your Constitution right of freedom of speech would not be a defense. There is the old cliché about Freedom of Speech not extending to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you do this, and people panic and are injured or killed in their rush toward the exits, you are legally liable. Likewise, if you incite someone to kill or injure someone else. You are equally guilty, both legally and morally. Best, in your zeal for Freedom of Speech, not to forget that. No, Conrad, trying to incite hatred and violence, either in speech, in writing—or in song—is not protected by the doctrine of Freedom of Speech. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Apr 10 - 09:10 PM And, Conrad, here is something more to which you might want to give some serious thought: If you promote the provision a rostrum to someone who campaigns for a system that advocates the kind of atrocities committed by fascists some seventy years ago, and that system then has a resurgence, and as a result of that, the whole thing happens all over again—and again tens of millions of people die as a result—then YOU share the moral responsibility for that. Think about it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:01 PM Frogprince said:"If you don't have an underlying political agenda of your own, your thinking is simply muddled beyond belief. If you are trying to push a personal agenda covertly, you are unbelievably thick headed if you don't realize how transparent you are." This is exactly what Conrad does and why I gave up on serious discussion with him years ago. He has done some good research on Orange tradition songs and it was obvious that it was also his conviction.......but he did the same thing there he is doing now. He seems to believe that smoke, mirrors, and misdirection, will somehow work for him but the reality of his position is obvious. I personally care less for a person's position, even if I completely disagree, than I do about his truthfulness in standing up for that position. Be honest about what you believe and I can handle it. Deny what you believe while trying to defend it as if you don't......yeah, that's an asshole.....and a coward. Does the shoe fit Conrad? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 03 Apr 10 - 10:31 AM I always am amazed that people seem to want to ban hate songs. It generally turns out that they want to ban only the hate songs of people they do not agree with. All other hate songs are ok. For example I cite the ancient threads that I was involved with in regard to songs of solidarity of the loyalist, orange, protestant, unionist tradition of the island of ireland. I was told that they were all hate songs however those telling me this were perfectly happy to play and listen to the equally warlike songs of solidarity of the other side. While opposition to hatred, killing and evil is admirable censorship in any form is worse. Where will it end and would you be comfortable were the other side the victor, with their censorship and destruction of the songs you hold dear? Censorship like torture is not an acceptable strategy. What about the opposite of hate songs- the go out and get someone pregnant songs- the songs of maying? Those opposed to loose sex would think them terrible as would those wishing to control population growth. You can always find a way to hate something but it takes real courage to welcome opposing views. Perhaps too those proposing to ban and censor anything involving hate or killing etc....simply do not believe in free will. They assume that those listening to lyrics will go and act them out-I don't think this is the case. Music is a strong tool but people are generally on the whole rational. With music context of performance is important. I would think differently of a song sung as part of a political rally than I would of one sung in an open forum where all songs are welcome. Intent is important. Censorship my friends can not be excused in a free society in any form. Just because you wish to eliminate the music of causes you hate does not make it correct or appropriate. If the intent of performance is the enjoyment of the art of music all can be and should be welcome. If you choose to sing the songs of politics make an effort to demonstrate that opposing views are welcome on your stage- seek them out and invite them but never allow a general folk music stage to be dominated by one point of view intentionally. (of course special focused workshops are not the same as general performance stages) Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: frogprince Date: 03 Apr 10 - 10:50 AM A friend was just telling us that he and his wife went for a two hour horseback ride in one of the national parks. Before long they noticed that they kept coming back to the same place from several different directions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 03 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM Conrad, you are still dangling in the wind. You have yet to give us an example of an artist that practices what you preach. There is a HUGE difference between "ban", "censorship" and outlawing hate songs. Censorship is wrong, so is inciting hatred and violence. You do not seem to see a difference. Why have any laws? There is a freedom to have and express opinions, but when it crosses the line and incites violence - it must be stopped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 03 Apr 10 - 12:32 PM "Censorship my friends can not be excused in a free society in any form. Just because you wish to eliminate the music of causes you hate does not make it correct or appropriate." You chose an American parable of just this situation to argue for "fair and balanced" presentation. And you will not stop. You are too dangerous to ignore. So far we have: You are 56 years old. You were born American but left in the 60s, between the ages of 4 and 14. Educated in England and Germany, you now live in Germany. You know and admire "songs of solidarity of the loyalist, orange, protestant, unionist tradition of the island of ireland." You have found that some people adamantly disagree with you. You devote time and energy to art projects. Some people don't like your art. You come to this forum to provoke. You are stubborn and avoid ever admitting error, to the extent of playing the fool. Take a deep cleansing breath, Conrad, and go to the top of the discussion and read it again. After thinking about it, if you have something to say, try to say something coherent. We'll wait right here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:24 PM You can dodge the issue all you want, Conrad, but that does not absolve you from being morally responsible for whatever you do, whatever you say, and whatever you advocate and support. Censorship has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of cause and effect. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:31 PM There is a great difference between singing a song to create violence and singing a song of solidrity -a patriotic song for enjoyment, entertainment, wonder. A picture of a chainsaw for example is in a gallery for aesthetic purposes. A picture of a chainsaw in a gallery with a sign next to it telling people- get one of these and kill someone is creating violence. All to do with purpose. At a political rally such a song would be to move people to action. (my point is that when smothers and seeger sang their political songs they were trying to move people to action that is they were then conducting a political rally rather than an entirely aesthetic experience.) At a folk festival or general setting- radio programme the same song could be sung or played to provide entertainment. A good tune, great rhyme of lyrics, great fit between tune and lyrics- sort of like Enya- no one listening in the usa hardly knows a word she is singing yet the music is enjoyed. For all people know she could be singing a song of solidarity favoring one side in battle. I would not advocate singing songs in general settings- a festival a concert or on the other media to cause violence. I do not believe in purposeful political use of songs or the media. Censorship is telling a person that they can perform a song. You want to tell people that they can't perform songs because of their political beliefs or the content of the song-censorship. And in this thread just because they dont agree with you. As for seeger and smothers No! I am looking for evidence for when they denied someone a place on their stage. I do know that generally they dominated the media and presented only one point of view. I also do not know of anyone from the opposition that they invited. This would make a good research paper. Yes a person can dominate with one point of view that is their right. Is it good when those in such positions limit what is heard to their point of view- no. Although to hear some here one would think that the trashing of the songs of one side is something we have to do and will continue doing I say that the process is wasteful, limits the development of folk music and gives folklorists headaches as they then have to re discover lost, discarded, banned and forgotten music. IMHO the best possible environment for music is one wherein the greatest number of songs, points of view, styles, traditions can co-exist and where the genre is not allowed to be branded as being entirely of one political flavor. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM "I do know that generally they [Pete Seeger and the Smothers Brothers] dominated the media and presented only one point of view." Dominated the media!?? That, Conrad, is one of the most ridiculous things that anyone has ever said. It more than amply demonstrates that you are either deliberately distorting history or you have no idea whatsoever of what the real situation was. Pete Seeger was DENIED access to the media for years, and the Smothers Brothers were more of a stand-up comedy act who used parodies of folk music to get laughs. They were hardly famous for their political views. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM Further: "I also do not know of anyone from the opposition that they [Pete Seeger and/or the Smothers Brothers] invited." Of course not! Nor did anyone "from the opposition" (and who are you referring to here, Conrad? The American Nazi Party? The Ku Klux Klan? Or for that matter, the Heritage Foundation or the Project for the New American Century?) invite them. They were hired to sing by entrepreneurs, concert promoters, and festival organizers who knew exactly who they were and what sorts of songs they were liable to be singing. If Pete were hired by the International Longshoreman's Union or the Communications Workers of America, they would certainly not be happy with him if he invited a fascist folk singer or a racist folk singer (if there ever were such things!) to join him on stage. Think about it! No one from the Aryan Nations or other White Supremacist groups ever invited Pete to sing at any of their functions. Also, think about that! "This would make a good research paper." It would make a damned thin research paper. Don Firth P. S. Okay, Conrad, if you want to hear a concert in which all points of view are represented, then I suggest that you organize it yourself. And see just how well it goes over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:00 PM "I do know that generally they dominated the media and presented only one point of view. I also do not know of anyone from the opposition that they invited. This would make a good research paper." Please write that paper. You are very wrong. "Censorship is telling a person that they can perform a song." And could you proofread your posts if not that paper before you post? Giving a clue about which post set you off would be helpful, too. :::Conrad now is standing against a brick wall. His head is bruised and he's forgotten about periods, commas, and capital letters. Something shiney is dangling from a tree above him::: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:24 PM To clarify-=they dominated the folk music media. They used their position to have political rallys but called them concerts. They talked about bringing all people together but did not invite all sides as far as we know. So rather difficult to accomplish that mission. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:25 PM If I were an entrepreneur or concert promoter, I would not hire a singer who sings political songs I disagree with. No, I am not censoring this or any other singer. I am not preventing—in fact, I cannot prevent—any other concert promoter from hiring him or her. They can if they wish. I have neither the right nor the power to prevent them. I have no obligation to provide a platform for the promotion of ideas in which I do not believe. Nor do I have any right (or, for that matter, the power) to try to prevent someone else from doing it. And as a singer, I don't sing all that many politically oriented songs, nor do I—or will I—sing political songs that I don't like or that promotes things I don't believe in. That is my right! Nor do I feel obligated, if I am the one who has been hired, to invite anyone else to sing with me, nor should I. Especially someone who promotes things that neither I, nor the person or organization who hired me, believe in. Conrad, to force a singer—or a concert organizer—to do things like that is worse than censorship. It is forcing them go against their own principles and beliefs. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:26 PM Conrad, Pete has held hands with many he did not agree with politically. One notable incident in the PBS bio of his life, a man came down to a concert to kill him. Toshi said to Pete, "You really have to sit down and talk to him". Pete did, and the fellow who was obviously opposed to his political views had a fruitful conversation with him. The man changed his mind. It has to be said that if it weren't for Pete, what we know about folk music today wouldn't exist. He befriended many of a "conservative" banjo picker in the South, learned from them and always respected their music. Even the crotchety old Bascom Lamar Lunsford had a respect for Pete. He did more for the five-string banjo than did Earl Scruggs who I admire. Pete introduced the Scruggs style of playing in New York and Chicago before many people knew who Scruggs was. The idea that Pete didn't bring people together is ludicrous. His raison d'etre was always union and that wasn't just with people that agreed with him. To denigrate Pete as an artist and paint him as a polemicist and a political demagogue displays the height of ignorance as to who Pete is. Opinions are cheap but those based on poverty of factual information is just creepy attack behavior. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: artbrooks Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:53 PM "To clarify-=they dominated the folk music media" There might be a very slight possibility that this applies to Pete - at least in the sense that dozens, if not hundreds, of commercial folk musicians were singing his material throughout the sixties. [I mean commercial in the sense that they were paid for doing so.] But the Smothers Brothers? They were neither particularly musical nor particularly funny, and it is either a miracle or an indication of how low the tastes of American TV watchers had already fallen (or maybe both) that their show lasted as long as it did. Conrad, nobody here is trying to censor you, just as nobody ever tried to censor any singers/musicians on the right during the height of the last folk music revival. However, it doesn't seem that you are listening to what anyone else here has to say, regardless of how politely or rudely they choose to say it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I suppose that is true no matter how far from the facts of the situation it strays. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:02 PM Conrad, have you even heard the song that you're so adamant about? It's here. The words are there for reading in the extended description box. It's interesting that some commenters have made parallels to GW Bush and Iraq and, more recently, Obama and health care. It's a song about an event in a training camp during WW2. It's about following orders without question. People still sing it. Vietnam was never mentioned. Thanks for making me look it up and remember that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: artbrooks Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:15 PM Betty, even the least politically sophisticated of us at the time - and that would have been me - understood that song to be an analogy of the Vietnam War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:47 PM Art, that interpretation is from the audience. Kids today understand it to mean something entirely different, and they're not wrong. It's a good song, and I'm happy that it doesn't have a short shelf life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:55 AM Exactly- Some people do not understand the concept of tolerance simple and for them inclusion means only including what they like. Sorry that is wrong. As far as the song the Big Muddy- I do not champion the song or worry about it. I cite it as an example of the lengths some went to make sure the voice of one side of the argument was heard. The smothers faught and won once pete was hireable. It would have been in the spirit of inclusion and tolerance and the broader view had they invited or found someone on the other side to invite and fight for as well. Yes they could do what they wanted but shouldn't it be an obligation or at least a kind thought to think that without forcing them those who used the national media could do more than one channel in their presentation. Now....please let me know if you find that they did invite someone or turned someone from the other side down or included someone on the other side. That is the question. Did this one sided use of the media occur. About my writing style. I work these responses in between work on a break generally after tossing logs around out back. I do not consider them formal writing. But I do try to respond. Someone mentioned moral obligation. Don't make me laugh. Morality has changed in contemporary practice and law several times in my 56 years of life. Morality is not universal it is culture and nation state driven. My only obligation is to support tolerance, inclusion and fight the discrimination that keeps people playing and including only things they agree with. We need to get over this flaw. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: catspaw49 Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:21 AM "That is the question. Did this one sided use of the media occur?" Of course it did and that is exactly what everyone else on this thread has been saying because it ONLY MAKES SENSE! If I am having a party I don't invite broke-dick assholes I don't like. So Pete did The Smothers show and Barry Sadler did Ed Sullivan. So what? THis bullshit you're trying to sell has no basis in reality. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:50 AM "those who used the national media could do more than one channel in their presentation" I found this. From the background and Pete's costume, it's the same session as the (second) Big Muddy appearance. I don't know if it was actually aired, however. Exactly who or what song could respond to Big Muddy, I don't know. I don't know a song that has "following authority blindly no matter what is a good thing" as the message. "Morality is not universal it is culture and nation state driven." Wow. That is not my understanding of the word morality. "About my writing style. I work these responses in between work on a break generally after tossing logs around out back. I do not consider them formal writing. But I do try to respond." You'd do better to go back out to toss some logs around again and come back to edit before hitting the Submit button. Responding with nonsense just to make a response is not helping here. Punctuation and full sentences have to replace tone of voice. By refusing to copy in specific posts to which you're responding you are being rather rude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Apr 10 - 04:58 PM You preach tolerance as a blanket virtue, Conrad. That anything and everything should be tolerated. Or is this not what you are saying? If not, then you'd better make that clear. There are certain human behaviors and situations that are simply intolerable, and I've already linked to a number of them (the detritus of mass slaughter). Others are easy enough to enumerate: child abuse, spousal abuse, pedophilia, cruelty, brutality, cheating, dishonesty, deception, indifference to the suffering and distress of others—the list goes on and on! Conrad, I'm sorry. I simply will not accept your doctrine of universal tolerance. Isn't there something that you will not tolerate? Or do you find any kind of behavior acceptable? Don Firth P. S. And morality is not elastic. No recognized philosopher will accept that—with the possible exception of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche said a number of good things, but—his was the concept of the Ûbermensch—the Superman, which Adolf Hitler latched onto. Nietzsche was Hitler's favorite philosopher, largely because he was interpreted as saying that Man is above morality. Whether or not he actually said that is open to debate. But one of Nietzsche's bon mots: "Goest thou to woman? Do not forget thy whip!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: EBarnacle Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:29 PM Folks, quit trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of energy and it only annoys the pig. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:21 PM You are right. It appears that Conrads points - his opinions and not an ounce of fact - have been negated by all of our opinions AND facts that were presented to him. At this point, it has only become an exercise in seeing how defensive he can get in holding up his weak arguements. He clearly could not defend his position and there is nothing left to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 05 Apr 10 - 06:17 AM If you open your minds you will see defenses above. You will also see a remarkable degree of intolerance expressed by others above. An interesting degree of intolerance and opposition to inclusion of other points of view and those who have different cultural belief and value systems. Joining someone in song is not necessarily believing in anything it is just song and music. Get over it. Such intolerance of the views and customs and beliefs of others that you do not agree with will never move the world closer together. you become as bad as those you oppose. |
